He was talking about slow being the best spell to throw when you're almost sure the enemy will pass the save (bosses) and you're talking about failure effects I assume because command doesn't do anything when the enemy succeeds.
Is it intentional that the Bottomless Pit hazard (level 9) suggests a method of escape that actually kills the player? (paizo input appreciated)
In the gloom blade's case, it's because that's a blade that's usually a +1 shortsword that "transforms into" a +2 striking shortsword in dim light or darkness.
If they didn't say that line about improving it beyond a 2+ striking shortsword, you could interpret the blade as getting weaker in dim light once it gets upgraded into a +3 greater striking shortsword, because then going into dim light would transform it back into a 2+ striking shortsword.
But the thing is that you're not making him flat footed on your turn, you're making him flat footing on their turn with a reaction (blocking).
So for it to last exactly one turn as you said, it would need to wear off at his next turn, not at my next turn.
Aren't the unique magic weapons already like that?
Core Rulebook page 600 wrote:
So in your example of the Bloodletting Kukri even though it is a +1 striking kukri you won't be able to remove the generic runes in addition to not being able to remove the unique runes.
You take the 35% chance of failing the first.
Then you calculate 65% of 35% which gives you 22.75%. This is the chance that you'll get less than 8 the first time but then get 8 or more the second.
Now you either add 65% + 22.75% or you subtract 100% by (35% - 22.75%). Both should give you 87.75% which is the total chance of you succeeding at either roll.
Aren't warpriests super tied to a certain weapon type?
I don't think the sucess result is what makes it feel like the spells are meant to fail, it's more the different results plus the rate to hit spells versus at level enemies. Even the lowest save will have better than 50% chance to resist a spell many times. In a sense they are meant to fail (and the failed result still be useful).
To keep using your example, if you remove the crit fails and made a sucessful save make a spell do nothing, the spell would be underpowered and increasing the chance for the spell to hit would make it balanced again, and that would make the spell not look like it was designed to fail even if it would introduce other problems (more binary gameplay and making incapacitation spells even more useless versus bosses, because the incapacitate would always bring the failure into a sucess, that would then do nothing).
Yeah but why are most alignment spells Uncommon or rare is the thing? Detecting alignment makes sense because that's a spell DMs have to make all social encounters around if you get it but Divine wrath and Decree aren't uncommon for example, and protection spells are more like Divine wrath than detect alignment.
A player arguing with the GM after he decides to ban something seems more like a player problem than a rule problem.
I feel like the same thing happens with these players regardless of rarity:
GM bans for the aforementioned reasons, player complains, GM > Player so the rule stays, player then decides if he plays anyways/looks for another group/doesn't play Pathfinder at all.
It was always like this, if a DM felt like something was too strong or didn't fit the campaign in a expansion book he'd just disallow it, if he disliked a big enough part of the book he'd just ban the whole book instead of picking and choosing the parts he wanted.
Don't really have a problem with uncommon rules themselves, more with what is or isn't uncommon in some cases. Have to get GM green light and then researching some potentially story breaking stuff like ressurection can be a really big boon but doing it with stuff like protection/circle of protection/drop dead kinda feels really bad.
Don't really care about asking the GM for being allowed to use spells (as you said if a GM didn't want a spell in a game he already was going to remove it) it's more the extra downtime and researching that gets me.
Yeah but in the third case scheduling downtime for retraining is also a resource like most things in this game, so while is understandable for a DM to say that it's also understandable for a player to be slightly annoyed at it.
That does mean that your advice to not plan around uncommon things when the DM says that he isn't sure if he'll put them or not gets even more reasonable though.
I believe the +8 to healing would be too strong to put it in the AoE variant anyway.
This way it is now the spell is incredibly flexible, imagine if the different action versions of heal/harm were different spells entirely that you'd need to choose from with the limited number of spells slots in 2E.
I kinda prefer how it is now.
nicholas storm wrote:
It's not level 10+, it's level 15+ . The proficiencies in weapons and spell attack rolls for warpriests and cloistered clerics are exactly the same between levels 11 and 14.
I also think you can retrain it under the rules counting as one of the long 30+ days retrainings so if you like warpriest early on but dislikes what happens with it later I think you're allowed to switch and then grab a champion dedication or something. 30+ days of downtime is a lot but so is a 4 level deadline, if you ask your GM he can probably make room for it.
Warpriests also get shield block at level 1 with their first doctrine. In addition Fighter only gets to have Will saves become crit successes if they are fear effects.
I don't know how their feats compare but I do know using 2 Cleric feats to multiclass champion and get heavy armor didn't hurt too much. Might hurt more if Paizo releases more class feats in the future.