Relic123's page

I chose to focus on the page 506 information for two reasons. Firstly, it's the DM guidance, and the DM is the one giving out the information. Second, we're discussing creature saves, so it felt appropriate to go to the creature identification section. Its my understanding that the information under Recall Knowledge in Skills section applies to all the possible uses for the skill, including names, places, and other non creature identification uses. Going further, the Arcana and Crafting examples for Golems outline their resistances and immunities, and is in line with the chart on 506 (Constructs are identified by Arcana and Crafting). Not once does it list that the player asked for "complex defenses", nor does it ever imply that saves are an appropriate response to receive. There are plenty of examples that support weaknesses and resistances as well as special attacks are fair game (Troll Regen stopped by fire, Golems immune to magic, Manticore Spikes) and none that support weak saves being fair game.

@Captain Morgan: To me that sounds like exactly what Recall Knowledge does RAW. And personally I don't think that's worth the action.

How is it vague? It literally just says "A character who successfully identifies a creature learns one of its best-known attributes—such as a troll’s regeneration (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore’s tail spikes" p. 506. How is a Trolls best known feature that they're kind of clumsy? A trolls best known attribute is clearly it's regeneration and how it's stopped by fire. A dragon's best known attribute is that it has a breath weapon. I'd challenge someone to find creatures whose best known feature is how weak their weakest save is. Creature saves are only usually within 10-15% of each other, how could that ever qualify as its best known attribute?

Again, I have no issue with GMs making Recall Knowledge better than it is RAW, but it's a house rule and should be presented as such.

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that once it comes to mechanical benefits the player who actually is doing the talking should have the skill appropriate for the situation (as athletics for kicking in a door, which wizards seldom do), however I have seen too many "silent" players because of the reverse conclusion, aka "if the GM will have me roll a check at the end of this conversation I will most probably terribly fail, so I better stay silent all the time", which can leave many characters and gaming rounds very very bland.

I've seen quite a few situations where a player is just playing their character naturally, not thinking about mechanics or anything, and then their called upon for a die roll to figure out the results because they were doing something that might have an important outcome and they go "...can someone else roll, my character sucks at this?"

And no, someone else can't roll. You don't get to say "I kick the door open" and it's actually the player whose character has the best Athletics that makes that roll, so you don't get to say "I ask the NPC for a favor" or something like that and get the player whose character actually didn't dump charisma and skip all the social skills to roll.

Just chiming in that this has inevitably been my experience in all ttrpgs (5e, starfinder, and pathfinder). If I'm not the party face (Cha main stat and relevant max skill), I keep my damn mouth shut. Out of character I might have a good angle or negotiation approach, but without the numbers to back it up I'm more likely to do FAR more harm than good. There's zero incentive for my character to participate in the conversation. This is even more true with critical failures in PF2, one of those on Make an Impression will screw your entire party.

In the description of Recall Knowledge, there's this example -

"For example, Arcana might tell you about the magical defenses of a golem..."

Which tells me that "I attempt to Recall Knowledge about the defenses of Trolls." is likely in the realm of reason for things you can Recall Knowledge about. Forcing people to roll entry by entry, line by line, to get each piece of information about a creatures defenses would be... its not tenable.

Would that not refer to the generic magic immunity that all Golems have from their Golem trait (their "best known attribute" given that all Golems have it) and not to that specific creature's weakest save? It's not about rolling each entry line by line, it's the fact that Recall Knowledge only gives you the creature's best known attribute. I don't see how a creature's weakest save would ever be their best known attribute. Especially since weakest save usually just means they're 10-15% worse at it compared to the others. Maybe I could see it if a creature had an absolute dumpster save that would define their entire species.

Also not sure if this is serving caster tactics anymore, maybe a new thread?

You can read it that way, or you can read it as Battle Assesment providing rogues an alternate and universal means of obtaining information about enemies other than Recall Knowledge.

Unifying all enemy assessment skills into one check is already good enough for a 4th level feat (good enough, or absurdly good even) - it doesn't need to be the sole way to get that information also.

But Recall Knowledge is GM determined, so your mileage may vary.

Just reading how it's written. If a wizard does recall knowledge on a creature, they learn the creature's best known attribute (Ex. Troll regeneration countered by acid or fire). Thats the RAW. The Trolls weak Will save is certainly not its best known attribute. I can't think of many creatures whose best known attribute is their weak save in comparison to their signature abilities. Would an Adult Black Dragon's best known attribute be their acid breath or their +18 Reflex save? Whereas Battle Assessment explicitly states it can give you weak saves.

If your GM let's you get weak saves off recall knowledge, that's great. But if the thread is caster tactics, we should be clear what's RAW and what's a house rule.

Figure out (recall knowledge) and target the targets weak saves.

Some good advice here but I just wanted to call this part out specifically. Recall Knowledge RAW doesn't tell you the monsters weakest save. Only the Rogue feat Battle Assessment does that. Makes it very difficult to determine weak saves without trial and error.

Why should the party set their strategy around the blaster if that does less damage or costs more resources than setting their strategy around the martial? That's the question that I haven't seen answered.

Edit: Obviously maximizing effectiveness isn't everyone's play style. Talking about those who do!

I definitely interpreted Storm Born as only working with natural/mundane weather. I'll have to ask my GM for his interpretation!

I also totally goofed, the Barbarian IS using a bastard sword and alternating hands when he wants. That's my 5e showing, sorry about that.

@SuperBidi yup Barb primarily runs a great sword, but has switched to shield and longsword before as well as a reach polearm at one point. I'll have to keep track of my damage output over the next few sessions, I feel like one Barbarian crit alone puts his damage beyond unreachable for me.

I find our Barbarian to be a phenomenal tank. Hes easily the best suited for the job on our team. Good AC (only beaten by the monk), amazing HP, plus Temp HP from raging.

@Unicore See my point above about how the Barbarian has the best survivability of any of us. I only went the Animal Companion route since it seemed like the only feat path that actually improved my damage. The Storm Druid feats don't help at all. Level 2 only has Order Explorer, Level 4 only has Mature Animal Companion. I figured being able to occasionally throw the companion an action is better for damage than a feat that gives me poison resistance. Am I missing something?

I understand the point you're trying to make about delaying to set me up, but why would they do that? Setting me up to be a better blaster is pretty bad compared to setting up the Barbarian. I see much larger return on resources buffing him than me. Is there a reason to set me up that I'm missing? I'm certainly doing more than just blasting but that's because the blasting feels so soft compared to getting more Barbarian hits in. The buffs and debuffs work for the Barbarian too right? The Produce Flame point is a good one, I'll keep it in mind next time I get in melee with an enemy.

Enemies don't attack me super often, they mostly focus the Barbarian and Monk. On the occasions I do get focused I tend to drop pretty quick once my shield breaks. That Storm Druid feat you're referring to, "Storm Retribution", seems really bad? Only triggers on a crit and costs a focus point. Steady spellcasting seems like the better choice but I could be wrong.

@Kelseus Our Barbarian is a great guy and player. He isn't being selfish or telling me how to play. He just does significantly more damage than anyone else. If I got a nickel every time I cast a damage spell and regretted it, since I would have been better off just buffing him, I'd be rich! It's not his fault that blasting looks really bad compared to his auto attacks.

I appreciate everyones insight and time discussing this topic! If it feels like we're talking in circles I'm happy to drop it.

@Cyouni you make a great point about the runes, it was dishonest of me to compare his +1 weapon to a non +1 weapon. That's apples to oranges and I should have realized when I wrote out that example. The bow is doing closer to 4 damage with the rune. Maybe I should be giving up on staffs and shields and going this route.

I'm definitely using Tempest Surge at least once per fight, it's really the only spell I have that feels good to use (when it lands at least, usually a 50/50). Plus it doesn't compete with a buff, heal, or debuff for resources. Demoralize isn't an option sadly, the Bard and Barbarian are the ones who picked up Intimidate, Diplomacy, etc. Though for my examples I was purposefully leaving these kinds of bonuses out since they help everyone, whether you're a caster or martial.

@pauljathome Maybe that's the problem? Most of the time we're fighting a handful of enemies and they're spread out enough that hitting more than one is impossible/difficult outside of Electric Arc and Reach Spell.

@Ched Greyfall That's a pretty significant buff to Guidance, we tend to use it for skill checks out of combat and therefore players are immune to it usually when combat starts.

Lots of responses since I started the post so additional edits:

@Unicore Yup I have the Staff of Fire right now, was hoping Burning Hands would be more useful than its ended up being. Should have just waited until level 4 and got the Staff of Healing.

@SuperBidi Did they or did the system? I feel like the system has forced it more than my party members. The Barbarian does the most damage, why should I try and force my damage in to the strategy when it's so much worse? I'm fine with ranged doing less damage than melee, due to the natural safety you get, but the difference feels VAST compared to other systems I've played. Vast enough to not even bother trying to do damage and just focusing on improving the people who can (or ranting about it on the internet). I purposefully didn't include party wide buffs like the Bard's because they affect everyone equally.

@All I've just seen the new spells added in the new Gods and Magic supplement and will try and get my hands on those to see how it improves my experience. Of course Paizo made them Uncommon so it might take a while before I can actually get them (my frustration about that is probably saved for its own thread).

Additionally, thinking that casters should only attack with cantrips is a big mistake. Casters should carry a ranged weapon as well, because they will often be as effective with their first attack with it as a martial will be with a second attack (the difference between legendary and Expert is only +4 and there is no excuse not to have either Dex or Str within -1 or 2 of a martial's maximized attribute), and sometimes the caster will need two actions to do things other than attack, which can feel limiting if you only have 2 action cantrip attacks.

With creativity, casters can make martials jealous of how often it seems like the caster has more effective and interesting things to do each round than try to move around to keep up with the enemy and take a retaliatory beating for doing so. Trust me, no martial character is having fun lying on the ground making death saves, which is not an unusual place for a powerhouse melee martial to be in multiple encounters a session (generally, the big damage dealer of the party becomes the most frequent gang up target, another reason to think twice about focusing exclusively on damage dealing unless the rest of the party is happy figuring out how to protect/keep up with you if range and movement are the key to keeping you on your feet).

I snipped out some parts to focus on just what I'm responding to, I hopefully didn't take your comments out of context in doing so.

I'm super unclear on how a ranged weapon attack is a viable option for a caster. My druid would have to take off his shield, stow/drop his staff, draw a bow, and then Strike just to even make that happen (that's 3 actions at least!). Even if I chose to just keep the bow in hand by default, its a +9 to hit Strike (Level 4, +3 Dex) that does 1d8 damage. That's crazy low!. CR 4 creatures have 20-23 AC, meaning you have a ~40% to hit. That averages to like 1 or 2 damage. At that point you might as well just run away. By comparison, the Barb's second attack is +6 (+11-5) for 2d12+6 (while raging). Against the same AC, that's about a ~30% hit chance, averaging to 6-7 ish damage.

To your second point, it certainly feels the other way around. As a caster I feel more like a cheerleader than a main member of the party (in combat). Our Bard feels similarly, but that's what he signed up for, he wanted to be a magic support character. The Barbarian is more than happy to sit there and soak up attacks, since he can deal it back and then some. He spends very little time doing death saves on the ground (I only recall two combats where he actually went down). Again, this is even more true because my actions are better spent just keeping him alive to end combat quickly. His action economy is very efficient, with Sudden Charge and No Escape letting him stay in combat and roll as many d20s as possible. And it doesn't cost anything, he's at 100% for every single fight. How can a magic damage dealer compete?

It feels like we're playing two different games, do the blasters in your group feel useful? Do they not feel that their damage spells are a waste compared to just buffing/healing an ally or debuffing the enemy? Because that's the point I'm trying to make, a blaster who tries to blast is just holding the party back compared to buffing/healing/debuffing. Maybe I'm just spoiled by how fun EB blasting 5e Warlock was.

Relic123 wrote:

While I agree with you on the macro level, it's extremely disappointing when you're trying to build a blaster character and the best advice you get is to play support.

Unfortunately, the true blaster characters are sorcerers. Druids are very polyvalent, honorable blasters, but not incredible ones.

Also, to me, it really looks like a party composition issue. You are better off healing and buffing, but who else in the party does that? If you are the only buffer/healer, then this role befalls to you just because no one else took it. And if the Barbarian is a Giant one, so all on offense and nothing on defense, he is burying you in support even more. If I'm not mistaken, you need to speak with your fellow party members about your expectations. No one should be forced to play what he doesn't want to play.

And, as a side note, Electric Arc competes with Barbarian Rage at low level. I'm always surprised to see my Scoundrel Rogue being the main damage dealer of the party next to our Barbarian and Fighter just because I can mix Electric Arcs and Strikes.

We have a Bard who does almost entirely buffing and illusions (battlefield control). My point was that my spell slots are ALSO better spent on buffing since me spending resources on damage is never better than just giving the Barbarian more buffs. Electric Arc was a blast (hah) at level 1. I felt strong and useful, but its dropped off significantly. 2d4+4 feels pitiful!

For full disclosure our level 4 party comp is:
Spirit Instinct Barbarian
Monk
Polymath/Maestro Bard
Storm Druid (me)

There isn't much party discussion to be had at this point, everyone's roles are basically set. It doesn't make sense for the Barbarian to waste actions chugging a potion just so I can get a middling amount of damage in. It's almost always more efficient for him to just keep swinging and for me to heal and buff. Which again is the crux of my argument.

I'm also unclear about what makes Sorcerers that much better? They get +1-+10 damage to their spell damage which doesnt seem very good. If its just that then that hardly makes the damage feel any better. Especially since those bonuses force you in to the Divine or Primal lists anyways. Being a Sorcerer and having an extra +1 or +2 damage at my level doesn't feel like a solution.

I can't figure out how to quote you again Unicore but in the interest of not having a massive chain of replies I'll start a fresh comment.

Most of my leftover money goes towards Scrolls of Heal and potions of healing. Low level scrolls for situational utility is something to look in to, just doesn't feel great to me (bad action economy). But that's subjective.

You kind of touch on a broader point about working with your team to support them. While I agree with you on the macro level, it's extremely disappointing when you're trying to build a blaster character and the best advice you get is to play support. I've found that despite my original intentions of being a blaster, it's much more effective to just be a buff and heal bot. Enlarge, Magic Fang, and Haste, are much more effective uses for my spell slots than even Lightning Bolt. And that's the crux of the problem, playing a blaster caster feels mechanically unsupported to me. I wanted to be a high damage lightning caster, not a buff bot you know?

Shocking Grasp is a pretty crap spell, but I took the Reach Spell feat to at least make it workable. I agree that not everyone needs to compete for damage, I just wish that it was more clear upfront that I couldn't compete at all. Dealing lots of damage is what I like, dealing lots of damage from a distance with lightning spells is what I love. I foolishly assumed there'd be a way to make that happen in 2e (they even made a Storm Druid subclass! I was so excited!) but that just doesn't seem to be the case. If I were to do it again, I'd take the L on having to be in melee and just re flavor a Barbarian to be lightning based. Or if I was dead set on being a caster, just purposefully make a buff bot.

Gust of Wind's regular fail effect (the creature can't move against the wind) is so laughably poor that it might as well count as a critical fail lol. An enemy loses almost nothing to a regular fail to Gust of Wind (which I unfortunately learned the hard way). Again, Fleet Step is a buff, not damage. I appreciate how it can be flavored, but it's not what I was looking to do when I signed up. I feel like I'm doing 10% of the role I originally wanted, and am 90% of the time better off just buffing our Barbarian and plinking away every once in a while.

Relic123 wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Part of the issue is simply you being new to the system and having a thematic idea that didn't get supported mechanically. I agree with the other poster about a fighter dedication.

Maybe ask your GM to let you redesign your character to fit your thematic concept

I feel this in my soul. I never thought a blaster Storm Druid playstyle wouldn't be mechanically supported, but each combat is just half damage electric arcs/rays of frost and me deciding if its better to raise my shield or move 25 feet away from a monster and risk an AoO. It's incredibly dull. Sometimes I get to give my animal companion an extra action but most of the time he's just playing catch up anyways.

Why do you not use actual spells and why do you have an animal companion as a Storm Druid? Why are you spending "each combat" only casting cantrips?

Sorry I totally forgot about this post until today, but other people have touched on most of it. I'll use Tempest Surge once a fight to be efficient with my focus points, but it's damage is meh and is often resisted. I have 6 spells a day right now, and I have to take a few utility/buff spells but that's just playing roulette, since they might not actually be needed that day.

As an example, I've taken Dispel Magic every session since getting level 2 spell slots and haven't had an opportunity to use it once. I've had multiple sessions go by where I took Feather Fall or Spider Climb and never actually needed them.

So yeah in one combat I'll try and cast a Shocking Grasp or Gust of Wind, but again, often resisted and have minimal impact. I picked up Order Explorer in to Animal Order because I knew I'd have a lack of options so at least having another chunk of HP on the field is useful. Plus when I do use him to attack, he does more damage than I do anyways.

I'm glad Kelseus is enjoying cantrip spam, because I can't feel the same. I'm level 5, so doing on average half of 2d4 every round feels pretty lame, especially when our Barbarian is hitting for 20+ damage a round.

Part of the issue is simply you being new to the system and having a thematic idea that didn't get supported mechanically. I agree with the other poster about a fighter dedication.

Maybe ask your GM to let you redesign your character to fit your thematic concept

I feel this in my soul. I never thought a blaster Storm Druid playstyle wouldn't be mechanically supported, but each combat is just half damage electric arcs/rays of frost and me deciding if its better to raise my shield or move 25 feet away from a monster and risk an AoO. It's incredibly dull. Sometimes I get to give my animal companion an extra action but most of the time he's just playing catch up anyways.