Riddlyn's page

Ravingdork wrote:

possible.

If you enforce the duality of Free Archetype, why? If you allow for doubling up, do you have any concerns that it might get out of hand in some way?

From one end its doubling up on archetype feats. From the other, its shorting out on your class feats, so it balances out.

Free Archetype, no matter what choices are made, is a power boost.

A power boost is very debatable. Flexibility absolutely without question. The math of the system keeps the power mostly in check.

I love this discussion but I've come to understand that while we are playing the same game, some of us play it very differently. That difference definitely colors how you see the class. I've played several Magi, in campaigns with fighter's, barbarians and full casters. The biggest issue that I've experienced is the action economy. I've never felt I didn't contribute my share or more. Never really felt outshined by fighters or barbarians doing damage or landing spells with the casters. I'd love for AC to be easier to get into and some other ways to recharge spellstrike.

Riddlyn wrote:

And I've said the same thing in those threads. And as for playing one, it actually happens to be my favorite class and I've been able to play 6 of them since release to varying levels highest went to 16th. Of those 6 only 2 took psychic MCD one for oscillating wave and the other was tangible dream. And I've played in a campaign with one and he chose the witch MCD

So you have in fact contributed to these statistics yourself, then? In that case, why pretend that this combo doesn’t happen?

I never said it doesn't happen, what I said was please stop using it as a stalking horse. You keep trying to make it seem that everyone who plays a magus will take the MCD like it's gospel. And the you pointing out the one time I took it and ignoring the 5 times I didn't says something

gesalt wrote:

What continues to really confuse me about this whole thread is the idea that it's somehow broken instead of just being good. If it were broken it'd be on every character because it is powerful, and not just because it's the best value you can get for multitalented.

I keep seeing this notion that "if it's broken, then it must be on literally every build" when this is literally never the case even for notoriously broken feats. In fact, this wasn't even the case in 1e, which had some options that were far more overpowered than anything in 2e.

But sure, let's run with this notion regardless: already, Psychic Dedication is an extremely frequent pick on the Magus, so that already starts to satisfy that unreasonably high standard. On top of this, the dedication does get frequently picked just for amped guidance, and while that much is fine, the way focus spells work means that accessing that amp means anyone with the dedication alone can retroactively bump up degrees of success three times every encounter, which does make a significant impact.

This too could also be fine if the impact were commensurate with the impact of other 2nd-level feats... but it's not. The dedication is notably stronger than other 2nd-level feats, and is in fact stronger than most other dedication feats other than Exemplar Dedication, a genuinely broken feat. We can talk about how 2nd-level feats, and dedication feats in particular, to stand to be improved, but I think that even in a world where multiclass dedication feats offer more of a taste of the class, those dedications should still not offer any measure of the class's unique selling point to its fullest amount. The dedication is notably above the curve for feats of its level, and that does cause genuine problems, so in my opinion it is well worth addressing in the upcoming Dark Archive remaster.

I love how you keep going on about how often the the psychic MCD is something most Magi take? Where are you getting that data from? Because otherwise that's just like your opinion. Having a problem with the dedication is fine but please for all that is holy stop trying to use the magus as your stalking horse. It's a choice and if you're in to optimization then yes it can be seen as an auto pick for many

Riddlyn wrote:

This is a slight tangent but wouldn't amped ignition be better munchkin fodder. It's a d10 plus splash damage or d12 in melee.

If you use the cantrip in melee, d12 + 1 splash damage translates to an average of 7.5 damage per rank, which is less than imaginary weapon's average of 9 damage per rank. The difference is technically a bit smaller due to the splash damage applying on a miss and ignition dealing a d4 of persistent fire damage per rank on a crit, plus the cantrip does have more range, but in terms of sheer blasting power imaginary weapon likely still wins out.

Thanking you for indulging me with that.

What does the MCD for the guardian look like?

Riddlyn wrote:

I didn't fail to do the math, I chose not to because then I'd have to do both sides of the equation. You conveniently listed the Barb's damage but forgot to add the corresponding damage for the druid.

So this is a lie:

Let's start here, are you willing to giving up either some spell proficiency or spell slots to increase the melee damage? If the answer is no, which I may have missed somewhere then what I said was very much true.

And because they can't cast while shifted doesn't mean you shouldn't account for their spellcasting. So that still needs to be factored in especially if you are going to factor other parts of the barbarian kit like rage and resistance.

So again I read, understood and legitimately disagree disagree with you and the above is the biggest reason why.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Psychic is much, much higher priority than any tweak on an already amazing druid class.

I'm going to leave the personal attacks to the side, because those do not merit a response. What I will say, however, is that if you believe that the Psychic needs help, then your best move is to advocate for that, not push others down. It is perfectly possible for this thread and that hypothetical Psychic thread to coexist, particularly at a time where there is fairly little forum activity, so there is no need to pretend that one thread needs to be silenced for the other to thrive. Of course, we both know the real issue is that you're not a fan of opinions you disagree with and would see this thread removed if it was in your power, but thankfully you don't, so this thread is here to stay.

Riddlyn wrote:

Not on my side it isn't. With the situation you described here, +2 bonus from untamed form and master strikes you would definitely be striking just as well as a martial.

Okay, let's crack out the math, because this conversation is in dire need of facts.

Let's say you're a 20th-level Untamed Druid with a +6 Strength, and you've used untamed form to enter monstrosity form and use the cave worm form. With fully-upgraded handwraps of mighty blows and master unarmed attack proficiency, your attack modifier is +37, a +1 over, say, a Barbarian. Your most powerful attack deals an average of 39.5 damage, and with a 10% increase from the better accuracy that goes up to 43.45.

Now, let's go back to that Barbarian. You're wielding a greatsword, which at 20th level and with full runes will deal 49.5 damage. Already, we're 14% over the transformed Druid, but we're only just getting started: let's just pick Fury, the most generic and arguably the weakest instinct, which at that level adds a +13 to your damage rolls, bringing your total to 62.5, nearly one and a half times as much damage. Thanks to the devastator class feature, you also...

I didn't fail to do the math, I chose not to because then I'd have to do both sides of the equation. You conveniently listed the Barb's damage but forgot to add the corresponding damage for the druid. I mean in your scenario the druid can cast a tempest surge before attacking dealing 9d12 then striking or casting a 9th or 10th rank spell before striking. I fully read what you said and understood it, I just don't agree and these are some of the reasons why. And it doesn't change the fact that to me you are coming across as wanting to be a full caster who can deal melee damage on par with a martial. The fact that a druid who is a full spellcaster can strike as well as a martial is amazing seeing as spellcasters top out at expert in weapons.

Riddlyn wrote:

TBH this sounds a lot like I want a full caster just as capable as a martial. You can try to spin that how you will but that's how you come off. Some have offered alternatives more inline with how Paizo does things, like one suggestion of wave casting with better melee capabilities. That's giving up something to gain something else. Sorry but I don't feel or think giving them full spellcasting capabilities while shifted should even be on the table. Right now there is actually a good reason to pick something besides casters, this would start heading in the opposite direction. If I can strike as good as a martial while maintaining full spellcasting why play a martial at all? And this is coming from someone who's favorite class in 2E is the Magus.

This is sounding an awful lot like a straw man given how I have specifically advocated for a heavily specialized Untamed Druid to approach a martial class a bit better when transformed, not be "just as capable". The example given was of a half-baked class archetype, as opposed to the properly-made wave casters with significantly more tangible power, and the tradeoffs are not, in my opinion, at all balanced -- not when the Druid can already exceed martials on Strike accuracy at certain levels right now and still be demonstrably behind in performance, yet also still satisfying. Even with master Strikes and the +2 bonus from untamed form, you would still not be Striking "as good as a martial", because your Strikes will be dealing less base damage before even starting to factor in class features, weapon traits, and martial feats. You would, however, be able to bridge the gap that appears specifically at high level when battle forms fall off further relative to martial classes, even with untamed form. This is, again, not about giving the Druid something they don't have already at some point in their leveling, it's just about maintaining that benefit across all levels.

Not on my side it isn't. With the situation you described here, +2 bonus from untamed form and master strikes you would definitely be striking just as well as a martial. And no I'm not factoring in any of that stuff because you aren't factoring in the Druid's casting. So what you wouldn't be doing is damage on the same level as a martial. Striking and damage are not the same and that is how you just equated them. Again you are still coming across as wanting full martial capabilities on a spellcaster without a tradeoff. Being able to strike and damage as well as full legendary spellcasting is quite a bit more than anyone else gets.

Blue_frog wrote:

Basics would be:

- Wave casting
- Magus weapon proficiency
- Master fortitude

Then, to the goodies:
1) Free action Untamed Form use when initiative is rolled, like a barbarian rage. Would fix action economy and allow unmatched flexibility
2) Allow casting while shaped, like the old PF1 natural spell (only with wavecasting spells, not archetype ones).
3) Maybe give Untamed form upgrades as class features, to free up some feats along the way.

IMO, that would be flavorful and powerful enough to make me want to play one.

Casting while shapeshifted I'd say is definitely an appealing benefit, as would free forms as you'd level up. I don't know if that alone would be enough to justify losing most of your spell slots and legendary spellcasting proficiency, but it could definitely allow a class archetype of this sort to contribute both utility and a measure of Striking power -- even if that power would still be overall far weaker than on a Magus or full martial. It'd maybe compare to the Summoner's Striking power by way of their eidolon, but then the Summoner gets to supplement those Strikes with at least cantrips nearly every turn, so that's still a higher baseline that battle form Strikes wouldn't really be able to to match on their own.

Going back to the Druid class, spellcasting while shapeshifted is something I'd very like to see as a feat, though only at very high level. This wouldn't address the aforementioned issue re: battle forms falling off, but it'd be a nice alternative capstone to True Shapeshifter. I do still believe the class could benefit from exceptional Fort saves and Strike proficiency at those very high levels too, as that would bridge the current gap in their battle form performance, but more fun feats to play with also wouldn't hurt.

.

TBH this sounds a lot like I want a full caster just as capable as a martial. You can try to spin that how you will but that's how you come off. Some have offered alternatives more inline with how Paizo does things, like one suggestion of wave casting with better melee capabilities. That's giving up something to gain something else. Sorry but I don't feel or think giving them full spellcasting capabilities while shifted should even be on the table. Right now there is actually a good reason to pick something besides casters, this would start heading in the opposite direction. If I can strike as good as a martial while maintaining full spellcasting why play a martial at all? And this is coming from someone who's favorite class in 2E is the Magus.

I can think of a very good reason to take sorcerer MCD, sorcerer has some nice focus spells and access to the other 3 spell traditions. Like divine if you want to spirit, sonic or vitality damage.

Ok maybe I'm a little biased because the Magus is my favorite class in 2E. I wouldn't mind at all if AC became a free action, but why do people insist you have to spellstrike every turn? Yes that's their main ability so you want to often there are other things to do. No class has the ability to trigger almost every weakness in the game especially with the changes to spellstrike. RS is real campaign and GM dependant, I've played a Magus in 4 different campaigns to various levels all at least level 10 and I've eaten exactly 2 RS and it happened in the same campaign. Not saying it can't or doesn't happen but it seems to talked about more than it happens

I believe paizo did state that they had plans for Secrets of Magic and Dark Archive remasters. Similar to how Guns and Gears were remastered.

Dark Archives might be able to get a G&G style remaster, I think that'd be a very tough job for Secrets of Magic. Way to much has changed in the remaster getting away from the OGL.

The Magus because it is IMO the best class at exploiting weaknesses and the kinectist is a very versatile class that can pull off all sorts of concepts and and truly feel different depending on the choices you make

Also you are also basing those definitions of two AP's that where written earlier in this editions life and are known for being set to a higher difficulty of more recent AP's. The devs better understand the system themselves now and as such have tuned AP's to be more inline with how the game actually plays

Darth Grall wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Either unnerf Multiclass Monk Archetype Flurry or nerf Spirit Warrior's Combined Strikes. Sure it is not as powerful but being able to use a d10 Finesse weapon into a 1d6 Agile Fist is kinda silly and makes MC Monk Flurry of Blows seem silly to nerf when it is a level 10 feat vs a level 2 Dedication ability.

Which by the way 1d10 Finesse weapon into a 1d6 Agile Fist is the same as 1d8 Tiger/Wolf Stance twice with Flurry of Blows.

What d10 finesse weapon is there??? I haven't seen one from Paizo above a d8 or is there something else pumping up the die size?

Whoops I meant D8, I somehow keep thinking Elven Curved Blade is d10 but still level 2 for 1d8 + 1d6 for 8 levels before Flurry of Blows with 1d4 Cooldown, on average that's on average 4-8 more damage if you use Tiger/Wolf stance vs Spirit Warrior Dedication, is it really by level 20. Is the Nerf really needed?

I don't think you can use an elven curved blade with overwhelming combination as it requires 2 hands to wield

Personally? I think they should remove the Recharge feature from Spell Strike all together.

I mean, Spell Strike already requires two actions to use, so it's not like you can spam it in multiple turns. That would remove some of the more glaring action tax from the class in my opinion.

I mean, does any other class require you to spend an Action just to use its key feature more than once?

The swashbuckler and ranger said hello

Feels worse, sounds about right because they really aren't, EB depending on elements and feats is the equivalent of a D6-D10 weapon. 1-4 EB and a weapon both do 1 dice of damage, at 4 the martial picks up a striking rune. From 5th-9th they both do 2 dice. At 9th the kin gets their 3rd dice for EB where the martial grabs his next striking rune at 12th, one level before the kin picks up their 4th damage die. EB is more like a kin bespoke weapon. Now most of their impulses for the first few levels do cantrips damage almost all of them, it's not until around 4th level that impulses start doing more spell slot like magic damage. So unless you're only doing 2 action EB they should feel more like a weapon attack and it makes more sense to compare them so. And like fighter and gunslinger they do get to legendary with their attack skill. And unlike some classes they do get to use their class stat for attacking.

Riddlyn wrote:

Lol that's funny, cars aren't meant to burn nitrous but they can. Is it the car manufacturer fault if you do. Same thing. You absolutely can use slots, but if that was meant to be the baseline you would have gotten more than 4. I seriously doubt that you were meant to go Nova every round. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I'm detecting a shifting of the goalposts here. Your point thus far was that the designers didn't want the Magus to Spellstrike with spell slots, which was proven false quite comprehensively. Now, your new point is that the Magus isn't meant to "go nova every round" with spell slots, which is obvious given their limited spell slots, but presumes that quantity of spell slots is relevant here when it isn't really in practice. Just because the Magus has limited spell slots does not mean players won't try to use those spell slots to go nova, and it certainly doesn't mean the developers didn't enable this with a bunch of mechanics that specifically require you to Spellstrike with a spell slot (including one that doubles the number of times you can go nova). You are correct, just because you can doesn't mean you should, but because you can, people will, and it's disproportionately effective at low levels.

Oh no that was never my point. My point was that spellstrike with cantrips was meant to be the baseline. And spellstrike with slots was a in the right moment. Not something just because. And trying to look at the class from a viewpoint of slots are the main thing you use will greatly skew how you look at the class. At no point did I ever say you're not supposed to or meant to spellstrike with spell slots or focus spells. My viewpoint hasn't changed a bit, going Nova is fine but going Nova means you have a high and return to normal. Spellstrike with a spell slots then returning to using cantrips is going Nova. And nowhere did anyone prove it false because I never said at any point that spell slots weren't meant to be used for spellstriking. I did say I almost always take standby spell at 8 or 10. So to say otherwise would invalidate my whole reason for taking the feat.

Quote:

People wanting to blow all their spells on spellstrike isn't the designer's fault.

This is like saying it's not a slot machine company's fault that people spend money at their slots.

Just one more big shocking grasp crit, come on, one more...

Lol that's funny, cars aren't meant to burn nitrous but they can. Is it the car manufacturer fault if you do. Same thing. You absolutely can use slots, but if that was meant to be the baseline you would have gotten more than 4. I seriously doubt that you were meant to go Nova every round. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Riddlyn wrote:

Again you don't get to say that, you personal preference does not a fact make. Because you feel that is the case is fine to state. But what you don't get to do is say that building the way YOU think is best doesn't mean everyone or even most who play magi will agree with you.

A magus will typically have worse saves than an actual caster, who has a better spell DC progression, their casting stat as their KAS, and much more incentive to invest in INT. A melee magus doesn't need INT to spellstrike, but does need STR for damage and to-hit, DEX for AC/reflex, CON for HP/fort, and WIS for initiative/will. INT only gives you trained skills, save DCs you aren't likely to take advantage of, and access to psychic dedication (which only needs +2). Being melee is already inherently MAD, and trying to max INT means losing something else that's usually more relevant to performing your role.

Any time you would cast a save spell, someone else in the party should probably be casting it instead. There are cases where expansive spellstrike with an AoE will be juicy, but those are rare, and investing in INT for those rare cases doesn't make a lot of sense over investing in defenses or damage on your main routine. If you are the only person in your party who can cast slow or some other critical debuff, that's really not really a good situation to be in, though I can appreciate trying to fill that role if it's ultimately required of you. (I also hope you're starlit span and your party is feeding you gold for scrolls or wands, 'cause lord knows you don't have the spell slots to do that job. I also hope they're not expecting you to sustain roaring applause.)

If you play with gradual ASI, pushing INT is more viable, though still not fantastic for the reasons discussed above.

Like, don't get me wrong. I had an era where I wondered if it made more sense to have an INT-maxing magus over a caster. And a magus that pushes to max their INT is nowhere near unplayable! It's just a worse option from an...

That's the rub for me it makes zero sense to dump INT. I play a Magus because I fully intend on using spells. After level 5 I never keep more than 1 attack roll spell in a slot. At 8th or tenth I take standby spell and never prepare a slotted attack roll spell. Before the remaster at level 1 I was at +6 damage before rolling any dice and +8 at 5th since the Magus was the only class that got to add 2 different attribute bonuses to a strike. And yes I would typically be 1-3 behind a full caster but that does not stop you from effectively using AoE's or buffs. Post remaster I still prioritize STR and INT equally so the only thing that really changed for me was now my damage was a little swingier. I'm absolutely fine if others see and play there Magi differently but it just fries my bacon when people state opinions like facts. Not saying you were specifically but there have been plenty in this thread doing just that.

It's literally worse to have INT on most magus builds. You can bypass the need for it entirely with spellstrike, and you're a melee character that needs STR/DEX/CON/WIS. The only magi that can take INT without as significantly tanking their saves or damage are Starlit Span magi. You can make this trade, make no mistake; it is, however, objectively worse to invest in INT, even if it's indeed more fun to have half-functional save DCs.

(N.B. As designed, Laughing Shadow was made for a finesse build... but Arcane Cascade is just bad and difficult to use, so you'll never get the damage from Cascade that's supposed to make up for having less STR. So Starlit Span is the only one that remains that's able to invest in INT without sacrificing more important stats.)

Again you don't get to say that, you personal preference does not a fact make. Because you feel that is the case is fine to state. But what you don't get to do is say that building the way YOU think is best doesn't mean everyone or even most who play magi will agree with you.

At this point of debating unless they re-re-errata Spell-Strike to add a penalty to the target's save if you do successfully bonk them with a weapon this change doesn't do a lot because most Magus players already dump their INT which Paizo didn't address though they simply attempted to fix the issue of not a lot of attack spells without actually fixing it.

The Sure Strike nerf is both needed and yet not required at the same time. It boils back down to in my opinion the following for none-Magus/Battle Harbinger classes which cast spells, 2-Actions generally for -1 vs Master Martials despite having Legendary Attack. So it feels bad when you take double the time to user a Spell Attack at -1 which when it fail you loe both 2/3rds of your turn AND a resource in which you can't renew unless you cast a focus spell.

This can be temporarily fixed by having a Bard or Envoy (SF-2E Class) in the party to increase your odds or even both to effectively give you +2 to your Spell Attack Rolls, +1 Status to Attacks and a -1 Status penalty to the enemy's AC.

This is a lot of setup which in the end also greatly increases Martials as well meaning you're still -1 from any other Martial, outside of the few which are Inventor,Investigator, Runesmith & Thauamutrge at that rate due to them using a none offensive KAS your spell attack roll bonus matches these 4 Martials.

What use is this information I am unsure but it is how the math works at level 19 and without the higher INT and +2 From Legendary DCs Magus using save spells feels bad and maybe it is time Magus got a Remastered and got legendary spell DC but only caps at like Expert Spell Attack due to how Spell-Strike functions?

Perhaps give up Arcane Cascade for legendary spells and give them the choice of either STR, DEX or INT as their KAS and keep Spell-Strike as it functions now and make it if you use a Spell-Striek via saving throw spell they save as normal?

I really wish you would stop throwing out bold statements you couldn't possibly have the answers to. Please stop saying most magi dump int and say you do. You don't get to pawn your preference as the default. I've never dumped int playing a Magus and I've played four of them. And plan on playing many more.

Ok I spoke for me. No I wouldn't, you have house rules for wizards, change enemy spellcasting and when you speak on here you speak as if PF2E is just a tactical war game. None of these things are what I consider fun or why I play PF2E.

I'm sorry a couple of things, first if you are new to the system why would you be trying to play a variant version of the game? That leads to one thing Teridax keeps complaining about what if a new GM decides to use ABP, I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. You don't know the system well enough to make the judgements and calls needed with ABP, and I say the same thing for any variant of the system. I can't muster up feeling bad because someone new decided to try a variant without really knowing or understanding the base game and how it works. Oh and immediately jumping to the worse possible outcome presented and ignoring the other possibilities is not having a discussion in good faith. It's been done several times in this thread.

Squiggit wrote:

Or like, some people don't think the feat is as much of an issue as you do. Don't really get the intensity of the reaction here. Not caring if a wizard can hit the AC cap slightly earlier with an ancestry feat doesn't make someone delusional or desperate.

Like... come on.

Not caring generally implies not caring to expend much effort on the matter, though. When someone spends time and energy making several increasingly breathless posts trying to justify this feat in every possible manner, that to me suggests they very much do care. Even the person above you decided this exchange was worth the effort to switch to their alias just to upvote your post. Not very slick, but also a surprising amount of personal investment.

As you can see, I posted on this thread with an initial comment that didn't address anyone in particular, and that was enough to generate a number of very defensive responses from a number of people all too desperate to try to invalidate what I had to say. The clincher is that these responses, despite hinging on a grand total of zero facts and reeking of insecurity, also frequently attempted to project emotionality upon the posts that did in fact bring up basic facts that anyone can easily verify for themselves. It is easy to compare this feat to the natural armor feats and heritages on offer, and see that this feat is head and shoulders above the rest. It is easy to note the differences between this feat and light armor proficiency that make this much stronger than the latter. It is easy to note the impact of this feat on the Monk class and the unprecedented things it lets them do. If you want to not care, feel free to not care on your own time. If you want to actually have an intelligent conversation and discuss the facts, then be expected to actually engage with the facts, and called out when you refuse to do so.

Ahh, so everyone else is defensive because they don't believe like you that the feat is broken somehow.

It's not a whole lot better than the light armor proficiency feat, which you could bump up one more to 4 helping your reflex saves and you can retrain out it if you want to get to +5 dex.

Mantis Shell,chain shirt, studded leather, buckle, and sankeit all offer +2/+3 with a str req of +1 to avoid the armor check penalty. And if stealth and athletics isn't something you're worried about then it cost a feat either way. Only real difference is which feat pool it's getting pulled from general (armor proficiency) or ancestry.

It looks like most of the dragon disciple feats got moved to the heritage. That used to be a 4th level feat, that generally called for you to have some connection to dragons (dragon instinct, draconic bloodline, be a kobold).

Riddlyn wrote:

Who shows up at a table with a complete ready character without talking to the GM (at minimum) and other players? PFS not withstanding that's just asking for trouble.

The issue is that the wizard hides how much you need to talk to the GM about. Like, look, if the GM has time to look through all your choices and craft the campaign around each and every spell you take, good on you, but then the uncommon tag doesn't really matter, does it?

But most GMs don't have infinite free tone and the wizard cheats. At first level, nothing is uncommon, so it looks fine, then ten levels down the road you've suddenly got an uncommon spell but you and the GM have already gotten into the habit of OKing spells. This will happen and is absolutely not the fault of either the player or the GM - rather, it's on Paizo for breaking their own set rules.

Yeah, no. It takes about as much time to look at a wizard school as it does a sorcerer bloodline. Saying a GM is willing to look at one and not the other makes no sense.

I don't know how I feel about the changes to Oracle other than to say the class I loved in PF1 is pretty much completely gone.

My favourite thing about the class was how curses worked, their bespoke nature, the fact they were all different. I loved that curses while crippling at low levels came with bonuses later that sort of compensated as your character learned to deal with the curse. That is completely gone now.

Probably my favourite PF1 character to play as a Gnome Bones Oracle with clouded vision curse and a morbid sense of humour. There were so many cool roleplaying opportunities. The new oracle just feels flavourless. I know making interesting curses that operate in different ways is a challenge for balance but I feel something very unique and cool has been lost. When I heard PF2e was coming I was hoping they would make sorcerers more like oracles, a spontaneous caster that could choose options (feats) thematic to their bloodline (like mystery benefits in pf1e). Instead it seems all that has been stripped out to just be... boring numbers.

I feel like curses right now could mostly be rebranded into the price of power for sorcerers just as easily. Sorcerers could do cool stuff but at a cost to their body (drained or similar) working like curses work now. I am sure it will feel more balanced but I miss when Paizo did funky interesting things with less of a focus on raw numbers. Still its probably the communities obsession with raw numbers that push them to it.

I think it might have more to do with balance and making the game playable and enjoyable for more people. PF1e could be a nightmare for GM's and players. The thing I love most about this system is you don't need total system mastery to make a working character.

Riddlyn wrote:

But battle medicine is once or twice a day at best. Both elixirs scale, can be used more than twice a day and with one feat he can convert the mutagen to healing. Though that last part was mostly for when the fight is over

with godless healing it's once per hour, and with medic you can do it again in a pinch if needed.

at level 7 it'll be twice an hour.

until the remaster comes out, elixir of life though an archetype for survivability is very sketchy, since you are only healing 1d6 until level 10 through your elixirs.

If you only make elixirs with reagents. You do get crafting and alchemical crafting from taking the dedication. You can craft higher elixirs sooner and save your reagents for mutagens. There are some other fairly useful elixirs and foods. If witcher is part of the character vibe then it's definitely a good choice. It doesn't stop you from taking battle medicine and the upgrade feats in the medicine line. Assurance medicine and crafting can go a long way

But battle medicine is once or twice a day at best. Both elixirs scale, can be used more than twice a day and with one feat he can convert the mutagen to healing. Though that last part was mostly for when the fight is over

thenobledrake wrote:

Tremaine wrote:

...as to 'optimising the fun out of things' never understood that statement...

It's basically talking about the phenomena that happens where a person that is playing a game finds the thing that is the best in their view and as a direct result now feels trapped; they have to use that option, and all other options look like a complete waste of space because "no one" would ever take them.

And often that same person will then lament not having more options. They don't want to be limited to just that small list they've self-selected, but there aren't more things that feel worth taking.

So you end up with someone saying phrases like this one:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I'm not looking for viable. I am looking for high performance.

That show a lack of perspective.

Deriven thinks they've got the game figured out better than everyone else, and doesn't even entertain the idea that they might actually be bending the game into an odd shape as a result of their extensive experience and penchant for "high-performance" play and as a result not actually realizing all the builds I was talking about in my earlier post are "high--performance" rather than just "viable".

Much like how a car built to win drag races doesn't feature quite the same things as a car built to win rally races, but it's not really a reasonable stance to say "the drag car is better." even if it does have higher top speed.

Yea, sorry if I wasn't clear: I know what it is supposed to mean, but it doesn't make sense to me, like I WANT to make a character that's good at one or two things and ride or die on that, (PF2 is good at allowing non-combat and combat builds to be mostly independent of each other, within the same character, so your skill feats aren't taking up combat feats space)

I don't enjoy the tactical aspects of this game, they are to shallow for me to get lost in, but to mandatory for me to ignore, so they just feel like chores I have to do before the...

See now we are getting somewhere. PF2e is built to be a more tactical game, so it may not be the system to best allow you to interact with it in a way that you enjoy. That's ok too. I can tell you that for me PF1e was a nightmare, trying to figure out how to make good characters for both the game and party was a chore I didn't look forward to.

I'm confused as to what you are talking about. From level 7 fighters effectively have legendary perception for initiative, reflex and fortitude get auto crits at master while will gets it for fear effects and reduces frightened by 1. And as a fighter you can easily keep your wis as a sec stat. Now if you don't find anything exciting about the feat choices at those levels I can get that. But the defenses built into the base chassis are good

The Phoenix bloodline. A focus spell that heals allies while damaging enemies and the primal spell list

Sanityfaerie wrote:

I still say that you all are underselling kineticist to a degree.

Possibly. Still I disagree with a lot of what you say.

Kineticists are ranged AoE martials. They are tanky, they deal AoE damage and that's mostly it. They have some control abilities but way later than casters (and you rarely "focus" on control abilities so having a Wall of Stone at level 9 is much better than getting many of them at level 14). I don't see your "strategy of forced move and forced movement exploitation" as anything effective. It may be, but I have great doubts having never seen any such ability bringing impressive effects.

Kineticist doesn't really heal. Calling it a healer is a stretch. I'd go for Medic Dedication over Water/Wood Kineticist.

Also, they are really weak for skills. Sure, you can choose to raise Charisma or Intelligence over Strength and Dexterity, but then it has an impact on combat performance.

And Kineticist lacks single target abilities (no, Elemental Blast is not equivalent to a Fighter Greatsword). Bosses will be hard to take down.

Also, considering how it's easy to poach Timber Sentinel, it can hardly be the main selling point of a Kineticist party.

So, yeah, I don't see the Kineticist party being that efficient. But I must admit I find the class rather unimpressive, which is not a common point of view. So it may be personal bias... or personal bias on your side ;)

For one the way you keep talking about the exercise being asked is if you have 4 separate people making 4 characters of the same class but they aren't talking to each other at all. If you are planning as a party why would everyone focus all on the same stat or skills? All 4 can easily focus on con/dex/wis +1. If one person is going earth they may not want or need dex above +1 for quite some time easy for them to focus on strength. One or 2 on charisma for face skills and actions. The 4th could theoretically go int to cover the some of the int based rk skills and maybe crafting.

Are walls the only method of control? Water's impulse junction is really good for forced movement. Yes timber sentinel is poachable, that doesn't stop it from being really good damage mitigation. Wood and metal both have armor and shields to help with off tanking. Healing isn't the best but serviceable and medicine and the medic archetype are definitely options. An air kineticist makes a great field medic since they can use a 2a impulse and get to move half their speed and still having a free action.

The thing about the Magus is that having the Player Core 1 and Secrets of Magic books don't actually make for that many playable Magi. They pretty much require legacy material from the CRB to function, so you do have a bit of an awkward dilemma for players coming in completely new to the game asking what material is necessary to own in order to build a functional magus.

Archives of Nethys totally works to get around that for most home games, but it takes digging to get to content that works with your spellstrike ability. For cantrips (from player core 1 and Secrets of Magic only) you have Gouging Claw, Ignition, Tangle Vine, and Telekinetic Projectile. Those are usable spells, but you essentially only get 1 not-weapon damage type out of it and you don't even have 5 spells you can cast. If you add in rage of elements, you can get Slashing Gust and Needle Darts, but you are still basically running with no energy damage types that you can use with spell strike, which is what really makes the class work, and what makes arcane cascade work.

What is more awkward about it though is that the old CRB cantrips are unpublishable as ORC content, hence why both the form of the spells (attacking AC) and the names changed so much coming over to Player Core 1. New energy-based AC-targeting cantrips pretty much need to be reinvented from the ground up, and I think there is no certainty that any of the developers want spells that use energy to target AC, as conceptually, the Remaster has gone a long way towards making AC a defense that interacts with physical attacks, with the one exception being fire stuff (ignition and blazing bolt). Non-magus people also generally hate spell attack roll spells because they are not nearly as good for most casters without doing a fair bit to play the debuff AC and then you end up with casters that are pretty much playing the same strategy game as martial characters instead of playing the "target the lowest defense" game that it seems like casters are supposed to be playing in PF2....

It is nowhere near as dire as you are making it sound for Magi. Why would you be willing to use PC 1 and SoM and not DA or G&G? If the GM is willing to let you play a magus there's no reason to then turn around and go I'm only allowing remastered content.

Errenor wrote:

Ectar wrote:

RIP the Elemental Instinct barbarian granting kineticist impulses the rage trait....

I wish the last line of Elemental Rage were changed to "If you have any kineticist impulses with the same element type as the one you chose for your instinct, such as ones gained by taking the Kineticist Dedication multiclass feat, they gain the rage trait while your are raging."

Where? I don't see any changes in Elemental Instinct at all and Elemental Rage already has this text, but without "while your are raging". Why is it worse?

The rage trait prevents it from being used outside of rage.

There was a discussion about that a few months back. I think it's meant to enable impulses while raging, not make them unusable when not raging

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I'm interested in all the class updates, especially oracle and champion which are really a pain to play until they update since their major class features should be heavily modified.

I'm curious how much champion will actually change outside of grouping it's subclasses in holy or unholy buckets and making its application of spirit damage less fiddly

Still hoping for a Champion who can be neither Holy nor Unholy.

Hope is fading faster these days though.

This sort of statement makes me believe that's some of the reason they made the guardian class. For people who want a tank type class without getting tied up in the holy/unholy war

Between DM's forgetting and only around 25ish percent(?) of creatures having RS natively. It generally comes across as people dealing in white room and hypothetical situations as opposed to actual game play

People keep complaining about reactive strike, in all honesty how many melee players have eaten a RS while spellstriking? In 3 years across 3 separate campaigns and I've only ever had it happen once.

So am I the only person who plays with people who's first instinct isn't to charge straight at the enemy? I've only played as a magus since SoM dropped. I've never found cascade particularly difficult to work in

Riddlyn wrote:

Barbarian (fire instinct elemental or dragon) and Oracle flame mystery

This would probably be fun to roleplay. Would the flame curse make it hard to tell friend from foe, especially while raging?

Not really, things are only concealed past 30'. And there are quite a few nifty tricks and combos you can pull off. And persistent fire damage with no save is nice

Barbarian (fire instinct elemental or dragon) and Oracle flame mystery

The only person who said sword and board is the "correct" build is you. No one else has. It's there for those who want to use it. Almost every class has something like this (druid, wizard, Magus....). Now I could sort of see this being an issue if you cost you something, but it doesn't. And for a fighter it absolutely makes sense that they would learn to use a shield as a part of their basic training.

Riddlyn wrote:

Secret Wizard wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Yeah, Barbarians are in a good place over all I wouldn't expect much.

Yeah, I know I've been complaining about them but the class is functional and fun in a lot of ways. With the level of changes I expect in PC2 I'd rather focus be put on the bad classes.

I don't get this approach... classes shouldn't be balanced in comparison to each other, they should be balanced as an experience on its own.

I feel like the Barb not doing what it says on the tin is a problem, even if other classes are worse off.

Ahh you feel like. That's a big part of the issue that Paizo has to look at and think about. Because for quite a few people that feel it's doing what it says on the tin.

I already exposed my arguments here. Feel free to engage them or, alternatively, not respond to my comments.

Basically from a design point you're never going to please everyone. The barbarian really does play as advertised. You take a small defense penalty to do more damage. The -1 isn't as bad people try to make it seem. Especially since it gets a good amount of temp hp to help make up for it. Raging out the gate is a choice. But the feat selection shows that there are certainly other options and choices. I agree that not being able to intimidate while raging is odd but I also acknowledge that raging Intimidation isn't a bad feat because it's several feats rolled into one. The barbarian really doesn't need much work.