Starocious's page

Thanks for all the replies. The consensus appears to be that while it is a fairly underwhelming option and there are many better items available (thanks for all the suggestions) it does not require a hand to be worn and will work just fine for the purposes I described. (Only shooting with it when not wielding my weapon in two hands)

Seems to be a nice, thematic little weapon that will save me from dropping my ranged option after shooting, if at the expensive of a extra gp and a proficiency feat.

Perhaps I should have clarified, my intent was to wield a two handed weapon most of the time, but be able to stop and instead make a single attack (standard action) with a wrist launcher. (Not twf or anything crazy)

I assume the main draw of a heavy wrist launcher is the fact it doesnt occupy the hand and that's what separates it from the hand crossbow which is otherwise identical, barring the wrist launcher's considerably higher price.

(I was intending to rip off the style of guts from beserk, surprising enemies with sudden wrist gadget, albeit with the character still having both hands.)

I take it the wrist launcher works for this purpose? It seems obvious, but the lack of text spelling it out concerns me, so I'd like opinions.

Does a wrist launcher/heavy wrist launcher allow you to have a free hand when not firing it? It doesnt outright say you do, but I can't imagine you wouldn't because, well, its a wrist launcher. Usually these things are explicitly stated in the description though.

Pretty much my conclusion too. Its a shame, because my 1e eldritch "archer" throwing magus was great and I was hoping to convert them to 2e without feeling like I was making suboptimal choices, but optimal isn't everything, right?

Superhero landing!

Ideally a way of making a non-throwing weapon into a throwing weapon would be good, but as far as I know that ability is limited to the lumberjack archetype with 1h axes, level 14 monks with finesse monk weapons, and a couple of dwarf only unique weapons. Even then, with the exception of a level 26 dwarven artifact (which may be able to be thrown with two hands), the best they can do is replicate a trident.

If there was something to incentivize a dual wielding throwing magus that would be perfect, but as it stands there isnt really anything to incentivize a dual wielding melee magus at this point either. Its more odd that they skipped that when making the hybrid studies than anything else. Arcane cascade only working for melee strikes is extra salt in the wound. If only they had written "melee and thrown weapon strikes", that little boost would have helped.

I dont remember, were the hybrid studies or arcane cascade part of the playtest?

I'd most certainly NOT build a rogue with a summoner archetype in PFS expecting the Eidolon to be able to sneak attack or a monk expecting to be able to flurry.

Monk being able to flurry while melded is out of the question. Flurry is an action that as an eidolon you cant use. The same as every other action you have prior to melding that are restricted. (Except dismiss eidolon)

The discussion is around passive effects and conditions that persist through melding. Just popped in to clarify that so people dont get confused.

The summoner isn't piloting the Eidolon like piloting a mech suit. They're Eddie Brock along for the ride as Venom goes on a rampage, with the minor additional control of being able to tell Venom to bugger off.

You become the Eidolon is effectively you are replaced by the Eidolon.

You stating your opinions that disregard the rules text and every explanation based on the text is getting old.

Gortle and I are refuting with rules text from the feat itself stating exactly how it works. You are objecting based on nothing but belief on how you think it should work, not what the feat actually does.

Again, a redhead that becomes a doctor does not cease being a readhead, the readhead is not "effectively replaced" by a doctor. The feat does nothing to transpose you into a pocket dimension or do anything fancy like that. It specifically says you combine and you use the statistics of the eidolon. Nothing more.

Functionally your summoner ceases to exist. It limits your capabilities because all that's left is your Eidolon.

Except as detailed in the feat, that is clearly not the case.

Sorry i didnt reply to your earlier question by the way. To answer you, while you are "combined with your eidolon" the line of effect would be from your form as normal, in this case being your combined form. If you didnt exist (or were in some kind of an extradimensional hideaway) you would have no line of effect.

With meld into eidolon you go from 2 choices

A) summoner with no eidolon

B) summoner with eidolon

To three

C) eidolon with no summoner

And honestly, I still think they couldn't have been more clear explaining the feat.

That is not at all based on the rules and entirely based on you imposing your own ideas onto what the designers wrote.

The first line of the feat states:

"Your physical form can combine with that of your eidolon, granting benefits but limiting your capabilities."

It doesnt say you cease to exist or are replaced. It says you combine with the eidolon. It then says it limits your capabilities, not removes them entirely, then lists the exact ways it limits your capabilities, including causing you to use your eidolon's statistics and preventing you from acting. The feat does exactly what it says. I understand people will generally only post here if they disagree with the conclusion at this point, but I dont understand how there are people genuinely coming up with the idea that the feat does any more or less than it says it does.

I ironically agree that they couldn't have been more clear explaining the feat. They listed exactly what it does. You combine, you merge, you meld, you dont get replaced by your eidolon, you simply cant act (except to direct it to use Manifest an Eidolon to unmanifest it) and in addition you cant be targeted separately.

I get the impression a few people glanced at the feat without fully taking in what it says and got the wrong first impression (that it somehow removes the summoner entirely) and its completely new content so that's to be expected, but the feat's text simply doesn't support that assumption.

Its worth noting that as written, while you cant be targeted separately, you absolutely can both be affected by the same environmental effects at the same time, meaning walking into lava/fire can be quite bad as both are affected. If it helps, you should think of the feat less as being replaced by your familiar and more of a Marvel Comics Venom Symbiote situation.

For what its worth, im grateful for the responses in this thread and happy to find out more about the strengths of the summoner class and where they shine. I fully understand peoples frustration that the class doesn't achieve summoning superiority through the use of the conventional summoning spells, but im surprised to see so much of the discussion devolving into inflammatory comments.

Sneak attack requires you to act (to make a Strike).

Abilities that do not require you to act and that do not change your stats should work IMO.

Good point on sneak attack, I edited that one into the post on the 59th minute of the post being up so it was a bit of a rushed thought.

Also im aware you cant act to activate a stance or spell AFTER becoming an eidolon and that the list of stances and spells that dont affect only your statistics or provide you with actions is very limited. Might be fun trying to find them though for this purpose.

What? First edition Summoner was somehow worse at summoning, despite getting a sizable pool of silent, stilled minute-per-level standard action summons? Nothing will be good enough for you if that wasn't good enough.

Yes quidest, a few 1e archetypes gave the same action economy summoning as a summoner, with extended duration and also retained their full 9th level spellcasting progression, meaning they were both more powerful and more flexible than the summoner. (Because 9th level casting is amazing for everything)

Anyway, thanks everyone for the responses. I had assumed when the 2e summoner arrived it would bring summons up to being a little more viable and thought i must have missed something when looking over the nethys site.

As a related question, as I'm attempting to build a character that controls multiple beasts, is there anything preventing a summoner from having both an eidolon and an animal companion? And is there any drawback to using both at the same time?

What makes the summoner better at summoning than a wizard using summoning spells?

I know 1e had the issue that the summoner was generally inferior to many archetypes of full casters when it came to summoning, so does 2e fix this and if so, how?

The whole point of this thread was to think of overpowered ways to exploit a known bug in the game to their benefit.

Excuse me sir, the point of "this thread" (assuming you meant this thread we're in) was to find out if it had been flagged for errata because it seemed poorly written. I mean, I still agree completely that obviously broken things shouldn't be exploited just because they haven't released the errata yet, but I felt I had to clarify that.

Very rarely stuff is flagged for errata that I dont agree should be, (such as sixth pillar mastery, because i believe the feat investment combined with the limited usefulness to most characters offsets the benefits enough) but the horse support text is not one of them. They need to fix that crap otherwise horses will become every blaster's "must have" accessory.

I still wonder if they intended a character to receive the benefit only when mounted, or if the benefit can be gained at any time; as is the case for all the other animal companion support abilities.

I dont like the idea of errata/changing the spells retroactively or them adding new forms that may or may not fit what a player wants. I still think adding feats that allow a player to augment lower level forms to fit their wants and help the forms keep up a little with newer forms is the best option. That level of customisation is pretty much guaranteed to allow players to fill any fantasy niches they want for their "favored forms". The fact that the options would require a feat prevents power creep from the versatility being baked-in already and the level prerequisites are again a perfect balancing tool to prevent martial classes from finding cheesy ways of getting stronger.

Having form augmenting druid feats like 1e's planar wild shape and energized wild shape, provided they had a 10+ level prerequisite and only affected the lower level forms would be great. (The feats specific effects would need to be toned down for 2e balancing too. But thats no trouble.) Having similar feats for "dire" modifications would work too, of course.

That said im obviously not opposed to things like "fey form", "ooze form" or "outsider form" being added, as they wouldnt be based on existing forms.

Reflavor a sprite. They are tiny!

Starocious wrote:

Boggles the mind that theres a reasonable number of people adamant that pathfinder should never add such things or build on polymorphing beyond what we have already.

I just want to see Paizo actually clarify how wild shape works first. Ie, resolve all the "But does Battle form work with X" questions.

I see this as an absolutely necessary first step BEFORE Paizo can start to add options. How can they possibly balance whatever they produce when there is such a wide range in power in Battle Shapes depending on how the GM thinks things should work.

Note - I have NO problem with a GM making adjustments/House rules for their game. But they should get to start from a clear reasonably balanced base point.

Agreed, when paizo start clarifying their rules and getting everyone on the same page it will benefit everyone.

So much of the glaring ambiguity for things like this has been in a state of "paizo will surely clear this up very soon" for the last two years. Let's hope they get around to it soon!

Meanwhile I've taken to thinking about all the things they could do and things I'd like to see added.

Really, still not answered? Well I'll be damned.

Quote:

i feel a "use your own ac if it's higher" feat wouldn't put casters above martials, given martials have higher ac.

This is a common misconception. Most martials have better AC than casters at level 19 and 20. And that's it. For 90% of the game, a caster has the same AC as a martial.

Except for champion and monk. And even accounting fir martials and casters having the same AC, then a "use your own ac if its higher" feat would benefit everyone equally

I haven't checked the math myself, but there was a post on reddit some time ago. It basically said that a fighter with Wildshape via druid Archetype is among the top damage builds in the game. And that is with the very limited access to wildshape feats of the druid dedication. If that post was correct, having a fighter with access the higher level wildshape feats would most likely break the game.

Adding such an Archetype to something like a monk also seems like it has serious potential to break stuff.

All "damage builds" are about equal due to the tight maths of this edition and a fighter with druid archetype is not the absolute best by any means. You're only focusing on damage too, not factoring in the associated AC liabilities of shifting, which is one of the things it'd be cool to see support for. By honing in on just these two things i mentioned i think youre missing the vast majority of points from my last post. Im not saying they need to be more powerful, im talking about rounding out their drawbacks through significant investment and adding cool utility, themes and fun to the builds.

People here have some paranoia that everyone is a dpr junkie looking to power creep and want bigger more powerful stuff. I just want to see more variety and get hyped about the possibilities of what they can do with the game going forward. Letting my druid continue to slap enemies with his frog tongue without instagibbing every time he's tickled sounds nice too. If he gets to have devil horns or be on fire while he's at it even better! That's the kind of stuff that makes a character fun, invalidating that image because the frog form AC isnt viable past 5th spell level just isnt fun, so why wouldn't they want to add support for that?

When do you think we are likely to see more support for battleforms, such as spellcasting during or having scaling AC / using own AC / "wild" runes?

So many times I think about playing a druid but for the character fantasy I'd want to stick to only a handful of forms (preferably the ones i get early on), which unfortunately is a very bad choice due to 2e crit system and "outgrowing" the form's AC at higher levels. I'm amazed they couldnt figure out a way with heightening (+1) to keep all battleforms relevant for damage and AC as the character levels. That seems like it should have been a no-brainer.

In 1e ultimate wilderness and publications around that time introduced a fair bit of support for wild shaping, including the shifter class which, while not the best designed class, seemed like something that should have been in the game from the start. Those books hit right at the end of 1e. Are we likely to be waiting until a similar point in this editions lifespan for this kind of stuff?

I know there's probably no way to know for sure, but im interested in peoples thoughts on this.

Thanks to those that discussed and linked relevant feats that helped shed light on how the game works. I'm content with the answers provided.

Less thankful to those unironically suggesting I'm a troll for hoping to find rules that answer my questions, but thats to be expected I suppose.

Calling the rogue dedication a "dead feat" is ridiculous. Its a dedication feat. It is supposed to serve as a gateway to all the rogue goodies. The fact that it gives you light armor proficiency at all is a generous extra that singularly helps clothy ac issues assuming you arent choosing to avoid raising dex (deliberately gimping yourself). Compared to most of the other dedication feats that offer significantly less useful perks with their class feat access it is already fantastic.

The main incentive for taking it should be the rogue feats. If the player isnt interested in taking the rogue feats then they shouldn't take the dedication at all. If their main incentive is armor proficiency and non-dexterity defense then they can choose the champion or sentinel dedication. The take away here is that the rogue dedication is supposed to make you more like a rogue, nothing more. Imagine taking the archetype designed to make you more like a rogue then getting upset when it isnt designed to make you tanky and instead encourages you to continue increasing dexterity...

As the GM, rule whatever you like, make up your own rules if you dont like the design choices behind the existing feats. Hell, if you dont like the idea casters are designed to have less ac than martial characters then nothing is stopping you from going so far as to remove ac disparity completely and use flat rolls. Should you? Obviously not, because the ac disparity exists to reinforce class balance and fantasy tropes, but I'm emphasising you can do what you like, so long as your players are having fun.

Also please stop spelling it "prophiciency".

I don't mind it not having scaling, for the classes that benefit from the light armor proficiency (clothy casters) most of the time you'd take the archetype asap at 2nd level (when you need it to help out your defenses). By the time your unarmored proficiency improves at 13th level, you've had two more ability increases to improve dexterity, meaning it should be at 18-19 and you should be starting to consider explorer's clothing anyway. (By 15th you could then have 20dex, meaning you'd have outgrown light armor)

I cant imagine any clothy taking sentinel if rogue gave just as good of a boost, but perhaps that speaks more to the nature of sentinel than the rogue archetype.

I think we need to sponsor folk with a forever GM. Even without these "issues" it must suck to be always needing a new group to play with.

Thats only one scenario, sometimes forever GMs have less than excellent judgement and are straight up bad at making game design and balance calls and absolutely do benefit from having written rules. Perhaps its a side-effect of misconceptions from previous systems that they've GMd for years or complacency for having "always played it this way", leading them to lose sight of what's fair in newer systems and unintentionally having their compromised judgement affect the enjoyment of the game. These people wouldn't be doing it deliberately, and from the experience ive had with a GM like this the guy was actually one of the nicest most enthusiastic ttrpg'er that ive ever met.

Its also beneficial to have written rules simply because the type of people that can find the GM role appealing are sometimes (in minority!) those seeking an environment in which they feel in control and assert control, maybe to compensate for other issues that may also cause them to be more dominant or provocative/contrary, like feeling a lack of control/importance irl. These GMs are ironically sometimes those with the worst judgement that benefit the most from being shown the rules in black and white because they'll rarely be convinced by trifling matters like logic, fairness or fun once they've made their kneejerk decision. Again, they're probably not bad people or doing it consciously/deliberately, but I believe ive met at least one of this kind of forever GM.

Lets face it the role of forever GM requires a certain kind of stubbornness regardless of what kind of GM they are and that can lead even good GMs to double down on less than perfect initial judgement calls. GMs should not have to make game design judgement calls like those found dotted around pf2e, they have enough to worry about already. As much as we'd like to assume all GMs are paragons of game judgement, balancing and fun, we all know they're not so quirk-free, and every GM absolutely should have clear and comprehensive rules to fall back on so they dont have to risk unintentionally gimping character concepts or player enjoyment.

I think the thing to take away is that no GM is ever hampered by clear, concise written rules, and having them is a singularly positive thing. They wholly benefit less experienced GMs/those with poor judgement, whereas the more experienced GMs will know to use them as reference should they wish to houserule/homebrew modifications to them, something they absolutely know they should run past their players to avoid compromising enjoyment.

In regard to it sucking not having a permanent forever GM, from experience having moved house a fair bit its a mixed bag. While it may cause gaps in gaming while you get set up in a new area, you do get to meet new people and get to know them, so that's nice.

If I have say 4 claws all with grab and I hit on my first attack and succeed at the grab combat maneuver do I get my remaining attacks?

Yes.

Also, you should know its a free action to release a grapple you initiated and free actions can be taken between attacks, meaning you can grab and constrict then release, then repeat on your following attacks.

A GM is within their right to limit the number of times a turn you do this if it gets excessive, as per the free action rules.

Alright, if we have to ignore all of the dazzling stupidity with ability interactions this dumb reading causes, and bringing it back down to the matter at hand:

"If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it."

Doesnt trying to threaten and get attacks of opportunity with it count as trying to hit people with it? Why does it have to be attacking with it on your turn?

I cant see anything in what he said state that. So wouldnt canny defense work even if you spend your standard action doing something else, provided you'd try to hit something that might run past you with the weapon, for example?

Near as I can tell, threatening to attack the area around you is a correct, intended use of a weapon as a weapon.

Not to mention what you quoted there pertains to holding the weapon in a manner not meant for combat, "just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it." so it doesnt justify trying to warp the Defending magic item FAQ into a definition of wielding at all.

Claiming the definition of wielding is anything other than "held in your hands and able to make attacks with it" causes so many different feats and abilities to become unusable and clunky that it isn't worth considering. Especially when the only thing you have to base that interpretation on pertains exclusively to a specific magic item property's FAQ that not once mentions the term "wielding".