Tectorman's page

I think this is partly Paizo painting themselves in a corner. Their initial roster of ancestries came out with so little in the base package (everything else relegated to feats) that now it seems unbalanced for these ancestries to come out with everything they need to even feel like they represent what they should.

The other part is Large size probably being more drawback than benefit (and I am very grateful that there are varieties for both the minotaur and the centaur that nope out of all that headache), and a few unnecessary traits (darkvision on the centaur and perhaps the minotaur, too).

I would have said that choosing what is your banner as part of your daily preparations would have made the most sense, but Unicore's point about a destroyed banner making the Commander potentially useless for the rest of the day is a good point. So maybe 10 minutes to make make a replacement while everyone is refocusing/medicine checking? To me that feels like a decent balance between barely an inconvenience and devasting if your flag is destroyed. Maybe even reduce it to a 3-cost action if your really worried about it making the Commander useless.

Personally, I'd start with the 10 minute replacement period at low levels, so losing a banner hampers for the rest of that fight, but doesn't hamper you for the rest of the day. Then, as you get higher level (with potentially more class feats depending on the banner), I'd introduce an option to replace the banner more quickly (getting rid of the morale penalty and letting you go back to using the rest of your banner feats).

Maybe include some kind of check to deceive your allies that that rag the enemy stole was never the true banner and you, clever commander that you are, secured the real one the whole time!

From my cursory reading, it seems like the intention behind the Banner is that a given Commander will only be using one at a time. He trains with his squadmates using one specific banner during prep time, and then in actual combat, that banner is what all of his abilities key off of.

But are you actually limited to one? What's stopping you from making four or five of the things and strapping one to your back? Putting another one on your shield? And another on your sword? And another on a pole specifically for planting in the ground? And another on your horse?

I guess I'm wondering if there needs to be language specifying what happens if you use more than one. OR, language specifying why only one banner is THE banner in use at a time, even if you have others ready to go.

While we are talking about this I'd mention that in remaster you now can cast low-rank spells from higher-rank slots spontaneously, just without getting any Heightened benefits, at the base rank.

YuriP wrote:

ironize some topic

Does this ^^^ count as goldinizing the topic?

Wait, they finally clarified that? They freaking finally answered that question?

Tectorman wrote:

As this seems like the most pertinent thread (and it's still less than a month old), I'll just necro it a tad instead of starting a new one.

1) My general understanding of pre-remaster shields was that Sturdy Shields are good for blocking and basically every other kind of shield should just never be used to block, or at best, they have a finite window of levels where they can effectively block before the number treadmill leaves them behind. If I'm understanding correctly, these new reinforcing runes can take any shield whatsoever and bolster its blocking stats to a max of what an equivalent level Sturdy Shield could provide. Some (probably most?) shields won't reach that cap, but they do stay some modicum of level-appropriate throughout the character's entire 1-20 career.

Is that about right?

2) Armor and weapon fundamental runes are made an automatic part of the character's stats under the Automatic Bonus Progression rules. Are these reinforcing runes meant to now be a part of that as well? Are they already (and I missed where it was added)?

1.) Pretty much

2.) ABP removes "all potency runes, striking runes, and resilient runes." It does not remove the reinforcing runes used by shields, nor does it provide an automatic shield scaling factor.

1) Ok, thanks!

2) So it didn't get added in some errata somewhere. Ok.

So (not just directed at Ectar here), what's the consensus on whether they should have been? I mean, ABP just lets your pertinent stats keep up with the game math without the legwork of you finding the relevant Magic Items of Game Math Correcting. Wouldn't the reinforcing runes fit the bill, too?

As this seems like the most pertinent thread (and it's still less than a month old), I'll just necro it a tad instead of starting a new one.

1) My general understanding of pre-remaster shields was that Sturdy Shields are good for blocking and basically every other kind of shield should just never be used to block, or at best, they have a finite window of levels where they can effectively block before the number treadmill leaves them behind. If I'm understanding correctly, these new reinforcing runes can take any shield whatsoever and bolster its blocking stats to a max of what an equivalent level Sturdy Shield could provide. Some (probably most?) shields won't reach that cap, but they do stay some modicum of level-appropriate throughout the character's entire 1-20 career.

Is that about right?

2) Armor and weapon fundamental runes are made an automatic part of the character's stats under the Automatic Bonus Progression rules. Are these reinforcing runes meant to now be a part of that as well? Are they already (and I missed where it was added)?

As a side note, I feel if one really does want to play an omni-mage who can cast any spell under the sun, it would probably be quite easy to homebrew exactly that kind of class in 2e, particularly with the upcoming changes to spell proficiencies in the remaster. The end result would likely not be able to feel terribly powerful or interesting while still being balanced, but it's certainly a class that one can create if the need is really so great.

I feel like we could already accomplish this in a pinch. Take a Wizard and use a multiclass dedication to expand his spells and options. Or have dual-classing be how the "omniwizard" of old is expressed in the game.

The real problem would be marketing. Getting players used to the idea that a caster having their magic defined only as "anything not healing" isn't meant to be a baseline expectation.

Tectorman wrote:

But in P2E, a spontaneous spellcaster in that same situation (needs to use a low-level (or I guess, low-rank) spell, knows said spell (but not as a signature spell), doesn't have spell slots of that spell's rank but does have higher rank slots available) is just SoL.

This is a misunderstanding of the spell slot rules. You can always use a higher level slot to cast a lower level spell, you just can't heighten that spell unless you know it at the correct level or it's a signature spell.

I can cast a fireball with a 5th level spell slot if I have no 3rd level slots left, it's just going to deal the base 6d6 damage, not the 10d6 it would deal if I had heightened it to 5th level.

Quote:

Or is this a non-issue because the Remaster gave spontaneous spellcasters the freedom to power their spells with whatever slots met the minimum criteria that they used to enjoy?

This doesn't come from the remaster, it's how the rules have always worked.

Can you quote where they say exactly that? And I mean both "exactly" and "unambiguously", because I know we've asked for clarification on this exact issue (spelling out exactly where the language in previous editions allowed for "any spell cast with any spell slot of at least that spell's level" and why P2E's language doesn't lead to the same conclusion) almost since P2E started and we've gotten bupkiss all this time.

So, the playtest for the Animist says that your Apparition spells will all be considered Signature spells. That's discouraging to say the least, as it makes an outright distinction between their spontaneous spellcasting and regular mortal spontaneous spellcasting, implying that the Remaster will leave spontaneous spellcasters with their existing "only some spells can use whatever spell slots you have, rather than only their specific rank".

Granted, there's still room for the Remaster to allow regular mortal spontaneous spellcasters to trade down higher rank slots for lower rank slots (thus letting you still cast lower rank spells with slots higher than their specific rank but without being Heightened). But it's looking more likely that Starfinder 2E will either be letting their spontaneous spellcasters be as fully spontaneous as before (and that will just be a difference between P2E and S2E), or that spontaneous spellcasters in Starfinder will be losing some of their flexibility.

Welp, time to break out the kazoo again: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tm_WYRkZvYk

So do we know what they'll be doing regarding spontaneous spellcasters in the upcoming edition?

In Starfinder 1E (and P1E, 3rd, 3.5, and 5E), a spontaneous spellcaster can cast any spell he knows, as long as he has a spell slot of at least that spell's level. Usually this would mean, say, a first-level spell slot spent for a first-level spell, but even if, for whatever reason, he were out of first-level spell slots but still had higher level slots available, he could use those slots to power his lower level spell. It might be slightly inefficient, but oh well, no big deal.

But in P2E, a spontaneous spellcaster in that same situation (needs to use a low-level (or I guess, low-rank) spell, knows said spell (but not as a signature spell), doesn't have spell slots of that spell's rank but does have higher rank slots available) is just SoL.

So what do we think will be happening to spontaneous spellcasters in Starfinder 2E? Do they become less spontaneous too? Do they keep the freedom to power spells with any spell slot of at least that spell's rank (and Starfinder will just be incompatible with P2E in that specific regard)? Or is this a non-issue because the Remaster gave spontaneous spellcasters the freedom to power their spells with whatever slots met the minimum criteria that they used to enjoy?

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm so happy to have alignment gone.

For my thoughts on alignment, I quote another movie: "Nuke the entire site alignment from orbit--it's the only way to be sure"

1. Purge it with fire and brimstone.

Nothing less than Total Existence Failure will do.

Outside of PFS if a GM would not let you play a Centaur cause they’re Uncommon they probably weren’t going to let you play a Centaur even without Rarity.

"Probably" still leaves room open for GMs who would otherwise be perfectly fine with allowing uncommon or rare ancestries deciding not to allow it because of the rarity. I'm glad for all the players not fussed over this. For some of us, it's still a roadblock that takes away from fully enjoying the game.

I see a lot of potential for this book for things I'd like to play, but I'm worried about all the pitfalls that can so easily crop up.

5E Centaurs solved the whole "Large size means more people can be in base-to-base melee contact" by just not having them be Large size. And while yes, Centaurs should be big, the addition of more people being able to surround them strikes me as more "artifact of the game system" than "an inherent thing that would happen even in "theater of the mind". But then they screwed that up by making them Fey. Easily-spotted pitfall, yet still fallen into.

I'm concerned that there may be too much emphasis on merfolk overcoming their inherent aquatic natures through mechanical/external aids. I'm glad they're there for the players that want to express that fantasy, but I'll feel better if we get word that players could also overcome these through feats or alternative traits (my favorite merfolk race in P1E was the one from the Jon Brazer Enterprises Book of Heroic Races Compendium).

But my major concern is that I have no confidence at all that any character I might imagine from one of these ancestries would ever see the light of day due to the whole ancestry rarity thing. I don't think Paizo realized the pressure that introduced.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Tarrasque is based on a French monster

Actually, It'd be kind of cool to get a Tarrasque based off that one: a lion-like head, a body protected by turtle-like carapace(s), six feet with bear-like claws, and a scaly tail like a serpent's tail that was long and ringed and looked considerably like that of the scorpion, and issued poison breath. "A huge dragon, half animal, half fish... fatter than a bull, longer than a horse, it had the face and head of a lion, teeth sharp as swords, the mane of a horse, a back that was hatchet-sharp with bristly scales keen as augers, six feet with bear-like claws, the tail of a serpent, and a double shield/carapace, like a tortoise's, on each side."

So, Aang learned Spirit-Bending from a Tarrasque?

QuidEst wrote:

YuriP wrote:

It makes me wonder now that. Maybe, just maybe, isn't the designers also considering reworking the prepared and spontaneous spellcasters? Like, for example, ending Vancian Spellcasting? This would justify a little why the spontaneous spellcasters are thrown to the 2nd book (to be better worked on, as it should be with the Champion if the vancian spellcasting really will be gone once this would make the casters mechanics more closer and will require some more work to make then more unique).

Ps.: Now that Paizo is reviewing everything, I would be very happy if they made some alternative rules for Spell Points.

We know for sure that they aren't drastically altering the way casting works, like getting rid of Vancian casting. That's a bigger change than alignment, and alignment is the biggest change. The class count for the first book needed to decrease by four. Maybe Sorcerer and Barbarian got moved because they rely on dragon changes being finalized.

Getting rid of Vancian casting isn't that hard. It's basically make Flexible Spellcaster as default rules. It's a thing that affects only prepared casters not the entire spellcasting system. It's even compared to the work they will need to do with the removal of alignments.

I'm not so sure that this can't happen once they addressing many complains of the community and Vancian casting is one of the biggest.

Eh, for me, Spontaneous spellcasters have more of a Vancian feel in 2E than they did in any prior edition that I'm familiar with (3.5, 5E, P1E, SF). Previously, if you knew the spell and had a slot of at least sufficient power to cast it, you cast it. Easy-peasy.

Now, you need a slot of exactly the power of the spell, no deviation at all, and you only get around that by memorizing the spell multiple times or as a signature spell. So now, we have the potential situation where a 20th level Sorcerer is falling to his death, and if he knows Feather Fall (but only as a 1st level spell) and he's out of 1st level slots (for whatever reason), then his choices are either sacrificing a Wish to replicate a Feather Fall, or go splat.

I would love for Spontaneous spellcasters to be able to get away from that.

So this book, advertised as a core rulebook and including revised class options from the Core Rulebook, will also feature eight ancestries, none of which were Common rarity before. Are they going to be Common rarity now? Is Paizo doing away with rarity-based gating for ancestries?

Or are players going to read those options at the back of the book, get excited about playing a catfolk or a hobgoblin or a kobold (just like their fellow players excited for an elf or a dwarf or a gnome), only to find that they still need to negotiate, bribe, catch-the-GM-on-a-good-day, etc., when their fellow player can just pick elf or dwarf and legitimately not expect to have to defend that choice?

No more alignment? At long freaking last!!! Huzzah and hurray!!! Finally, it's being taken out behind the woodshed and given the "Old Yeller" treatment it deserves!

And hey, even if they don't fully pull the trigger on nixing the hateful thing, it's still a step in the right direction. Much kudos and accolades to whoever is responsible for this.

Seriously, put in a page saying "No more alignment!", get whoever the person or team responsible to sign the page, and release it as a special edition. You will make millions. It will dwarf the selling of months worth of materials in a matter of weeks.

...

One thing I'm wondering is whether the additional ancestries in the two Player Core books will stay uncommon or worse, or if Paizo will be nixing that with this new updated format. As in, will players who bought Player Core 2 (or even Player Core 1, since it has two more ancestries than 2E started with) with the reasonable expectation that they can play as the things advertised on the back of the book? And I mean without needing to negotiate, bribe, cajole, catch the GM on a good day, etc (at least no more needing to negotiate for a catfolk or an orc than an elf or a human).

Apparently I didn't make it clear, but the idea is that the runewords last until your next daily prep and you don't expend them when you activate them. When you write your runewords for the day you are selecting which magical effects you have and where they will come from, similar to a prepared caster working with cantrips.

So, the 3.5 Binder? He summons and binds his vestiges at the beginning of the day, and he can only bind so many at a time, but while they're bound, the abilities they grant him are mostly inexhaustible (a few have per-day abilities, others had 5-round recharge times, but most were "you do this all day long").

Like that, but with rune-based fluff?

I always feel like superhero shows like this would work so much better if the writers team consisted of at least 1 actual comic book writer, 1 gamer, and 1 five year old. The 5 year old will find any plot loophole the others overlook.

Evil Overlord Rule #12: One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation.

http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

Lore does not state what a class does.

There were already Priests in PF1 that were not Clerics, and PF2 NPCs have titles that have little to do with existing classes.

A spear fighter does not have to be a Swashbuckler. Just ask all the Barbarians, Champions and Fighters who already fight with polearms.

But lore and mechanics do go hand in hand on the broader level. If a game has a game mechanic, especially one gated behind worshipping one of the setting's deities, then it exists in some form in the world's lore. In like and equal fashion, something existing in the world's lore may not have its corresponding mechanics under the same name or format, but it exists* in some way (those P1E Priests weren't Clerics but they were SOMETHING; they didn't just exist in the game as uninteractable collections of "hp error 404 not found").

*

All of this to dispute the notion that "flashy polearm warrior" isn't a concept that needs to be expressed or even exist.

You even agree with me when you suggest that fans of the concept should just settle for Barbarians, Champions, and Fighters, which is not the same thing as saying "you shouldn't even look for a means to express that concept and just have your polearm warrior be not-flashy like God intended".

And yes, that is technically true. And it's just as true to say that players who want a Barbarian should have just settled for Fighter. That players who wanted a Champion should have just settled for a Fighter with a Cleric dedication.

Happily, they didn't get invalidated. We're not all so lucky.

Tectorman wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

For me the thing is, can you think of any characters in media or fiction who can be best described as "investigators" or "swashbucklers" for which wielding a enormous axe or a polearm would not seem weird?

Like the investigator thematically isn't going to want a weapon that's going to draw attention to them, and the swashbuckler isn't going to want a weapon that negatively impacts their ability to move around.

The Bladed Brush feat from P1E let you apply Weapon Finesse to a polearm. I would submit that any character conceived in that manner (that is, to be the graceful dancing warrior whipping their glaive or other polearm around just as much as they let themselves be whipped around by it) is such a swashbuckler.

I would be extremely wary of allowing a PF1 feat in PF2. They are totally different rules system.

I brought up the P1E feat as an example of that design space (a swashbuckler with a polearm) having already been expressed in this world. Of course the P2E expression of that concept would be different, so long as the concept itself still gets to be expressed.

For me the thing is, can you think of any characters in media or fiction who can be best described as "investigators" or "swashbucklers" for which wielding a enormous axe or a polearm would not seem weird?

Like the investigator thematically isn't going to want a weapon that's going to draw attention to them, and the swashbuckler isn't going to want a weapon that negatively impacts their ability to move around.

The Bladed Brush feat from P1E let you apply Weapon Finesse to a polearm. I would submit that any character conceived in that manner (that is, to be the graceful dancing warrior whipping their glaive or other polearm around just as much as they let themselves be whipped around by it) is such a swashbuckler.

Tectorman wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

I don't see the problem. You could say the same thing about the barbarian. They only get strength and are discouraged from using agile weapons. Is that too restricting? They don't get dex as a key ability. Barbarian is a strength class, as swashbuckler is a dex class. If you want strength, play something else.

Barbarians are still allowed to use those weapons and still get the bonuses. In addition, a DEX option for them *would* be nice. Plus, there's nothing about "Flashy Warrior" that has DEX > STR in the concept whatosever. In fact, the most prominent real-world "Flashy Warriors" would be STR specialists, being professional wrestlers.

It's not about whether someone wants to play a STR class or a DEX class. If that's your approach, you're totally in the wrong mindset when it comes to a class built around encouraging a specific play pattern like the Swashbuckler.

It's about someone who wants to play a character concept using the mechanics that best support that concept, but isn't allowed to because they happen to use a Trident instead of a Rapier.

This right here has been my lament on the Rogue since 3.5/P1E. Deciding to play "the skillsy guy" should not auto-equate to "wants to use finesse/agile/light weapons". And in 3.5 and P1E, it didn't (the Rogue started out with more specific weapon proficiencies, but anything else was a feat or a multiclass away). But 4E decided to make them be contingent on each other. And 5E just had to follow suit, Starfinder had to do the same thing to the Operative, and P2E is now doing the same thing to the Rogue and later the Investigator.

Yeah, I had the same issue with Rogue before they introduced Ruffian after the initial playtest, and even then Ruffian doesn't do a very good job. Just because it's the common trope doesn't mean it should be the only trope it supports. It'd be like making every Bard that awful horny stereotype.

Oh, tell me about it. Best P1E archetype for the Bard was the Archaeologist for almost completely excising any dependency on music or performance. And the only way I could stand to play my last Bard (in 5E, where you're either pulling random junk out of a spell component pouch or you have a musical instrument) was by using a flute, except really as a flute-shaped wand that she never played as an instrument. And while I'm aware that the P2E Bard CAN be played as non-musical/non-performing, I don't think enough was done to dampen the expectation.

...

Or did you mean something else when you said "horny"?

aobst128 wrote:

I don't see the problem. You could say the same thing about the barbarian. They only get strength and are discouraged from using agile weapons. Is that too restricting? They don't get dex as a key ability. Barbarian is a strength class, as swashbuckler is a dex class. If you want strength, play something else.

Barbarians are still allowed to use those weapons and still get the bonuses. In addition, a DEX option for them *would* be nice. Plus, there's nothing about "Flashy Warrior" that has DEX > STR in the concept whatosever. In fact, the most prominent real-world "Flashy Warriors" would be STR specialists, being professional wrestlers.

It's not about whether someone wants to play a STR class or a DEX class. If that's your approach, you're totally in the wrong mindset when it comes to a class built around encouraging a specific play pattern like the Swashbuckler.

It's about someone who wants to play a character concept using the mechanics that best support that concept, but isn't allowed to because they happen to use a Trident instead of a Rapier.

This right here has been my lament on the Rogue since 3.5/P1E. Deciding to play "the skillsy guy" should not auto-equate to "wants to use finesse/agile/light weapons". And in 3.5 and P1E, it didn't (the Rogue started out with more specific weapon proficiencies, but anything else was a feat or a multiclass away). But 4E decided to make them be contingent on each other. And 5E just had to follow suit, Starfinder had to do the same thing to the Operative, and P2E is now doing the same thing to the Rogue and later the Investigator.

Just makes me wish they had gone with the 5E casting paradigm for PF2. Makes everything so much easier.

We're halfway there with prep casters and flex casting, just no such love for spontaneous casters (yet; unless we're already there too, in which case, it'd be damned nice to KNOW).

I don't think there is any need for clarification. The Core Rulebook does not specify that you can do this, so you can't. The fact that it was possible in an older edition of the game has no bearing on the issue.

Not just an older edition of the game, but almost all of them in recent memory (3rd, 3.5, P1E, Starfinder, and 5E), but that's beside the point. It's allowed or not allowed based on hyper-specific parsings of such phrases as "a slot of AN appropriate level" (rather than "of THE appropriate level"). Also, some spells gain no benefit from being heightened other than being more difficult to counteract and so forth. BUT, a spell is heightened based on the spell slot used to fuel it, rather than what level you know it at. So either there needs to be such language as "you can lower a higher spell slot for a lower level slot, which you can then use for your lower level spell", or it becomes possible to circumvent your cap on signature spells known (but this only becomes apparent via a roundabout reading of the rules). And a clear rule wouldn't need this much interpretation to figure out how it's supposed to go, in either direction.

So I disagree that this didn't need clarification; especially since I and others were asking about this since Day One.

Also we have this, which might (but, granted, due to not being specific enough, might not) be asking the same question that Jason Bulmahn is answering in the affirmative (with a very short answer that doesn't ensure that his response to that question is applicable to this one, even though it might be). Hence why I asked about an UNambiguous clarification.

But thanks everyone for letting me know. I asked because of this thread, where it was suggested that Dark Archives might be an opportunity to refine/clarify Recall Knowledge. I was initially going to lament that Paizo had such an opportunity with SoM and passed on it, but I knew I didn't know for sure whether SoM had clarified if you could spend a higher level slot on a non-signature lower level spell. And now I do, even though I remain disappointed that this hasn't been addressed yet, years later (unambiguously anyway, wish though I do that we could just go with Jason's reddit post).

I've skimmed Secrets of Magic, but I haven't had the chance to read through it in-depth. Did this book include a clear, unambiguous answer as to whether you can use a higher-level spell slot for a lower-level spell when you're casting spontaneously? And I don't mean heightening spells or signature spells; I'm talking about being in the situation where you need to use a low-level spell (say, 1st-level Feather Fall) that you DON'T know as a signature spell and you are (for whatever reason) out of 1st-level slots and you still have plenty of higher level slots.

Tectorman wrote:

lemeres wrote:

In fact, there was a highly effective dip you could do with the archaeologist that got rid of music entirely for a less narratively significant 'luck'. I could stretch that for every fight in a day from level 1, giving enough melee bonuses to make up for being 3/4 while having a fantastic saves. I could then easily switch into any martial class without any kinks in his 'career path'.

Almost. All Bards (and unfortunately, the Archaeologist too, since the archetype doesn't specify otherwise) have to have verbal components for their spells and cannot use Silent Spell. And while that technically doesn't HAVE to be music or singing, it's still an unfortunate hanger-on to what was otherwise the perfect fix to the Bard.

1. Archaeologist does not get any kind of performance, and luck effectively replaces that. The rest of the ability is just trying to bring it back to the performance framework for the sake of feats and a few restrictions.

2. Blade dances are an option for all bards, and it just means "you have a really fancy fighting style". That might lean you into the charming fighter narratives a bit more, but it isn't so far that you couldn't pretend to be a swashbuckler or rogue.

I'm confused. Are you agreeing with what I said? Disagreeing? Expanding upon? I'm not following the flow of this conversation.

In fact, there was a highly effective dip you could do with the archaeologist that got rid of music entirely for a less narratively significant 'luck'. I could stretch that for every fight in a day from level 1, giving enough melee bonuses to make up for being 3/4 while having a fantastic saves. I could then easily switch into any martial class without any kinks in his 'career path'.

Almost. All Bards (and unfortunately, the Archaeologist too, since the archetype doesn't specify otherwise) have to have verbal components for their spells and cannot use Silent Spell. And while that technically doesn't HAVE to be music or singing, it's still an unfortunate hanger-on to what was otherwise the perfect fix to the Bard.

Tector, not sure I want that fight back...

It's more to lampshade how much it appeared in the advertising compared to how it basically didn't even happen in the movie.

Kinda like I wouldn't mind the other two ribbing Maguire-Peter for his ... ahem... "smooth" dancing.

One thing I'd honestly like to see is, when Andrew Garfield shows up, it's both him and the Rhino, finishing the fight we never got to see in Amazing Spidey 2.

I think I am more pumped for this than anything else in Phase 4.

Now all we need is a What The--?! series. ;)

Drax: "I've got a better suggestion: a "Why The--?!" series!

Verdyn wrote:

Rules balance aside, shouldn't the stronger, more dexterous, smarter, ect. person always just be better than the equally skilled person when using that skill? How do you logically square the circle and suspend your disbelief when something like this comes up?

Well, it doesn't make sense. But does that matter? The question was "is assurance bad" (and by extension "what uses are there for it") not "does assurance make sense".

It matters if it not making sense is the reason why it's considered bad.

By all means, homebrew it however you want. Whatever works at your table. Assurance works very well for exactly what it is at my tables. It's popular, but not overshadowing other skill feats.

Oh, I realize this is all hypothetical anyway. I'm perfectly content to never touch Assurance with a 10-foot pole and just roll everything (with all the ability mod I've spent resources on and all the penalties that were fairly applied to me that I under no circumstances believe I should just be able to blanket-ignore off of one feat).

Not to mention balancing a one-action activity around a fixed number that you can scale is just insane and completely against the design philosophy.

Like... Okay, you can use your ability modifier with Assurance. Now it's a must have ability and it's getting used for everything.

Or, perhaps as Tectorman suggested, you lower the "base" to something like 6. Well now Assurance is only for people who fully invest in the ability score and at higher levels it returns to being so good that it's a must-take feat again.

This isn't Taking 10 or Taking 20 from PF1, as they were for activities that took a long amount of time and represented attempting everything. Assurance is doing the activity the same way as always, in a practiced, rote manner.

Firstly, Taking 20 is what you meant; it's the mechanic that represents making attempt after attempt until you succeed. Taking 10 is not the same thing, it's one attempt just like a rolled check is, except you take the average of what would be your luck component (the rolled d20). You trade not being able to uber-succeed for the benefit of not failing abysmally.

Second, your criticism in the third paragraph is, in fact, fair, and something we can talk about. Maybe make it "Take 10" for characters without an ability mod and "Take some lesser number" for other characters, BUT ALSO adding in some other benefit. Arrange it to NOT break the math but still acknowledge that one character has more invested into the skill (whether he pumped up his ability mod exclusively for the skill or not is irrelevant; he did pump up his ability modifier and this skill is one of the things it applies to). Off the top of my head: "A number of times per day equal to the ability mod in question, you may apply a +1 to your Assurance result with this skill."

Just some damned thing so no one gets screwed over.

Tectorman wrote:

dirtypool wrote:

Tectorman wrote:

No, one player got the benefit "I didn't have to roll" while another player got the benefits "I didn't have to roll" and "I didn't have to bother sinking ability score increases into whichever ability score we're talking about." Same price, different benefits.

Same price: one feat. Same benefit: no roll.

No. Same benefit: no roll. Different prices: one paid a feat and the other paid a feat and ability score increases (to no effect).

Did the player...

1) Increase that ability score for the purposes of Assurance? It's not a "price" if they didn't. It just happens to be coincidence.

2) Not read how the feat functions and assumes that they would get their ability modifier? Because then that's really on the player.

I'm not sure what point you're making.

1) If his ability score applies to that skill, then it should apply to that skill regardless of circumstance. I mean, what in-universe is happening when two characters with the same level and training decide to, say, arm-wrestle and they both go with Assurance? Neither one is better trained than the other and one has biceps as thick as the other guy's waist, yet they're dead even?

2) Ah, so we're back to same mindset behind the 3.5 Toughness feat. Hey, if they don't realize that a feat is not worth a piddly 3 hp, then that's on the player, too.

Tectorman wrote:

No, one player got the benefit "I didn't have to roll" while another player got the benefits "I didn't have to roll" and "I didn't have to bother sinking ability score increases into whichever ability score we're talking about." Same price, different benefits.

Same price: one feat. Same benefit: no roll.

No. Same benefit: no roll. Different prices: one paid a feat and the other paid a feat and ability score increases (to no effect).

Let me put it this way:

Say a longsword costs 10 sp.

That is 10% of the total wealth of a player character with 100 sp, and it's 0.5% of the total wealth of a player character with 2000 sp.

And regardless of which player is buying it, it better cost 10 sp, never mind whether it's a larger or smaller chunk out of the buying player character's budget (or someone is getting screwed in this deal).

Tectorman wrote:

Thank God the developers DIDN'T write Toughness the way they did Assurance.

What is the point of comparing something that provides bonuses to something that negates having to roll? They don't do the same thing.

A player with an ability modifier and a player without an ability modifier are both conveyed the same exact benefit of not having to make the check. It's not "dishonest," it's not the player with the modifier "getting fleeced."

No, one player got the benefit "I didn't have to roll" while another player got the benefits "I didn't have to roll" and "I didn't have to bother sinking ability score increases into whichever ability score we're talking about." Same price, different benefits.

Contrastly,

Tectorman wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Tectorman wrote:

And yes, the mechanics are clear. The mechanics for drown-healing in 3.5 were clear, too, and it was still cheesy.

Little absurd to conflate an edge-case rules issue in 3.5 with a normal feat functioning normally in PF2.

Fine, then I'll make a more appropriate comparison.

Toughness in 3.5 gave you 3 hp. Period, the end. Nothing unclear about it. Just a normal feat functioning normally. You spend a feat and get 3 hp for your troubles. So, no one should have complained about it then, right? The whole "this is really an NPC feat for Elf Wizard combatants, not something you as a player should actually invest in" that was intended but not made explicit, totally on the players for not managing their expectations. Caveat emptor, right?

Or hey, let's hypothesize Toughness for P2E if it had been written like Assurance.

"You gain one hit point for every level in place of your Con mod per level."

So, totally a benefit if you have a +0 Con mod. The fact that it provides no benefit if you have a +1 Con mod (as well as how it's literally a detriment if you have a higher Con mod) is totally irrelevant. After all, it's clear how the feat operates and you can always just not take it.

Right?

Thank God the developers DIDN'T write Toughness the way they did Assurance.

Toughness provides a lower relative benefit the higher your class HP and Con is. If you're a level 15 Barbarian with 20 Con, it provides a 5% HP increase, whereas a Wizard with 10 Con gets a 13% HP increase.

So by this line of logic, Toughness is a trap for anyone with higher base HP. That Barbarian isn't getting equal value to the Wizard, and is "getting fleeced".

Toughness gives you your level in hp. It does this if you have no Con mod whatsoever, it does this if you have some Con mod, and it does this if you sank an ability score increase into Con at every opportunity.

The Wizard gets his level in hp, regardless of class-granted hp or Con mod. The Barbarian definitely has more of the former and probably more of that latter, and yet, he still gets his level in hp. THAT is "not getting fleeced".

Tectorman wrote:

And yes, the mechanics are clear. The mechanics for drown-healing in 3.5 were clear, too, and it was still cheesy.

Little absurd to conflate an edge-case rules issue in 3.5 with a normal feat functioning normally in PF2.

Fine, then I'll make a more appropriate comparison.

Toughness in 3.5 gave you 3 hp. Period, the end. Nothing unclear about it. Just a normal feat functioning normally. You spend a feat and get 3 hp for your troubles. So, no one should have complained about it then, right? The whole "this is really an NPC feat for Elf Wizard combatants, not something you as a player should actually invest in" that was intended but not made explicit, totally on the players for not managing their expectations. Caveat emptor, right?

Or hey, let's hypothesize Toughness for P2E if it had been written like Assurance.

"You gain one hit point for every level in place of your Con mod per level."

So, totally a benefit if you have a +0 Con mod. The fact that it provides no benefit if you have a +1 Con mod (as well as how it's literally a detriment if you have a higher Con mod) is totally irrelevant. After all, it's clear how the feat operates and you can always just not take it.

Right?

Thank God the developers DIDN'T write Toughness the way they did Assurance.

Tectorman wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Tectorman wrote:

Yeah, see, I'm not actually married to the whole "10" part of it. It could have been "replace the d20 with an 8, leaving ALL mods and penalties", or even 6. I'm not fussed about the number, but about the dishonest "both of you pay the same thing and one of you reaps more rewards than the other".

You keep saying dishonest. I don't see how that word really makes sense in the context of this feat though.

I don't know how to explain it any better than I already have. A character with no ability mod gets the full "Take 10" benefit of the feat he paid for. A character with an ability mod gets less "Take 10" benefit while still having paid the same price.

If I pay X and get Y, you should also be able to get Y for having paid X. What would you call that in any other context and what makes this context different?

Dishonest implies that it's in some way manipulating or misleading - it says what it does on very clearly, and has a good reason for doing so. Being able to take 10 with a fully buffed modifier is almost certainly going to guarantee success on level-appropriate tasks, which isn't the goal of the feat. It's clearly stated to be for more basic tasks, and it'd frankly be fairly unbalancing to have the full modifier - being able to ignore penalties on skill checks with MAP applied is already very useful, nevermind if you had an excellent bonus doing so. Class abilities (like a Marshal's aura) that rely on a standard-difficulty DC for your level would become auto-successes. It'd end up a must-have on a wide variety of builds, and is just a bad idea in general. It being written the way it has been written is about as dishonest as something like Courtly Graces is, because you could theoretically pick it when your Society is worse than your Diplomacy and Deception, and so it'd have very little effect. The mechanics are clear, there's good reason for them, and if you want assurance on that character, pick it on a...

Again, it doesn't have to be "Take 10". I could live with it being "Take 8" or "Take 6" or whatever number it needs to be to make the feat not be "too good not to take", just as long as the Barbarian with a positive Str mod doesn't have his strength inexplicably disappear into the ether just because he's using the feat to negate the luck component of his attempt to do this or that.

And yes, the mechanics are clear. The mechanics for drown-healing in 3.5 were clear, too, and it was still cheesy.

Tectorman wrote:

Yeah, see, I'm not actually married to the whole "10" part of it. It could have been "replace the d20 with an 8, leaving ALL mods and penalties", or even 6. I'm not fussed about the number, but about the dishonest "both of you pay the same thing and one of you reaps more rewards than the other".

You keep saying dishonest. I don't see how that word really makes sense in the context of this feat though.

I don't know how to explain it any better than I already have. A character with no ability mod gets the full "Take 10" benefit of the feat he paid for. A character with an ability mod gets less "Take 10" benefit while still having paid the same price.

If I pay X and get Y, you should also be able to get Y for having paid X. What would you call that in any other context and what makes this context different?

Tectorman wrote:

Definitely gotta agree with Darksol here. Assurance is definitely one of the more "feels bad" things in the game. You spend a feat for what was "Take 10" previously, except no ability modifier. So a +4 Str mod Barbarian with Expert in Athletics and a +0 Str mod Rogue with Expert in Athletics get the same outcome with Assurance. I.e., the Rogue spends a whole feat on "Take 10", while the Barbarian, spending the same amount (one feat), only gets "Take 6". What is that, besides the Barbarian getting fleeced?

And even the whole "but you also get to ignore penalties" doesn't make it any better. If you have a modifer to a skill you have Assurance for, then you ALWAYS pay the price of not getting that modifier. You will not, however, always be facing a penalty you then get to ignore. And frankly, it feels dishonest that you could, even on a theoretical basis, get slapped with every single penalty in the game and ignore it on what feels like a technicality. Like drown-healing from 3.5; yes, Assurance doing all of that is in the rules, and may even be intentional (unlike drown-healing), but it still feels cheesy as heck.

I'd have much rather they left all the mods and all the penalties in there, and just had Assurance switch a rolled d20 for a static 10.

Assurance that switched a d20 roll for a static 10, without including limitation on when you could use it, would be grossly overpowered. Guaranteeing success against tasks and enemies that are supposed to be challenging for your level isn't actually a reasonable expectation for the low cost of a skill feat.

Yeah, see, I'm not actually married to the whole "10" part of it. It could have been "replace the d20 with an 8, leaving ALL mods and penalties", or even 6. I'm not fussed about the number, but about the dishonest "both of you pay the same thing and one of you reaps more rewards than the other".

Definitely gotta agree with Darksol here. Assurance is definitely one of the more "feels bad" things in the game. You spend a feat for what was "Take 10" previously, except no ability modifier. So a +4 Str mod Barbarian with Expert in Athletics and a +0 Str mod Rogue with Expert in Athletics get the same outcome with Assurance. I.e., the Rogue spends a whole feat on "Take 10", while the Barbarian, spending the same amount (one feat), only gets "Take 6". What is that, besides the Barbarian getting fleeced?

And even the whole "but you also get to ignore penalties" doesn't make it any better. If you have a modifer to a skill you have Assurance for, then you ALWAYS pay the price of not getting that modifier. You will not, however, always be facing a penalty you then get to ignore. And frankly, it feels dishonest that you could, even on a theoretical basis, get slapped with every single penalty in the game and ignore it on what feels like a technicality. Like drown-healing from 3.5; yes, Assurance doing all of that is in the rules, and may even be intentional (unlike drown-healing), but it still feels cheesy as heck.

I'd have much rather they left all the mods and all the penalties in there, and just had Assurance switch a rolled d20 for a static 10.

Among other things, I hope this book spells out (and explicitly) whether a spontaneous caster can use a higher level slot for a lower level spell (and not a signature spell, either), not for all the higher level benefits, just to fuel it.

I.e., if I have multiple levels of spell slots and I'm out of 1st level slots (for whatever reason), and I know Feather Fall as a 1st level (not-signature) spell, and I'm plummeting to my doom, do I die or not?

OCD appears to not be one of the attributes Paizo is respectful of.

Yet.

Now that it's mentioned, I imagine this sort of silliness will cease. I should've mentioned it a decade ago, when Rise of the Runelords ended and AP 7 was released, with a black spine instead of white.

I've been known to give away various books and import foreign printings to get matching artwork styles. I grudgingly accept when change happens, but I can't stand "the UK printing still has the old style and the North American printing has a newer cover style that matches bloody nothing."

I doubt they'll do anything. Do you remember the novel line? They started out in mass market paperback, but switched to trade paperback about two-thirds of the way through. Making my bookshelf look awful.