Temperans's page

8,008 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,008 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ed Reppert wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Trick Magic Item actually makes the scroll believe it is in synch. It then unlocks its magical energies and the spell is cast.
This implies that "magic" is some kind of (semi-)intelligent entity. Not sure I buy that.

Last comment before leaving the forum.

Trick magic used to be a charisma only skill (baring specific things). There was always a joke about carefully caressing wands into working properly. Also intelligent items are a thing.

So yes "magic" is semi intelligent, but not an entity. It is a semi intelligent aspect of reality just like the Monad.


Squiggit wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:


Why do people always bring up the slot spells to complain and always forget that these other, renewable, spells have to be taken into account too ?

... Because one of the key complaints is that having your extremely limited daily resource abilities be so fundamentally unreliable (especially in their design niche of targeting powerful solo enemies) feels really bad?

I don't really understand the question because the answer is so obvious.

Its page twelve of making that same argument and the other side won't even acknowledge that as being the issue.

I gave up, but I wish you luck. Maybe you'll get a better result.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
After 4+ years of this balance point not changing the continued complaining of some comes off as extremely bitter and extremely confusing bc the effort is ultimately wasted. I mean, why not direct that energy towards the eventual pf3 playtest; It's not gonna get you anything now. God knows if it legitimately gives you this much stress and anger then you're better served playing the systems that don't do this. Pf1e and dnd5e are right there giving you the casters you want. Throughout this game's entire run the attack benchmarks between casters and martials has not changed, will not change, and never had any design intentions of changing from the designers. The best you got was an item to switch to saves. To continue to complain for changes that demonstrably will not come seems to me either lunacy or a deliberate desire to heckle the people who made the thing you don't like as well as the people who enjoy the thing you don't like. It can't be any genuine expectation of change, can it?

So your take is that people should not complain about bad game design and just take whatever bad thing a developer adds. Are you also one that likes it when a dev adds a bunch of time wasters to justify micro transactions?

They say hope dies last, but you know what I am tired of this same argument being used every single time. You like your bad mechanics and want an echo chamber? Fine keep them. Congrats you won, one less person asking the devs to fix their mistakes.

Best of wishes to Paizo, but I'm done trying argue for a game that I enjoy to be made better while treated as if I was a second class citizen.


Hahahaha make arcane better? Hahahaha That's a good one.

In all seriousness the answer is you really don't. You get the casting stat and you level up, that's it that's the improvement.

The only solutions you have is to homebrew because at this rate another 5 years will pass and there will still be nothing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Some people just want to use 1 type of spell and those people are punished because "well you should had picked something different". That is bad design no matter how much you try to justify it.

If something has a worse chance to take effect than normal the expectation is that it has a much better effect to compensate. But spell attacks do not do this. Instead they are mediocre effects while also being more difficult to land.

This is not about being better than martials as some people keep trying to say. Its about 1/day abilities not being balanced properly for being 1/day.

Players that only want to cast one type of spell need a special class built to do that (like the kineticist) because full casters always have access to way more spells they can cast. It is unreasonable to expect one class to accommodate such specialization and breadth together.

You should not need a whole new class just for this. It should just work.

Also no, the game expects you to have at most 4 of the highest spell level (up to 9th) and at most 2 10th level. 4 times a day I can have a 50/50 to be mediocre is bad no matter how much you try to justify it with "if you have this very specific situation its okay".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some people just want to use 1 type of spell and those people are punished because "well you should had picked something different". That is bad design no matter how much you try to justify it.

If something has a worse chance to take effect than normal the expectation is that it has a much better effect to compensate. But spell attacks do not do this. Instead they are mediocre effects while also being more difficult to land.

This is not about being better than martials as some people keep trying to say. Its about 1/day abilities not being balanced properly for being 1/day.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Slot based spell attack are not worth it.
So players don't get them except for very specific things.
So the devs don't make more.
So players don't get more.

Yeah there are few spells when the thing has needed help from the start and even when they introduced the class that revolved around it they didn't add significantly more.

Its a self fulfilling prophesy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did someone say spell attacks should be the best always? Didn't see that.

I have only seen people asking that such spells get something to be worth the slot they are cast from without just making everything into a save.

How you read "make this type of spe3ll the best" from "this type of spell needs better accuracy to be worth it" is beyond me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Edit: No, Temp, you don't need Crossbow Crackshot, which is a bad fear because you have to reload the same turn you shoot to get the bonus. You want the Sniping Duo dedication. which gives you a circumstance bonus that will eventually outscale the old crossbow ace, lets you ignore lesser cover, and still benefit from backstabber.

Just going to say that still isn't quite the same. Sniping Duo locks you outnof other archetypes and require that the ally hits to get the benefit.

Yes it scales to +3 eventually. But Crossbow Ace was damage now and always.


I still say that Alkenstar using breechloaders does not mean Golarion only has breechloaders. But I'll drop that not need to argue about that.

Also thanks for answering Michael and aobst128.


aobst128 wrote:
Pathfinder guns are breach loaders with paper cartridges according to guns and gears

Looked it up and I am not seeing that anywhere. Arquebuses are muzzle loaders, flintlocks are muzzle loaders, etc. The only ones that seem like breech loaders are the repeating weapons.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

While I initially didn't love the slight damage nerf compared to CRB crossbow ace vs remaster crossbow ace with arbelest, there's one really good benefit. The new crossbow ace looks pretty skippable to me. It looks like the sniper's covered reload but is generally worse because it lacks HideYou can snag it if you're interested, but can also skip it now if you don't feel like investing in deception or constantly taking cover.

And that frees you up to take other feats. I was initially thinking that would be Monster Hunter or Animal Companion to diversify your build, but then I noticed... gravity weapon is right there, and will likely put the Remaster Ranger ahead of the old Ranger. Old ranger could snag Gravity Weapon, too, technically, but then they are delaying Hunter's Aim at 2 or Running Reload at 4. And getting gravity bow early sounds like a nice choice given it sound like we have new warden spells coming, so growing your focus pool will likely be wise.

This change also means crossbow switch hitters can be a thing, which was basically just for bows pre-remaster. Overall, this change feels really good once you skip crossbow ace.

You got an interesting point, now Crossbow Ace isn't a must have feat anymore for crossbow rangers anymore. Yet this option also feels more weak than before when compared to the alternative (Flurry + Bow).

So I still don't see this see this being beneficial in general. I also wanted that this feat works with firearms too.

At last it can now combine with Crossbow Crack Shot so if you are making a remastered crossbow range you could consider to take Gunslinger dedication.

I'm not sure what you mean. This feat does work with firearms, and I don't see how gravity weapon + arbelest is any worse than crossbow ace + crossbow was, and don't follow the logic to be worse relative to a flurry ranger with hunted show and a shortbow. Besides the one action to activate...

Let me correct you a bit.

Pre-remaster:
Crossbow with Crossbow Ace deals 1d10+2 at 120ft on every shot.
With Gravity Weapon and Precise shot its 1d10+3+1d8 at 120ft on the first shot (assuming it hits).

Post-remaster:
Crossbow deals 1d8 at 120ft.
With Gravity Weapon its 1d8+1 at 120ft.

Arbalest deals 1d10+Backstabber at 110ft.
With Gravity Weapon its 1d10+1+Backstabber+1d8 at 110ft on the first shot (assuming it hits).

If you have to get Gunslinger Archetype to get Crossbow Crack Shot that is 3 feats to do what you could previously do with 2.

So in short to do what you could do previously you now have to spend more feats. Or you have to keep making the enemy flat-footed on every round and use the new weapon (which cannot be gotten at level 1 and has a shorter range). The one good crossbow playstyle is now worse for the sake of making a new playstyle that is more inconsistent with no real benefit.


Pronate11 wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
From wikipedia: " A skilled arbalestier (arbalester) could loose two bolts per minute". That's one bolt every 5 combat rounds. Reload 12? :-)
And they dealt a whole lot more damage, and ignored armor, and ignored tough hides.

An arbalest would not deal more damage than a halberd or great club, both of which also deal d10s. They do get to add str, but the arbalest gets backstaber, and the average str for a soldier is probably around +2.

It also would not ignore armor or thick hides, arbalests have been used sense the 12th century, and plate mail was invented in the 14th century. Getting hit with an arbalest while in armor would not be a good time, but nor was getting hit with a great club or halberd

Temperans wrote:

While 1800s muskets (period accurate for golarion) were 1/minute and were even stronger than crossbows.

But yeah that aint happening in PF2.

Yes, because due to differences in Golarions development, they favored paper cartridges, which are much weaker but fire much faster. For a cartridge based system, pathfinder has it fairly right.

I do hope we get muzzleloading guns in PF as a form of martial focus spell (can't be loaded in combat, but gives you one very powerful attack), but thats nether here nor there

The comparison is versus a bow of low enough weight that you don't even need a str score to use. Why are you bringing in melee weapons?

Also I have no idea what you are talking about with the cartridges. Pathfinder guns are muzzleloaders and the real world has used paper cartridges for centuries. They were less used in war because they are a hassle and costly to maintain under those conditions. The reason why Pathfinder has guns fire quickly is because its more fun to make attacks every round and they certainly wont give players a realistic guns because they want bows to be the best ranged weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
From wikipedia: " A skilled arbalestier (arbalester) could loose two bolts per minute". That's one bolt every 5 combat rounds. Reload 12? :-)

And they dealt a whole lot more damage, and ignored armor, and ignored tough hides.

While 1800s muskets (period accurate for golarion) were 1/minute and were even stronger than crossbows.

But yeah that aint happening in PF2.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I think something must have lost in translation because most of this seems to be meh.

Crossbows had too many feat taxes so the solition was to: Make the main feat worse and mandate it to require deception, add a forced item choice that is in some ways worse, add a new feat tax at level 16, and give crossbows the crit specification that should had been given to bows... Who decided any of this was a good idea?

Putting warden spells in the main class but not snare crafting seems like a repeat of not placing warden spells in the intial release. Now snares won't be part of Rangers and it will cause issues just like warden spells caused issues.

It feels like we are being told that its an upgrade, when it feels and looks more like a side grade.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love how I never said "spell attack need to be the best" and somehow that is what people are responding to.

Or how about where I never said that wizards need to be the best at everything. Yet once again people acting as if I said that.

Oh would you look at that, limited number of spells per day. What's that I can only 4 spell slots and after that they are gone, finished, gone? Ah yes much versatility when I pick 4 damage spell because I want to make an offensive caster. Much versatility when I have a ~40-50% chance of doing nothing with an ability that is only 4 times a day and no better than a Fighter hitting twice. Oh right I have to spend twice as many 1/day abilities for it to have reads again oh that's right a ~45-55% how impressive for a 20th level character that you are lucky if you see it once every 4 years.

No no I get it, I get it. We have to let the person who only swong their weapon around be able to be the bestest ever at using their infinite use weapons. Now if only the thing you were using was not a weapon and could only be done 4 times a day.... oh wait. I forgot that person swingin a weapon can also cast utility/buff magic, make items, buff/debuff everyone around them, be very agile, punish bad positioning, and have decent defenses.

But you know what carry on talking about having your cake and eating it. I'll be over here watching as this thing called "MaG1k" is roasted and carved out to feed some poor hobos who seem to be in need of some healing.


whew wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
AestheticDialectic wrote:
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I wonder if people realize how facetious this turn of phrase is.

Like the idea that you can have a cake but you're not allowed to eat it is not a commentary on trade off it's a description of insanity.

The whole idea that you need to be 'punished' to somehow counterbalance having something good in your life is absurdly toxic nonsense.

No, it means that after you eat your cake, you don't still have that cake.

You do know this is the insanity that Squiggit was talking about right?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:

People really are hyperfocusing on one thing in a very unhealthy way. I mean I get it when people become upset about their favourites changing and it's a bit of a bummer if we don't get a good electricity damage option somewhere, but hell, quite a few of you are acting like the Magus' entire being revolved around Shocking Grasp.

Meanwhile I'm over here looking at the focus point changes and wondering why I would ever touch my slots (and often my cantrips) for attacks every again. Pretty much as Michael said, though probably not with quite this in mind. For the "great" cost of a second level feat (Psychic Dedication), I get a focus spell that does almost the same damage as a highest level SG plus a pushback for shenanigans/damage mitigation on top. That I can spam every fight without even looking at my slots. Instead I can use my slots for problems I cannot simply hit harder or simply hit even harder in other ways. Meaning overall my Magus will become objectively stronger than the pre-change variant relying on Shocking Grasp ever could have been.

And people are complaining???????

The complain is because their "solution" highlights all the issues that spell attacks had and they kept ignoring, which they might potentially. Even removed spell attacks as an option in the first place.

If you are allowed to have 3 spells every 30 minutes that deal as much damage as a 9th level spell which you can only cast 2 to 4 times A DAY then the entire argument that "this must be weak because balance" fall apart like tissue paper.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:

[I think the remaster removes that conflict, for non-holy PCs anyway. No more "I totally count as good aligned for the purposes of getting free paladin reaction stabs but also can torture prisoners for the greater good" rogues, for instance. The main thing that might get a little gross is that stuff like Divine Wrath can fall upon the innocent now.

I'd honestly have preferred that Good/Holy characters kept the old alignment damage rules and evil characters didn't. I understand why they didn't do that from a mechanical perspective (symmetry is much easier to write, mechanically) and from an in-play perspective (nobody wants to have their divine lances bounce off bears and fire elementals).

The real problem is that with alignment there's no distinction in neutrality between "innocent baby", "hungry animal", and "hardened mercenary who will work for bad guys but isn't actually evil". They all just get lumped into "neutral." Because the pre-remaster alignment damage rules (for Good damage at least) were designed around neutral creatures that were all pure innocent Neutral babies. Not rampaging Neutral fire elementals, psychotic proteans, booty-hungry pirates, or angry bears.

Tl;dr alignment was narrow enough that you couldn't assume all the monsters the PCs fought were Evil, but it was also sufficiently broad that there were whole classes of enemies (elementals, monitors, wild animals, bandits) that fell under the "pure innocent child" umbrella of neutrality when they really should not have.

Technically Divine Wrath could always hurt innocents because innocent could mean neutral, as you point out.

I also don't think Holy creatures being immune to Holy damage would have solved your problem. While I believe almost all Holy people will be good, most good people will not be Holy. This might be the most significant change from alignment for the lore. One could be Good just by doing good deeds and acting as a good person. Holy requires divine intervention. You could be the...

I think the correct way it should had been treated is that it triggered weakness, bypassed resistance, and/or was resisted. Specific effects could add bonus damage that only affected some creatures, but those would be the exceptions not the rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

This may be a bit off-topic but something that was quite hard to put into words has been rubbing me the wrong way about alignment for years and the changes with Remaster have helped highlight what that is.

** spoiler omitted **...

Simple everything is made from magic, but that does not mean that anything can manipulate (use) magic.

Tiny rant to continue your rant:

This is were the extraordinary, supernatural, spell, and spell-like tags came in. Extraordinary was very magical, but it was from pure exertions of your body (think adrenalin). Supernatural was definetly magic, but it was very instinctual. Spells were active control of magic in a way that was measured and forced. Spell-like was very much a spell, but done instinctually.

The new essences cause issue because the setting was not originally written with them in mind at all. A Druid was divine because they prayed to nature for their effects, while the Witch was Arcane because they studied how to use magic for their effects. The alignment were just a byproduct of how you acted and thought, not part of some war that you may not even be interested in. While Positive (Vitality) and Negative (Void) just fealt broader as heat vs entropy, radiation vs containment, matter vs antimatter, Antigravity vs gravity.


Tooosk wrote:
Riddlyn wrote:
I do rely on my cantrips for spellstrike. After level 5 I'll generally only prepare 1 attack roll spell

Well, as you level, other options open up. You can get Imaginary Weapon at 6 from Psychic dedication. You can get Fused Staff at 8 to power Spellstrikes with staff charges, or Standby Spell at 8 to not slot a Spellstrike at all.

And when you're preparing 1 attack roll spell, that's 25% of your spell slots.

Yep the same number of high level spells as the full casters get. Funny that.


AestheticDialectic wrote:
Temperans wrote:

It is better, but that is still not addressing the issue of spell attacks.

Its like saying "This chicken is undercooked" and then instead of fixing it they go "okay fine we are removing all chicken from our menu and only selling ham". Yeah there is no longer undercooked chicken, but you it was done in the worst way possible.

Thunderstrike being good does not diminish the fact that spell attacks are either badly designed and/or under supported.

Being vegan and reading this analogy is amusing to say the least

Here is an example just for you:

"Hey there is dirt in my vegan meal" and they go "okay fine we are removing all vegan meals, we now only sell tomato slices".


AestheticDialectic wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Unicore wrote:

It isn’t a question of whether casters with item bonuses to spell attack roll spells would be out damaging martials. The question is whether spell attack roll spells just became the unquestioned best way for casters to do single target damage in the game.

One clear step in replacing shocking grasp with thunderstrike is that the development team is more interested in having casters play the saving throw game than find ways to maximize spell attack roll spells. But any further speculation on that really needs to wait until we see the rest of the spells in the remastery.

So why shouldn't the SINGLE target spell be the biggest SINGLE target effect?

If you are spending an entire spell slot to target a single target it better be better than something designed to target a group. But that is not how they have set things up and thus all the complaints. Them switching to all spells being saves doesn't solve the issue, just tries to go around it. Heck all spells becoming save based proves that Shadow Signet was just an action tax, while also making that item as currently written entirely useless.

But yes any further speculation on that part has to wait until the remaster rules are out.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Simple as that. Spell casters need to be bad at something and martials good at something. Unless you want to give all these other effects spells do to martials and recreate d&d 5e where everyone multiclasses into a monstrous hybrid that does everything with no weaknesses and team synergies and roles do not exist. I don't know about you but I have no interest in 5e style games where niche protection doesn't exist. I like my team game, I like the role of casters and I like my cool spells. You are at a crossroads. Become good at the only thing martials really have, single target damage, and lose out on all the cool s&~+ spells do, or everyone gets everything and we stop having a team game

Or ofc, accept the balance as it...

So you like the cutrent situation because it suits your tastes of "people being forced into a role". I hate the current situation because it goes against everything that Pathfinder has stood for until now.

You are bringing in 5e but this is not 5e its Pathfinder and you know what Pathfinder has? Fighters casting spells while the Wizard is wielding a sword and the Cleric is shooting guns and there is a Guy (Mesmerist) that is just making death glares. Who does the most single target damage is meaningless when what matter is that you are able to pick your role and be good at it.

Do you think that shooter games are not teamwork because everyone has to has to use the same gun? How about sports where everyone has to use the same skill sets? Niche protection is not a matter of "teamwork", its all just gatekeeping for thr sake of gatekeeping.


Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Unicore wrote:

It isn’t a question of whether casters with item bonuses to spell attack roll spells would be out damaging martials. The question is whether spell attack roll spells just became the unquestioned best way for casters to do single target damage in the game.

One clear step in replacing shocking grasp with thunderstrike is that the development team is more interested in having casters play the saving throw game than find ways to maximize spell attack roll spells. But any further speculation on that really needs to wait until we see the rest of the spells in the remastery.

So why shouldn't the SINGLE target spell be the biggest SINGLE target effect?

If you are spending an entire spell slot to target a single target it better be better than something designed to target a group. But that is not how they have set things up and thus all the complaints. Them switching to all spells being saves doesn't solve the issue, just tries to go around it. Heck all spells becoming save based proves that Shadow Signet was just an action tax, while also making that item as currently written entirely useless.

But yes any further speculation on that part has to wait until the remaster rules are out.

Thunderstrike is more damage than chain lightning…so, mission accomplished? I don’t understand the rest of the argument. “I want spells that do as much damage as possible to a single target” already exists.

It is better, but that is still not addressing the issue of spell attacks.

Its like saying "This chicken is undercooked" and then instead of fixing it they go "okay fine we are removing all chicken from our menu and only selling ham". Yeah there is no longer undercooked chicken, but you it was done in the worst way possible.

Thunderstrike being good does not diminish the fact that spell attacks are either badly designed and/or under supported.


PF2 Magus waw designed with using max level spells for spellstrike. Its why invented wavecasting instead of just giving them "Warpriest" casting (which support buffs a lot more).

* P.S. Just in case, note that I don't like the fact Magus is so focused on just spellstrikes. But it is still a fact that is what they do in this edition.


Senko wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:
Coidzor wrote:

Having multiple planar layers to a demiplane would be a huge game changer, I think. Some would definitely be on the smaller side while others would still be sizeable but probably never on the level of continental or making my own world.

And there would definitely be some with hidden, semi-obtuse entry conditions that I'd make purely as puzzles or to reward exploration or just be a kooky old wizard.

It seems to me that an extra layer on a demiplane is pretty much the same thing as a demiplane in the first place and I would be inclined to allow the same means of creation.

Your quite right I'm sure I remember layers being a planar trait e.g. abyss or elysium but when I looked at them it isn't there. Oh well I allowed it for this topic so we'll let it stand for this thread to avoid moving goalposts.

For those replying like I said this is not per the create demiplane or geneisis spells this is apply any of the planar traits you like in e.g. erratic time or static structure plus layers. Just be sure to say what size you want and why those traits would have you take that choice.

This is honestly "easy" to achieve it just takes time and money.

When you make a demiplane you get a set area and casting the spell within the demiplane can either add or extend the duration. If you cast the spell 3 times to make a line and let the middle section expire you now have 2 demiplanes that are "in series". Then casting Greater Create Demiplane you can add portals between your planes, thus making a "layered" demiplane. With enough castings you can theoretically surround an inner demiplane with increasingly larger demiplanes or create intricate connections.

The alternative is even easier but has a number of issues is using the Structured feature of the Create Demiplane spell. You can choose something like say "tower" to make your demiplane layered, but you will have less control over what every layer has.


Dungeon Master Zack wrote:
Big enough to contain a library with every book ever written.

Just go to the akashic record, that place has every book written and yet to be written.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Holy and Unholy are more about intent than Good and Evil were, but are still roughly homologous since Holy is about "selflessness" and "wanting to help people" while Unholy is more about "selfishness" and "cruelty".

So like a Holy Evil thing might be something that wants to help people very badly, it just has seriously misguided notions about "what exactly that involves."

An Unholy Good thing might be someone who reliably helps end threats to communities, because the pay is good and the work (i.e. killing) is fun.

I actually believe there might be mortals with this kind of corner cases. I think some people would love them. And GMs can always houserule.

But the Golarion deities are another thing completely.

Now, the replacing of alignment by holy/unholy makes even the deities feel less straightjacketed. But that mostly makes a difference for people who saw alignment as a straightjacket. I did not, so for me it changes basically nothing.

Personally, I always felt that the people making alignment into a straight jacket wanted to play neutral but get the benefits of the other alignments. In that respect I guess they got their wish granted, now everyone is "neutral".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

It isn’t a question of whether casters with item bonuses to spell attack roll spells would be out damaging martials. The question is whether spell attack roll spells just became the unquestioned best way for casters to do single target damage in the game.

One clear step in replacing shocking grasp with thunderstrike is that the development team is more interested in having casters play the saving throw game than find ways to maximize spell attack roll spells. But any further speculation on that really needs to wait until we see the rest of the spells in the remastery.

So why shouldn't the SINGLE target spell be the biggest SINGLE target effect?

If you are spending an entire spell slot to target a single target it better be better than something designed to target a group. But that is not how they have set things up and thus all the complaints. Them switching to all spells being saves doesn't solve the issue, just tries to go around it. Heck all spells becoming save based proves that Shadow Signet was just an action tax, while also making that item as currently written entirely useless.

But yes any further speculation on that part has to wait until the remaster rules are out.


Holy is good and Unholy is evil. They are just no longer auras given out by all high level characters and require more work to get.


QuidEst wrote:
AestheticDialectic wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
AestheticDialectic wrote:
I would advise any player to never use this.
Kind of a big red flag to tell someone to not use one of their core class features.
This is an optional feature for all familiars since the CRB. One which is worse than other abilities you can choose in it's stead. It's not a core class feature of the witch
I think the confusion was over what you're advising Witch to not use. "Don't use the new class features that make the familiar relevant in combat" is a little questionable. "Don't use the Spell Delivery familiar ability to deliver offensive spells" is reasonable advice, especially because it means having no actions to cast/sustain a hex without Cackle.

A bad feature is bad even if it is new.


nonbinarysunset wrote:
Vulpys wrote:
I have a lore question. How can a leshy be a grimspawn?

a significant infusion of daemonic power/magic, most likely? which could come from a variety of sources after their creation, or perhaps even have been involved in the process of creating them somehow (intentionally or otherwise).

this kind of thing comes up quite often in golarion lore, and is the main answer to questions like "how do draconic bloodline sorcerers exist?" and whatnot. the exemplar iconic was not born a nephilim, for example.

I personally think it would also be fun if occasionally leshies just end up inheriting things like that from whoever created them. like an angelkin amurrun druid creates a leshy who unexpectedly has the potential to end up as an angel bloodline sorcerer, or something.

The examplar Iconic really shouldn't be taken as a reference given how many conventions of the lore it breaks. Like you know, PC characters not being destined to be gods or have the power of gods (Mythics are demigods at most).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a caster wants to focus on spell attacks and spend the money for it why shouldn't the game provide it?

A caster that does not focus on that can still grab anything else they want just like every other character can.


Unicore wrote:
MEATSHED wrote:
Like yeah disintegrate does on average 14 more points of damage compared to chain lightning, but it also misses 40% of the time while chain lightning doesn't.

I am not sure if people just don't read my posts because they are too long, or if they just ignore my comments, but this statement is, at most situationally true. For any caster, comparing their own spell attack roll spells vs saving throw spells against different actual monsters in different situations, there are times where your expected DPR with your best spell attack roll spell is higher than your expected DPR with your best saving throw spells.

You don't have to make any comparisons to other classes or anything. You just have to look at whether you have your opponent flat-footed, whether you are getting bonuses to your attacks, whether you have an available hero point, and whether they have strong defenses against the spells you would want to cast.

There are a non-trivial amount of situations where you will have an easier time doing a significant amount of damage to your enemy by casting an attack roll spell than a saving throw targeting spell. It is not probably even over 50% of the time, but it doesn't need to be, because no caster should have 50% of their spells limited to spell attack roll spells.

Its partly the lenght (something I myself struggle to fix in myself). Partly that your take is if you are in melee and the enemy is very debuffed and there is no better option than spell attack is okay.

Yeah some of the effects might be useful once in a blue moon. But then again some people actually win the lottery. The fact it can be useful in a specific situation does not make it fun or well designed.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
AestheticDialectic wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Or maybe the answer is to let the casters play a Kineticist, complete with gate attenuators.

Actually, this is likely what I would also tell a martial's player if they want to poach casters' utility and save-targetting abilities : play a Kineticist.

The refusal to play the kineticist by the people who want other casters to be the kineticist, and who would like the kineticist the most, is probably the single most annoying thing about these caster and wizard threads. The solution to these people's problems is right in front of them and they don't want it for reasons like "it's not actually a caster" (false) and "it doesn't have spells" (entirely cosmetic)

No its because "play an entirely different class with entirely different mechanics" is not actually solving the issue.

What you are doing is the same as people used to do saying "just play a sorcerer instead of kineticist". Just like back then that is not solving anything.

Also saying "just ignore those issues" is the equivalent of putting your head in the sand. Just because you are not seeing it does not mean the issues are not there.


I wouldn't say the entire concept. But most people do have an idea of "I want to be melee", "I want to cast magic", or something. Usually (again not always) people think about what they want to do first, not what species they want to play as.

But a newbie really has no structure and so any structure is better than no structure.


The Raven Black wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Idk I liked that elves are not monotoned good guys and you have some that are clearly aweful. Makes for great villain material outside of "bandits bad".

Also it is entirely possible for 2 species to be entirely incompatible but still crossbreed with the same third species. This is in biology is called a ring species. Up until now Elf - Orc was a close ring species because they could live together and not interbreed, but could breed with humans. What makes those five (half-elf and half-orc are their own species) being part of a ring species interesting is that if all species with human genes become extinct then elfs and orcs would be entirely incompatible.

Half-elf and half-orc being true breeding (for at least some genes) also makes the whole thing more complicated.

Elves being portrayed as monotoned jerks is not better.

They didn't read that way to me. They read more like stuck up and elitist, not jerks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Temperans wrote:
I don't quite get what you mean about automatons. I was giving examples of the difference between construct with soul and without a soul. Automatons have an automaton core instead of a soul (quite a powerful artifact if I might add) a mind with planar energy as power.

Pardon my insistence, but what would the point of the automaton core be if it didn't preserve the soul? Automatons were created as vessels for the Jistkan people to stave off the collapse of their empire. Each automaton core explicitly contains a Jistkan soul, often trapped within, since even if the body is destroyed the core might not be.

Automaton wrote:
These intelligent constructs house actual souls and represent what remains of a dying empire's last attempt at greatness. Automatons combine technological ingenuity with magical power, creating a blended being wholly unique to Golarion.

Answer is that "spark of consciousness" did not read as "soul" to me until you pointed it out. But apparently they are one and the same which at that point I don't even know anymore.

To me they had downloaded their minds into the core, not trapped their souls to become a mechanical lich.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Idk I liked that elves are not monotoned good guys and you have some that are clearly aweful. Makes for great villain material outside of "bandits bad".

Also it is entirely possible for 2 species to be entirely incompatible but still crossbreed with the same third species. This is in biology is called a ring species. Up until now Elf - Orc was a close ring species because they could live together and not interbreed, but could breed with humans. What makes those five (half-elf and half-orc are their own species) being part of a ring species interesting is that if all species with human genes become extinct then elfs and orcs would be entirely incompatible.

Half-elf and half-orc being true breeding (for at least some genes) also makes the whole thing more complicated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am of the opinion that what PF2 considers a moderate encounter is actually difficult because of how close the fights are. This is why you get TPKs from moderate encounters. It also does not help that some creatures are stronger than they might seem because of how their rules work.

I still feel like spontaneous is better at handling surprise encounters, which is why the "signature spells" was invented to nerf spontaneous heightening.

Prepared would be SOL in that type of situation unless they were an arcanist and had the spell in spellbook.


Karneios wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Alchemist is already an unplayable mess, I don't see why we need to make it any worse than what it already is.

Short of playing with a Superstition Barbarian (who is just as bad by the way), or some Mortal Healing characters, there is no justification to play an Alchemist over any other character mechanically.

This thread seems more like finding a glitch that nobody thought off because of how weird the rules of the class are.

Its not that they are "becoming weaker" if he is right (wish FAQ button was still around), its that people were playing it better than it was written in the first place. Which would honestly not surprise me give how alchemist feels like a last minute rush job as they tried to scramble to remove the failed resonance system.

People were playing it the way it was written, it is not a glitch or people running it better than intended, it was meant to work in a way and it does work in that way, if it wasn't meant to work in that way the entirety of the processed trait would be pointless because they could just write "this doesn't work with quick alchemy" or they would specify that the processed trait does something with the effect duration

I said "if he is right". Its up to paizo to tell use who is right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Temperans wrote:
I don't believe they will make soulless creatures (constructs and mindless undead) immune to spirit damage. But that would make the name cause confusion because spirit == soul-like thing is pretty much stablished. But clearly its something born from the formerly aligned planes which are very much related to souls.

You may wish to reconsider this view in light of the evidence:

RoE Remaster Preview p. 4 wrote:
Spirit Damage: Directly affecting the spiritual essence of a creature, spirit damage can damage a target projecting its consciousness or possessing another creature even if the target’s body is elsewhere. The possessed creature isn’t harmed by the blast. Spirit damage doesn’t harm creatures that have no spirit, such as constructs. Many effects that deal spirit damage also have the sanctified, holy, or unholy trait/

I could see spirit damage being allowed to affect whatever it is that pilots a mindless creature (i.e. an amount of void pooled into a corpse, perhaps combined with a shred of soul, perhaps not, depending which part of the lore you interrogate and when), if only so that holy powers can still be used to blast zombies. For consistency I would somewhat rather not unless there is a clear division drawn between 'still enough soul' mindless undead and 'not enough spirit' constructs.

...

Also automatons being soulless is rather a strange assertion given that was kind of the point of automatons. Most poppets obviously don't, but independent playable poppets explicitly gain a spark of life (which from context of description obviously includes both vital and spiritual essence), so I would move in favour of PC poppets having souls.

Does anyone know if regular old leshies have any soul lore or if they're just pure 'vitae' given form?

I reject any and all uses of the essences as bunk given current lore. If they change that with the remaster well that's something for later.

Having said that, thanks for the correction. Given what RoE says, then yeah mindless undead would be immune because they are soulless.

I don't quite get what you mean about automatons. I was giving examples of the difference between construct with soul and without a soul. Automatons have an automaton core instead of a soul (quite a powerful artifact if I might add) a mind with planar energy as power. Poppet, I will admit I was unclear I meant that non-player constructs are soulless. Player constructs are weird because poppets are usually just remote controlled robots.

As for Leshies. They are nature spirits in a plant body. They do not follow the path of souls from positive plane throught the river into the outer planes; Instead they behave more like fey and just need a spellcaster to give them a body.


Calliope5431 wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Just to add that there is also a major difference between Cleric & Druid vs Wizard & Witch. Cleric and Druid know all of their spells (of at least common) all the time because they literally just pray for the spell to happen. Wizard and Witch however have to actually learn the spell, much like spontaneous casters except with no limit.

Spontaneous has a small inversion of this difference with Arcane Sorcerer and Bard being able to get their own spellbooks. While the other spontaneous casters cannot.

This means that Arcane Sorcerer and Bard have the most flexibility and least flaws being able to cast spontaneously and prepare spells any additional spell they learn. While Wizard and Witch are the least flexible and have the most flaws being unable to cast spontaneously and needing to effectively learn all spells.

True, but the thread is nominally about prepping vs spontaneous in general. As opposed to the wizard thread. That's why I brought up a non wizard example, that's all.

But yeah I agree that it's not a big advantage in a surprise fight. It's sort of weird because we're having multiple simultaneous discussions. My point with the tpk was mostly about boss fights not being the only lethal sort of encounter.

Its why I brought it back to being about spontaneous vs prepared. That addition was to highlight that even within each form of casting their is a tier of who gets better treatment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Alchemist is already an unplayable mess, I don't see why we need to make it any worse than what it already is.

Short of playing with a Superstition Barbarian (who is just as bad by the way), or some Mortal Healing characters, there is no justification to play an Alchemist over any other character mechanically.

This thread seems more like finding a glitch that nobody thought off because of how weird the rules of the class are.

Its not that they are "becoming weaker" if he is right (wish FAQ button was still around), its that people were playing it better than it was written in the first place. Which would honestly not surprise me give how alchemist feels like a last minute rush job as they tried to scramble to remove the failed resonance system.


aobst128 wrote:
Every class except kineticist is getting reprinted right? Because yeah, psychic needs an update for oscillating wave and for any other special cantrips that are changing with the remaster.

At least right now only 16 are getting reprinted. 8 in each player core.

Ex: Magus is not getting reprinted.


Just to add that there is also a major difference between Cleric & Druid vs Wizard & Witch. Cleric and Druid know all of their spells (of at least common) all the time because they literally just pray for the spell to happen. Wizard and Witch however have to actually learn the spell, much like spontaneous casters except with no limit.

Spontaneous has a small inversion of this difference with Arcane Sorcerer and Bard being able to get their own spellbooks. While the other spontaneous casters cannot.

This means that Arcane Sorcerer and Bard have the most flexibility and least flaws being able to cast spontaneously and prepare spells any additional spell they learn. While Wizard and Witch are the least flexible and have the most flaws being unable to cast spontaneously and needing to effectively learn all spells.


Calliope5431 wrote:
Temperans wrote:

What then gets exactly to the meat of this thread.

Spontaneous casters can see that something failed and change their strategy as needed. But a prepared caster does not have this luxury and if they prepared wrong they are stuck.

This means that a prepared caster needs to work extra hard to remain relevant, while also getting punished by the system because "well you might have picked something else".

Honestly I see a stronger argument the other way around.

A lot of the arguments for why the tpk happened revolved around the party not being armed to the teeth with anti-undead stuff. A spontaneous caster cannot learn they're going to be adventuring in a crypt and then prep anti-undead spells the next day. If the spell selection they have doesn't work (for instance, if you're a divine sorcerer or an oracle and took suffocate and finger of death rather than blade barrier and sunburst) you are just toast.

But a cleric? Or animist? Or divine witch? Yeah they can handle that.

Prepared has the advantage that if they have a spell available they can switch to it given time, yes. But that does not help at all against an ambush.

Spontaneous casters know that they are limited and as such its easy for them to pick always useful spells. The fact they can choose at cast time what the spell actually is means that even if you only picked a single anti-undead spell you will have access to it.

Prepared do not have that. If a prepared caster prepares a single anti-undead spells that's it. They do not get another one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Souls are quite literally made of positive energy and potential.

Incorporeal undeads are souls stuck in the mortal plane.

Mindless corporeal undeads have no soul just negative energy.

Minded corporeal undeads have a soul and negative energy (a reversal).

Constructs have no soul unless it is an exception (Usually things with a soulgem). Poppets and automatons are souless, but Androids are not.

Outsiders (creatures from the outer and elemental planes) are made of souls + the plane itself. Good place as any to remind people that outsiders are created from templates (including all their memories and personality) and any variation is entirely from the interactions after it was created.

Fey are weird and their souls like jello (while in the first world).

Dragons are ancient magical reptiles. Yes they have a soul.

**************

Alignment damage pre-PF2 was effectively a form of special material. Just like cold iron can bypass resistance and trigger weakness so could alignment damage. But unlike special materials it could be added to anything.

Alignment damage post-PF2 was its own type like slashing, fire, etc. but it only affected its opposite.

Spirit damage seems to take it one step further making it fully into a damage type like any other. So now everyone is affected equally (outside of weakness/resistance).

I don't believe they will make soulless creatures (constructs and mindless undead) immune to spirit damage. But that would make the name cause confusion because spirit == soul-like thing is pretty much stablished. But clearly its something born from the formerly aligned planes which are very much related to souls. I personally would had gone with "planar" to separate it from souls if it really works on anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What then gets exactly to the meat of this thread.

Spontaneous casters can see that something failed and change their strategy as needed. But a prepared caster does not have this luxury and if they prepared wrong they are stuck.

This means that a prepared caster needs to work extra hard to remain relevant, while also getting punished by the system because "well you might have picked something else".


Riddlyn wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Bard has light armor proficiency, Druid has medium armor, Cleric has "Warpriest" that gets medium armor, Oracle has light armor,

I know they do it's why I didn't mention any of those classes

The way you wrote it sounded like you were saying "all casters" not "those specific casters".

1 to 50 of 8,008 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>