This sort of question always stymies me because I have never had a strong intuitive sense of distances. So some kind of general rule or even guidance would be appreciated. In 1E, as was mentioned, it was DC 0 to see a visible creature, modified by +1 per 10 feet away.
Assuming an “average person” has a +4 Perception (It was a class skill for Commoner, seems reasonable to have dropped a skill point in, and assuming Wis 10, they’d be about 50/50 to see a human sized creature 150 feet away. While I admittedly don’t have a great sense of distance, that seems absurd to me, considering a football field, with end zones, is 320 feet, and people buy tickets to watch football from the end zones. That said, the length of a football field is probably the longest benchmark I intuitively grok, so I’m not sure how far would be reasonable.
You need to remember 1e also had rules to take 10 and take 20. Using Perception was just an action, so that Commoner can just take 10 for a 14, allowing them to automatically see any visible creature up to 140 feet away, or they can take 2 minutes (20 times as long) to see creatures up to 240 feet away.
As for distances, you're not exactly wrong. The numbers would make more sense if they were about identifying creatures at those distances, rather than simply detecting them. Because yes, if you seat down to watch a football game, you can tell there's players on the other end of the field, but can you tell who they are?
(Fun fact about 1e rules, I had a player once who read the table on modifiers, saw the modifiers for "Through Door" and "Through Walls" and thought you could just see through those as a PC without the need for any items or magic.)
Still, 2e has no guidelines so I'm afraid OP will have to eyeball it.
Gunslingers get quick alchemy from a feat in their core gunslinger class, NOT an archetype. The restriction you mention is specifically given under quick alchemy for alchemical archetypes.
This is both true and incorrect at the same type. Yes, the Gunslinger does not get Quick Alchemy Benefits from an Archetype. They're still gaining Quick Alchemy Benefits though, and they reference the Alchemical Archetype rules, not the Alchemist (specifically Player Core 2, page 174).
The same goes for Advanced Alchemy.
Now, the thing is, anyone can take Firework Technician and get infinite Versatile Vials anyway, which I honestly think is a mistake from Paizo, but we'll have to see.
- Have someone in the party cast a spell on you that allows you to escape more easily or automatically, like unfettered movement.
- Have someone in the party either Shove or Reposition whoever is Grappling you, since moving the Grappler will end the grapple.
- Teleport yourself out with something like translocate or flicker. You'll need to pass a DC 5 flat check but you can do it.
- Escape using your Unarmed Attack Modifier, which would be:
Level + Proficiency + Strength or Dex (whichever is highest) + any item bonuses you might have for Unarmed attacks.
- Kill the thing grappling you. Grappled doesn't prevent you from stabbing the guy since Strike doesn't have the Manipulate trait.
- Have your friends kill the thing grappling you.
Finoan hit the nail on the head on this one. Your GM did everything wrong by RAW except the part about Reposition not triggering Reactive Strike from being forced movement.
A legal move here would be Minion 1 (M1) using Reposition twice on the Boss (B) to move them up and to the left so they end up above M1 in your diagram. But as Finoan points out, that would still require M1 to roll two Reposition checks, and the second one would be at -5 since Reposition has the Attack trait.
If we want the Wizard to more easily adapt on the fly beyond Spell Substitution, why not have a Feat line similar to Clever Counterspell but applied more broadly.
Perhaps something like a Spellshape that makes it so that the next spell you cast can be a different spell than the one you prepared but both need to share a Trait beyond Concentrate/Manipulate (and be in your Spellbook, of course.)
Or a Feat that lets you leave slots "open" at Daily Preparation that can then be used to cast a spell with X trait, like [Mental] or [Polymorph]. You could even have different Feats for different Traits.
Not sure how powerful this stuff would be but I do know it'd likely increase the mental load a bunch, which makes me doubt it'd be worth it. But it's an idea.
The Fireworks Technician Archetype references Infused Reagents in the Dedication Feat and the Jumping Jenny feat, despite Infused Reagents no longer existing.
Wandering Chef: ""When using the Subsist downtime activity, you can use [Crafting] or [Cooking Lore] in place of [Survival], and if you roll a failure, you get a success instead."
Wandering Chef says [Crafting] = [Cooking lore] = [Survival] when you Subsist. Therefore, we can substitue [Survival] with [Cooking Lore] or [Crafting] in Forager and it still works fine.
I can see what other people are saying, but like Ravingdork says it's an order of operations thing. It's either.
We check Forager before applying Wandering Chef -> It works.
We check Wandering Chef before applying Forager -> It doesn't work.
And since this is such a minor thing, why not go with the one that lets the NPC/player do more stuff.
The way I see it, they should interact woth each other just fine.
Forager says whenever you'd roll Survival to Subsist (as opposed to Society) you get X effect.
Wandring Chef says whenever you'd use Survival to subsist, you can instead use Crafting or Cooking Lore.
So to me you can get the effects of Forager with Crafting or Cooking Lore. Honestly the effect of this is pretty much a ribbon and unlikely to come up in 99% of all games, so might as well do it.
Though I'm curious, since this is an NPC for your setting why are you asking? Just say it works and move on.
"can communicate mentally with any creatures within the listed radius, as long as they share a language."
So you need to share languages for telepathy. The Envisioning Mask gets rid of this requirement, though I'm not sure how useful that is when the messages are "vague and mysterious."
As for the second part, yes, you could. But keep in mind almost all the Linguistic feats/abilities are also Auditory. Now, Auditory does say "This applies only to sound-based parts of the effect, as determined by the GM", so a GM could let you use Telepathy for Auditory and Linguistic stuff.
I wouldn't allow Envisioning Mask for those though, since it specifies it's wordless communication. And with non-aeons its not even clear.
'm trying to find a way to also keep my second hand open for quickdraw for bombs since a lightning bomb/dread ampoule are easy ways to inflict debuffs. Also in the rare case you want to activate ammunition you still need that free hand. But realistically if you just give up on easy bomb access you can always carry the mace and a slide pistol which gives you 8 rounds of stab and blast before you ever need a free hand (without the feat taxes of course).
Keep in mind you can Regrip for free when you Reload weapons, so as long as you Release your gun after you shoot you're not losing any actions at all and you have a free hand basically every time you'd realistically want one, the one exception being Fatal Aim weapons.
You can? You learn something new every day. Sadly my guy is using a piercing wind, though I think I can still make it work. I've still got a rapier pistol rattling around somewhere I can also use if I gotta.
Ayup. It took a while for me to learn it too, but the Reload section in the Equipment chapter says:
"Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon."
'm trying to find a way to also keep my second hand open for quickdraw for bombs since a lightning bomb/dread ampoule are easy ways to inflict debuffs. Also in the rare case you want to activate ammunition you still need that free hand. But realistically if you just give up on easy bomb access you can always carry the mace and a slide pistol which gives you 8 rounds of stab and blast before you ever need a free hand (without the feat taxes of course).
Keep in mind you can Regrip for free when you Reload weapons, so as long as you Release your gun after you shoot you're not losing any actions at all and you have a free hand basically every time you'd realistically want one, the one exception being Fatal Aim weapons.
Stealth does really become an extremely useful tool for melee rogues, but at higher levels (13 for Halflings, 15 for Legendary Sneak).
Using your third action to Stealth is probably your best defensive option overall, the enemy has to either Seek (1 action less, and it's not guaranteed to work), use some other form to make you lose Hidden or deal with a 45% miss chance.
But yes at lower levels it's much harder to justify on a melee rogue, with a few exceptions, like if you have low-light/darkvision and the enemy doesn't and you're fighting in dim light.
If we compare it with Invulnerable Rager at level 8, the Animal Skin Barbarian has an AC of 28 while the Invulnerable Rager has an AC of 27. They equalise at 13th. So for 7 levels (assuming the Animal Barbarian takes Animal Skin at the earliest possible level) the Animal is better than the Invulnerable Rager, and at all other times they're equal.
Also, the Animal Barbarian has 0 downsides compared to other options. No Bulk, no speed reduction, no have-to-be-on-ground restrictions, no action tax, etc. Most of these are minor, but still worth pointing out.
If you're wearing Explorer's Clothing, you are Unarmored. If you look at the Armor table, you will see there's a Category called Unarmored. Wearing anything from that Category = Unarmored, and will use your Unarmored Proficiency.
Explorer's Clothing gives you a +0 item bonus to AC, with a Dexterity Cap of +5.
If, while wearing Explorer's Clothing, you use Animal Skin, you will instead have an Item Bonus of +2 and a Dexterity Cap of +3. At 13th Level, it is instead +3 Item Bonus and Dexterity Cap of +3.
If you're Unarmored, you can put runes on yourself with either Explorer's Clothing, the mystic armor spell or bands of force. That's why the Animal Skin feat says:
"This item bonus to AC is cumulative with armor potency runes on your explorer's clothing, mystic armor, and bands of force."
Blue Frog's example isn't saying spells auto-heighten.
What he's saying is that your signature spells are, effectively, more spells of your highest rank.
But they're not, is the point. Having more spells to choose from does not translate to an increase in spell output, and at the end of the day, your 7th-level Sorcerer is only casting three 4th-rank spells, same as the Wizard. The Sorcerer has more options to choose from within the day, certainly, and that choice carries power, but by that same virtue, so does the ability to change your options every day, which both they and you are completely discounting. It is a double standard to vaunt the choice inherent in one form of spellcasting while refusing to acknowledge the choice inherent in the other.
This isn't true though. Lets take the Sorcerer that has been brought up over and over again: Imperial.
Their 4th Rank bloodline spell is translocate. Lets say they decide to pick airlift and solid fog to add to their repertoire.
In any given encounter, they have access to all of those spells + their signature spells, which are all damaging spells (force barrage, blazing bolts, fireball).
If a wizard chooses to prepare translocate, airlift and solid fog, that is it. They have no way to turn their slots into damage in case of an emergency. If the wizard chooses to prepare 4th rank damaging spells, then they don't have translocate, airlift or solid fog.
No matter what the wizard does, they have less options on how they spend their slots during the adventuring day. They do have a much higher diversity overall, but it goes back to what this thread has been discussing over and over: how useful is it being able to prepare very niche spells vs being a generalist? You clearly place great value in it, many other people don't.
I personally see the value of it, but the Wizard isn't only prepared spellcasting, it's a whole class and it has lackluster features and feats that just make it very unappealing to me. I've played Witch, Cleric and Druid and found them all to be very fun, I've never loved prepared casting but it's not a dealbreaker for me.
Teridax wrote:
And by the way, please don't go claiming this:
TheFinish wrote:
I don't really have a dog in this fight
When you clearly do:
TheFinish wrote:
The Wizard only has the advantage here if the party gets ambushed by Dominathor and the Wizard has an Incapacitation or Mental spell in an appropiate slot or if the Wizard knows Dominate and the party learns they will have to fight Dominathor (and that he uses Dominate) in a timeframe where using Spell Substitution to slot something in to counter him is viable, but retreating until next daily preparation is not.*
*And obviously this only applies to Spell Substitution wizards, other wizards are in a worse spot.
You clearly have chosen a side when you too ascribe to the notion that a spellcaster only ever needs to prepare one spell in the day and no more, and that a spontaneous spellcaster will magically always have the exact spell that's needed in their repertoire. Refer to the above example of the hag coven to see how that falls apart the moment you introduce even a single other spell that would need to be prepared around for Counterspelling, or to the more general examples of niche utility spells that are easy to prepare but costly to include in a repertoire.
I will repeat: no dog in this fight.
My response to Bluemagetim was in regard to his particular post: ie is Counterspell useful for something like Dominate, and yeah, it is, but if you only care about Dominate then there isn't a lot of difference between an Arcane Sorcerer with Arcane Evolution and a Wizard with Clever Counterspell if what you want to do is ruin Dominathor's day by counterspelling his big thing.
In your example, you name spellwrack, outcast's curse, dominate and impaling spike. Your Wizard can in fact learn all of them relatively easily. With Clever counterspell, you'd need:
- 1 prepared spell with [Curse] or [Force] (for Spellwrack, which is Rank 6 or above)
- 1 prepared spell with [Curse], [Misfortune] or [Mental] (for Outcast's Curse, which is Rank 4 or above)
- 1 prepared spell with [Uncommon] or [Incapacitate] or [Mental] (for Dominate, which is Rank 6 or above)
- 1 prepared spell with [Metal] (for Impaling Spike, which is Rank 5 or above).
Thankfully by the power of simplification we can see we only really need to prepare our own Outcast's Curse to counter the Hag's Spellwrack, Outcast's Curse or Dominate. We need something with Metal for Impaling Spike, which would be either our own Impaling Spike or maybe something like Rust Cloud, just in case we don't actually Counterspell, so we have a nice spell to turn on them (particularly Impaling Spike, since cold iron and all that).
If a Hag uses Outcast's Curse I'd be delighted, they're essentially wasting their actions, especially because it's a Coven spell, which means the hags have spend 4 out of their combined 12 actions to cast it.
The other spells you listed are also Coven spells, and arguably not worth 4 actions either, but they're at least worthy of consideration, especially because if you pull off a Counterspell, the hags wasted 4 actions instead of just 2.
So yeah, the Wizard can shine here. By preparing only 2 or 3 spells, they can completely shut down the hags Coven spells, whereas a Sorcerer would need to pick 1 (Dominate, most likely).*
Of course if your info is wrong and you don't end up facing a Hag coven, then those Outcast's Curse you prepared are now of very dubious use, while the Sorcerer's Dominate might not be. But that is the price you pay for versatility.
*I played with a friend whose Sorcerer knew Impaling Spike, and as a signature no less, but he was going all in on METAL so I'm unsure how normal that'd be in the wild. My guess: not very normal.
You keep saying I don't read your posts, but it seems you don't read mine since I already offered mathematical proof for this.
Every level, a sorcerer gets a signature spell that gives him one more option for his higher level slots.
So at level 4, a sorcerer knows 4 level 2 spells + 1 from lvl 1 signature.
At level 6, he knows 4 level 4 spells + 3 from lvl 1,2 and 3 signature.
At level 12 he knows 4 level 6 spells + 5 from lvl 1 through 5 signature.
So every lvl6 slot of a lvl 12 sorcerer has 9 differents options to choose from.
And so on and so forth.
Meanwhile, the wizard can indeed tailor his selection on a daily basis, but he still cannot choose more than 3 different spells +1 static, which gives him way less options.
I don't know how to spell it out more easily, honestly.
Congratulations on demonstrating you don't understand how spontaneous spellcasting works. Spells in your repertoire don't auto-heighten when you cast them with higher-rank slots unless they're signature spells -- that is in fact why signature spells exist to begin with. By having jump as a 1st-rank spell in your repertoire, you won't be able to cast its 3rd-rank version unless you either add it to your repertoire again as a 3rd-rank spell, or make it a signature spell. So yes, your Sorcerer may be able to cast more spells with their 6th-rank slots... but most of them will be cast as lower-rank spells, and I don't know about you, but using a 6th-rank slot to cast a 1st-rank runic weapon doesn't sound like a very effective play to me.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but Blue Frog's example isn't saying spells auto-heighten.
What he's saying is that your signature spells are, effectively, more spells of your highest rank.
If you're a 7th level Sorcerer, you have access to 4th Rank Spells. Your repertoire will have 1 4th rank spell from Bloodline and 2 you can pick yourself.
But, if you've picked Signature Spells correctly, you will also have those available, at minimal loss.
For example, if your 1st Rank Signature is Force Barrage, your 2nd Rank Signature is Blazing Bolts and your 3rd Rank Signature is Fireball, then, using your 4th Rank Slots you can cast:
- Your Bloodline Spell
- 4th Rank Spell A (your choice)
- 4th Rank Spell B (your choice)
- 4th Rank Force Barrage (which is no different than 3rd Rank)
- 4th Rank Blazing Bolts
- 4th Rank Fireball
So while the Sorcerer only has 3 slots, they can use them to cast any of these 6 spells, in any combination. Yes, up-casting some spells is worthless, but that's where Signature spell selection is crucial. If you do it right, then you can expand your options without giving up too much power.
The 7th level Wizard meanwhile will only ever have access to a maximum of 3 spells (school slot + 2), and the broader they go the less they can cast each of those spells.
Okay so if there are no new Firearms what of this list is new tne?
Two new classes: the clever inventor and the sharpshooting gunslinger, updated to work perfectly with the Remastered Pathfinder Second Edition rules
The remastered automaton ancestry for players who want to play a customizable construct - Are these good?
Firearms of all stripes, from the simple and effective flintlock pistol to versatile gunblades - I was expecting new stuff because of the rest of the list.
Dozens of new archetypes - Please tell me there are actually New Archetypes
Scores of new gadgets and vehicles - Not my thing but nice.
Siege engines and accompanying rules - Pardon, didn't this already exist just a Remastering of this?
A gazetteer of Golarion revealing how firearms and technology fit into the Age of Lost Omens, including a look at the technology of the continents of Arcadia and Tian Xia and never-before-revealed secrets of the rough-and-tumble, gritty city of Alkenstar - LORE!?
All of that is the old product description for Guns & Gears. The book didn't add anything, it only Remastered old content.
Tell me its not worth it to know and prepare to counterspell dominate when you know its coming?
Uncommon too so likely you have to do something to get access to a scroll to learn it cause typically a sorcerer or wizard is not going to have access to add it to repertoire or spell book on level up.
I mean sure, but in this situation the Arcane Sorcerer and Wizard are basically the same.
The Arcane Sorcerer with Arcane Evolution learns Dominate, puts them in their Arcane Evolution list and during daily preparation chooses Dominate at the highest rank they can cast. Now they're ready to Counterspell Dominate, four times if needed.
The Wizard learns Dominate, and has it in their Spellbook. Dominate is Rank 6, so the wizard likely has Clever Counterspell. This means they could use any spell they have prepared that has the Incapacitation or Mental traits to Counterspell. Realistically, though since a Critical Success only allows Rank+3 counteracting, the lowest they can try to use is a Rank 3 spell (and given monster DCs, this wouldn't really be adviseable).
If both characters know during daily prep that they're going to face Dominathor the Unyielding, then they're in the same boat: both will be able to go into the fight ready to counterspell.
The Wizard only has the advantage here if the party gets ambushed by Dominathor and the Wizard has an Incapacitation or Mental spell in an appropiate slot or if the Wizard knows Dominate and the party learns they will have to fight Dominathor (and that he uses Dominate) in a timeframe where using Spell Substitution to slot something in to counter him is viable, but retreating until next daily preparation is not.*
*And obviously this only applies to Spell Substitution wizards, other wizards are in a worse spot.
1) Yes. The Splash damage from the Ikon is still damage from your Strikes, so it would trigger Mortal Weakness or Personal Antithesis just as if you'd hit.
2) Both, I'd say. It gets weird of course, but Twin Stars is very specific in saying "these copies are identical except for one mirrored feature, such as a sun motif on one and a moon motif on another." So if one is your Implement...the other is also your Implement.**
3) Again, refer to earlier, the copies are identical except for cosmetics, so both guns will have the exact same ammo when you make the copies*. Does this create problems if you later end up with more ammo in one than the other and you un-split them? Probably, yeah, but it's minor, and this is a super rare divine gun, so who cares.
*So if you split them with 6 rounds in the magazine, both will have 6 rounds. If you Split them with 3, both will have 3, and so on and so forth.
**This would, however, turn off Implement's Empowerment, since now you're wielding two one-handed weapons. That are also your Implement. Boy does Implement's Empowerment need some clarifications though.
So with this war, are we going to see Cheliax take more beatings and stop being a threat, or be utterly defeated and another big bad empire is removed from the board?
I am afraid about the same thing to be honest. "Hellbreakers" sounds a lot like Cheliax will loose this. And removing the last "Big bad evil empire" might feel good while doing so in the story itself, but leaves a big hole afterwards narrative-wise.
To be fair, Cheliax works as a bogeyman but every time they appear in APs they get the stuffing kicked out of them and end up taking the L (which makes sense, since they're villains).
Even if we take into account that they win in Hell's Vengeance, this is counterbalanced by how thoroughly they got trounced in Hell's Rebels.
However, I don't think the AP will see Cheliax gone. I think a much better bet, given the geographical positions involved, is that Andoran takes part or the entirety of Isger, which has already tried rebelling before.
That would deal a blow to Cheliax without removing them from the board, so to speak.
Were there any big changes or added feats for a crossbow-based gunslinger?
Changes yes, feats no. The big change is that Gunslinger Singular expertise got changed. Instead of the huge paragraph it was, with the +1 circumstance bonus to damage, it is now:
+2 precision damage on all attacks with NON-REPEATING crossbows
+1d4 precision damage on all attacks with NON-REPEATING firearms.
These bonuses increase to +3/+1d6 at 13th level.
SuperBidi wrote:
Blave wrote:
YuriP wrote:
I was reading Overdrive and its improvement was minimal. Basically if it fail you get 1 extra damage instead of nothing and if you critically fail you cooldown only 1d4 rounds instead of 1 minute.
It's weird that the 1 damage on a failure is fire damage. If you're fighting something with weakness to fire, failing the check might end up more beneficial than succeeding. Unless you're using the weapon innovation of course.
Yep, it's a significant buff if your GM uses the Liminal rules of downgrading a success to a failure. Against enemies with a weakness to Fire it's really useful (and weakness to Fire is rather common, hello trolls).
But SuperBidi, trolls are weak to electricity now, not fire!
1) You will probably want to avoid the kineticist impulses with the stance trait to avoid dropping out of any monk stance ("A stance lasts until you get knocked out, until its requirements (if any) are violated, until the encounter ends, or until you use a stance action again, whichever comes first.) before access to Fuse Stance.
2) Related to the first, a kineticist/Str-monk should probably select Mountain Stance (plus Mountain Stronghold and Mountain Quake) as the impulses granting armor will not benefit from the higher unarmored defense proficiency of the monk class benefits.
Ah I thought the Armor in Earth uses your 'highest' Armor proficiency, which would be the Monk's expert unarmored right?
You'd need to discuss it with your GM, since while Unarmored is definitely a Defence, but whether or not it counts as an Armor Proficiency is a hotly debated topic.
I think it does simply because the Armor section of Player Core says:
"The armor’s category—unarmored, light armor, medium armor, or heavy armor—indicates which proficiency bonus you use while wearing the armor."
If Unarmored is an Armor category, then it follows Unarmored is a type of Armor proficiency.
Do note, however, that regardless of how your GM chooses to rule this, it's still armor, which means you can't use a lot of Monk stances anyway because they require you to be Unarmored. The only ones open to you would be Stumbling Stance and (if you allow Legacy content), Gorilla stance. If you don't care about Monk stances though, this isn't a big issue.
I wouldn't recommend Mountain Stance because it's not worth the feat slots.
2) Aiuvarin should require that your ancestry is not Elf, and Dromaar should require that your base ancestry is not Orc. Because an Elf with 2 Elven parents or an Orc with 2 Orcish parents is just an Elf/Orc, respectively.
Actually, I don't quite agree. It allows you to play a character who only has a small portion of his bloodline that is not, say, elven. For example, a character who is 3/4 or 7/8 elf could be an elf with half-elf bloodline.
I agree with you but in this case, we're facing a rules problem. The rules language for the Aiuvarin heritage says:
"You gain the elf trait, the aiuvarin trait, and low-light vision. In addition, when you gain an ancestry feat, you can choose from aiuvarin and elf feats in addition to those from your ancestry."
Dromaar has basically the same language, just replace elf with orc and aiuvarin with Dromaar.
If you're an Elf and you choose Aiuvarin as a versatile heritage (which is, and should be, allowed) then you lose access to an entire Feat list (that of your other ancestry), and you gain basically nothing in return (there are only 5 Aiuvarin feats).
Orcs that choose Dromaar are even worse off since there's only 3 Dromaar feats.
What's strange is that the language for half-elf and half-orc was different and allowed for Orcs and Elves to take the heritage without these issues. The rewrite wouldn't be simple though, it'd be something like:
"If you're not an Elf, you gain the elf trait, the aiuvarin trait, and low-light vision. In addition, when you gain an ancestry feat, you can choose from aiuvarin and elf feats in addition to those from your ancestry. If you're an Elf, you gain an ancestry trait of your choice that isn't a versatile heritage, the aiuvarin trait, and you may choose feats with your chosen ancestry trait in addition to elf and aiuvarin feats."
The AC buffs to armor innovation are kind of cool tbh, but given that construct innovation was already a joke and weapon innovation has some really negligible early benefits it kind of seems like it just makes armor the obviously correct choice unless there's something really specific you want to do (like entangling on a reach weapon is kind of neat).
I mean I guess you can sentinel dedication to get +6 armor too but that's a whole extra set of investment and I'm not really sure what you're getting on the other end.
What's really weird is that the changes to Armor make it excellent as a dip for anyone willing to sacrifice a Class feat for Inventor Dedication. After all, you're getting Heavy armor numbers on a Medium or Light chassis, which is a good investment, and you can later pick up Speed Boosters or one of the resistance modifications later on.
Though I've read elsewhere that the dedication has a requirement of Int +3, so if that's true that will severely curtail taking it.
I like that we're finally getting official half-giants, but at least in my home games I'll have to weigh them against Battlezoo's excellent Giant ancestries to see if they're worth including.
I do think they look slightly comical, but there's much weirder things in Golarion so it doesn't bother me too much.
Someone said they can use Advanced Weapons as the base for their Weapon Innovation, but don't get the initial modification.
You can apparently start with a Level 0 Advanced Weapon (so, no Barricade Buster) as your Innovation, but if you do then you do not get an initial modification.
I have no skin in the game with inventors- never played one, not really interested, etc.
The idea of picking the already anemic "you get a weapon with an additional trait" option and instead getting NO additional traits is so strange, it loops around to being funny to me.
Sure, I get it, advanced weapons have more traits, we need to be balanced, yada yada. But it's so funny to have an option where you just basically don't have a subclass for the entirety of low level play.
BEHOLD! My masterwork! My ultimate example of my genius! My greatest invention: a weapon that already exists, but now no one else can use!
I like to imagine you essentially did something like 40k Orks: you've made an object that functions like something that already exists, but in such a roundabout and perplexing way that nobody else knows how in the nine hells you're supposed to operate it.
Explode and Mega/Gigavolt are AoE effects, they very quickly lose their steam. Being able to cast them more than once at the cost of an action like Spellstrike would not be such an upside.
Overall, I don't think we really disagree. I fully admit that there are weird things around Overdrive, and it's unclear if it's meant to be often on like Rage or rarely on like Boost Eidolon as it's a bit in between. I also don't think the Inventor is a top class in the game so comparing it to the Barbarian, which is now rock solid since the remaster, will just show its limitations. But that's always the case when people compare to top classes in this game, other classes always look weak in comparison.
What I do think is that people focus way too much on Overdrive. It's a tool for the Inventor, not a necessity like Rage is for the Barbarian.
I also think that the class is fine as is in terms of power. There are many classes that are not really better: Swashbuckler, Investigator, non-Thief/Ruffian Rogue, Alchemist, Thaumaturge. Actually, most of the classes that are "martials with a twist" are in line with the Inventor so I think it's the balance point for Paizo.
Explode and Gigavolt are AoEs, but what about Searing Restoration? Megaton/Gigaton Strike? Electrify Armor? Deep Freeze?
There's a lot of Unstable actions besides the ones you keep bringing up and basically all of them aren't powerful enough to justify Unstable as is.
As for your last paragraph, I heavily disagree. Overdrive is as much (if not more) a core part of Inventor as Unstable effects. Without it you're just plain worse in the damage department than everyone else, especially because your KAS isn't your to-hit stat. I mean, just comparing:
Swashbuckler: You have KAS in a to-hit stat. Bravado ensures you get the full benefit of Panache even on a failure and even against things that would be immune (such as Intimidating mindless creatures). Your Bravado actions do more than just give you extra damage (except Battledancer, which requires feat investment).*
Investigator: Devise a Stratagem can be a free Action. It doesn't require a skill check. It allows you to use your KAS as to-hit and it adds damage on top. And if you get a low roll, you can use it for something else.
Non-Thief/Ruffian Rogues: You can have KAS as your to-hit (remember, the rackets allow you to switch KAS, they don't force you.). You can still get Sneak Attack off by simply flanking, meaning your damage bonus doesn't require a check. And when it does require a check, it does more than just enable Sneak Attack (remember, Overdrive just gives you more damage).*
Alchemsit: Actually in the same boat as Inventor, though they far outstrip them in versatility.
Thaumaturge: Exploit Vulnerability gives full damage bonuses on F, S and CS (unlike Overdrive) and, on a S and CS, gives additional benefits in knowing resistances/weaknesses/immunities (and even more, with a single level 1 feat).*
So no, they aren't in-line with Inventor. They were, before the Remaster (particularly Swashbuckler and Investigator) but post Remaster most of them are just better.
*One thing to note here of course is that all three of these depend on enemy values, unlike Overdrive. This means they'll be easier against lower level enemies and harder against higher level enemies, which we could argue is why their F effects are more powerful than Overdrive's. But Overdrive is also the only one of these that actively damages you in a CF and prevents you from trying again, and I will reiterate that all it does is increase your damage, so IMO it's still a worse use of an Action than any of them.
I agree with Baarogue, Hurl at the Horizon doesn't turn your weapon into a permanent thrown weapon because it's an Immanence effect that only exists while your spark is in it. The item needs to have a permanent thrown to allow this. Follow a more updated rule:
f an item can have two or more property runes, you decide which runes to swap and which to leave when transferring. If you attempt to transfer a rune to an item that can't accept it, such as transferring a melee weapon rune to a ranged weapon, you get an automatic critical failure on your Crafting check. If you transfer a potency rune, you might end up with property runes on an item that can't benefit from them. These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them.
...
I actually see this more as a weapon with a Shifting Rune than anything else.
If I have a Warhammer with a Shifting Rune and I turn it into a Trident (Thrown 20ft), I can now inscribe the Returning Rune on that Trident. If I shift it into a form that doesn't have Thrown, the Returning Rune is suppressed and stops working.
As long as the spark is in the Greatsword, the greatsword is a Thrown weapon and can therefore be inscribed with the Returning Rune. If it loses Thrown, the rune just stops working. There's no need to complicate it further than that IMO.
Someone said they can use Advanced Weapons as the base for their Weapon Innovation, but don't get the initial modification.
You can apparently start with a Level 0 Advanced Weapon (so, no Barricade Buster) as your Innovation, but if you do then you do not get an initial modification.
SuperBidi wrote:
YuriP wrote:
I don't think that comparison with Arcane Cascade is a good comparison because magus also have SpellStrike as it main ability
And the Inventor has Explode and then Mega/Gigavolt as its main ability. So I really do think the comparison is fitting.
Now I agree that Overdrive is weird. The fact that you can technically activate it outside combat is odd and it's unclear if it's an expectation or a mistake. Also, it's not really better than Arcane Cascade as Arcane Cascade doesn't have a chance to miss and it comes with additional effects when Overdrive additional effects are close to non-existant and specific to some Innovations.
You also forget the extra 1d6 of damage the Inventor gets at level 9. Actually, with a critical success to Overdrive, the Inventor has roughly the damage buff of the Barbarian: 4 at level 1, 5 at level 3, 6 at level 7, 1d6+6 (9.5) at level 9, 1d6+7 (10.5) at level 10, 1d6+8 (11.5) at level 15 and 1d6+9 (12.5) at level 20 compared to 3 at level 1, 7 at level 7 and 13 at level 15 for a Fury Barbarian.
So I still disagree with you when you paint Overdrive (and the Inventor) as weak. It's clunky and much harder to play than a Barbarian and I agree that the class is not part of the top martials like the Barbarian is, but it's not as bad as you say.
Maguses can Spellstrike more than once per combat 100% of the time though, unless combat is literally super short. An Inventor can only use their "main ability" twice per fight 30% of the time until level 14, where they finally get to use it twice. Yay.
Your Overdrive comparison also kind of falls flat when you realise an Inventor starts with only a 15% Critical Success Chance, and they max out at 40% CS chance*. This means you're much more likely to spend an Action and only get Half-int to damage, and while you can use actions in subsequent turns to try to get a CS, now you're comparing 2 actions to get Full int to damage to a Free action on rolling Initiative, there's just no comparison here, Overdrive is bad. It was sort of OK when the Inventor came out but the Thaumaturge and remastered Rage have made it even worse.
*Due to how level based DCs work and when Item bonuses become available, the CS chance of Overdrive fluctuates between 35 and 40% at levels 9+, but it's 40% at 20th so I went with that. My main point is you have higher chances of not getting a CS on your first Overdrive.
My big question is: Does Munitions Crafter have a larger batch size for Level 0 Black Powder rounds?
If not, making 4 pieces of ammo at first, ramping up to 14 at twentieth... it's in an odd place.
Yes, the same OP in the original reddit thread clarified that you can make Level 0 Black Powder rounds in batches of 4.
"When crafting alchemical ammunition, including black powder in doses or rounds, using advanced alchemy, you create ammunition in batches of 4 (meaning that if you were 4th level and used all of your advanced alchemy consumables to create alchemical ammunition, you could create a maximum of 24 rounds). You cannot use advanced alchemy to Craft horns or kegs of black powder."
What's interesting to me specifically about Munitions Crafter is how it interacts with other Archetypes (Poisoner/Herbalist/Alchemist) that give you Advanced Alchemy benefits.
Since, RAW, it'd mean you use the highest number of them but can now use them for anything you could do with either feat.
So if you're a Gunslinger with Munitions Crafter and you take Alchemist Dedication, and then take Advanced Alchemy, you can craft 4+Half Level or any kind of Alchemical Consumeable. Which means you cap out at 14, vs an Alchemist's 17, which seems...very weird.
And for those saying Gunslingers don't get Quick Alchemy: they do, that's what Munitions Machinist was changed to, and IIRC it gives you 4 versatile vials for munitions/bombs.
Correct, but what I mean is more that on Large mounts, 5ft and 10ft Reach both can only attack within 5 feet. This is dumb, and the reasons developers have put forth in the past for why they do it don't really make any sense, but it is what it is.
If you're a Tiny sprite with a Reach weapon your Reach is 5 feet so mounted or unmounted makes no real difference.
I believe it simply has to do with the amount of squares you threathen on a large(or larger) creature while having reach not be limited. Quite different going from 12->32 on a large mount or 16->40 on a huge mount. Especially in relation to Reactive Strike.
Edit: Actually after writing this the Beastmaster in my campaign asked me how Whirlwind Strike would work while mounted.
That is one of the concerns, but the thing is, there is no difference between a medium guy on a Large mount and just...a Large guy. Or a Huge guy.
When a Minotaur Fighter can just start the game with a Reach weapon and have 0 trouble threatening all those squares, or a Giant Instinct Barbarian can threaten out to 15 feet (5 base, +5 from Stature + 5 from Reach Weapon) at Level 6, I see no real point in arbitrarily constraining Mounted characters.
I get the idea that the Animal Companion is more easily accesible, but it also requires a lot more feat investment to keep relevant, so I just allow normal Reach in my games. It hasn't really been a huge power boost.
As for Whirlwind Strike, it would work without any issues, I'd think. You make an attack vs everyone within your Reach, no MAP until you finish.
I mean they don't but they can point out having a dude staring at a door 24/7 is stupid (which it is).
But it's a fantasy game, you could have a zombie, or a construct, or a bunch of stuff that doesn't get tired and can alert people.
Not that it matters because the OP wasn't about traps (or non traps) or anything of the sort, it was about senses, which wouldn't really apply here, because someone with Foil Senses and Legendary Sneak (like OP) could literally kick open the door, Hide, Sneak, and the guards would have absolutely no clue where they are.
Because aside from Jousting and the faster movement, there's no benefit to being mounted. It is in fact a detriment: you lose Reach if you're on a Large mount, it's harder to maneuver (as you pointed out) and you share MAP.
Considering the situation in question is of a sprite, Would they not need a reach weapon to begin with in order to even make mounted melee strikes? Unless they are the heritage that makes them small instead of tiny ofcourse.
Correct, but what I mean is more that on Large mounts, 5ft and 10ft Reach both can only attack within 5 feet. This is dumb, and the reasons developers have put forth in the past for why they do it don't really make any sense, but it is what it is.
If you're a Tiny sprite with a Reach weapon your Reach is 5 feet so mounted or unmounted makes no real difference.
If you'd rather spend an extra move action than share MAP, then just dismount (1 action), Command (1 Action) -> Wolf Strike; Takedown (if they hit) -> You attack (at no MAP).
There, you've spent an extra move action to not share MAP. Once you've closed with the enemy you really don't need to be mounted unless your weapon has the Jousting trait. And if it does have the jousting trait, the wolf is not going to be Biting much since you're basically going to do hit and runs.
Because aside from Jousting and the faster movement, there's no benefit to being mounted. It is in fact a detriment: you lose Reach if you're on a Large mount, it's harder to maneuver (as you pointed out) and you share MAP.
And the reason you share MAP is simply game balance, and nothing more. The mount gives you a 4th action, effectively, so once you were close to an enemy you could do Strike (no MAP) + Strike (-5) + third action (raise shield, or intimidate, or something) + free mount strike (no MAP).
That's 2 MAPless strikes every round if you don't need to move, except you can also turn one of them into a free move. If you're not mounted you can get the MAPless strikes, but the move is only for your companion, so if you end up in a bad situation you'll have to spend more actions to get away.
First, you use Devise a Stratagem. Lets say you roll a 17.
You then Strike with your Unfailing Bow, and you roll a 6. You don't like this so you replace it with the 17.
Then you use Arrow Splits Arrow, using 17 as the d20 roll.
Because Arrow Split Arrow requires that your last action was Striking with the bow, there is no way to do something like:
3rd Action of your turn: Strike with bow.
New turn comes along:
1st action: Devise a Stratagem
2nd action: Arrow Splits Arrow.
Even when it's Free, Devise a Stratagem is an action, so you won't fulfil Arrow Splits Arrow. However, you can definitely use Devise a Stratagem to substitute a d20 roll on an Unfailing Bow strike and then use Arrow Splits Arrow, nothing prevents this.
I have to agree with Trip H. and others here. Though the Extradimensional trait description is a bit of a joke, if an object is in an extradimensional space then it shouldn't be contributing to your own Bulk. Its in another dimension, not you.
You could also simply cast 4th Rank Silence on yourself and then open the door, in which case the bell will be within your 10 foot silence aura and not emit a sound.
Is it a good use of a 4th rank spell? Probably not. But it'd work.
I have to agree with NorrKneten. The timing is essentially:
1 Action, I use Pacifying Infusion
2 Actions, I use Aerial Boomerang. I can now use the Junction, which states I may Stride half my speed or Step before or after any other effects of Aerial Boomerang.
This is because the rules state "In addition, you gain an impulse junction, a benefit that occurs when you use an impulse of the chosen element that takes 2 actions or more. This happens before the other effects of the impulse, unless noted otherwise."
Essentially, the junction is changing the effect of Aerial Boomerang from:
Spoiler:
A blade of shearing wind races away from you in a 60-foot line. Each creature in the area takes 2d4 slashing damage with a basic Reflex save against your class DC. In the final square of the line, the boomerang whirls in place until the end of your next turn. Any creature that ends its turn in that square has to save against the boomerang.
On your next turn, you can use a single action, which has the concentrate trait, to return the boomerang to you. It returns in a line from its square to your current location, with the same effect as the initial line, then the impulse ends. You must have line of effect to the boomerang and be within 60 feet of it.
to
Spoiler:
A blade of shearing wind races away from you in a 60-foot line. Each creature in the area takes 2d4 slashing damage with a basic Reflex save against your class DC. In the final square of the line, the boomerang whirls in place until the end of your next turn. Any creature that ends its turn in that square has to save against the boomerang.
On your next turn, you can use a single action, which has the concentrate trait, to return the boomerang to you. It returns in a line from its square to your current location, with the same effect as the initial line, then the impulse ends. You must have line of effect to the boomerang and be within 60 feet of it.
Before or after the initial effects of the impulse, you can either Stride up to half your Speed or Step. If you have a fly Speed, you can Fly up to half your fly Speed instead.
But it's still all part of the same Impulse activity, so Pacifying Infusion's clause is still met.
I wouldn't use the term nerf. The ability doesn't answer the two questions I originally posted in the rules text, I see GM adjudication in terms of the abilities scope as required.
PC pg 256 Foil Senses wrote:
You are adept at foiling creatures’ special senses and
cautious enough to safeguard against them at all times.
Whenever you use the Avoid Notice, Hide, or Sneak actions,
you are always considered to be taking precautions against
special senses (see the Detecting with Other Senses sidebar
on page 433).
The feat is providing the ability to always be in the act of foiling senses, it doesn't provide the means to foil them (meaning there is an assumed stance that the pc always has the means if they do), it doesn't provide the knowledge to foil them(another assumed stance the pc knows all methods for all senses, even ones they've never encountered or heard of before if they do) Those are questions left to the player to figure out and the GM to adjudicate.
Based on the responses from others in the thread it seems they have already assumed these to be automatic from the text so I may be in the minority in seeing it more nuanced leaving room for the pc to run into a sense they didn't know about and may not have the means on them to foil until then next time they encounter it.
Foil senses doesn't require knowledge, or really means. It's automatic, they are always considered to be taking precautions.
Now, the GM is in their power to declare some senses are just impossible to take precautions against, which is fine (after all, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, the sidebar says many special senses can be foiled, not all). But all the ones you can take precautions against, the character with the feat will take precautions against. Even if they don't know they exist. They're just that good at stealth. It's a Master level skill feat, they can do that.
I bring up Legendary Sneak again. Why do we need to justify how/why/when we're taking precautions vs X but not the fact we can literally disappear into thin air, in broad daylight, without actual magic or any other help?
Plus, trying to put "knowledge" as a stopgap works...once, per sense. After that, the PC knows that sense exists and will therefore take precautions against it. And that's assuming they don't learn of it from a book or something.
I think the way to handle this is that "faculty members at a magical university do not offer their time freely and excessively to just anybody who asks."
Like the PCs identify "this magical statue is a hazard, and probably shouldn't be doing that" and tell a member of the faculty or staff is a reasonable way to handle the situation, they should get XP for "oh, here's your problem- the switch was set to evil" sort of solution. The general rule is "if you figure out a solution to prevent/bypass/avoid/etc. a fight, you get the XP for the fight."
But there should be no way that the professor would follow the PCs into the store-room. They were responsible for safety in a public places students might wander into, but it's not tenable to insist that "the contents of every locked room are safe enough for someone who is capable of bypassing the lock."
So you have the faculty member insisting the students "be careful in there" and "if you see my missing alembic, please grab it for me" but not following the PCs to get in the dungeon. The thing about deep storage at universities is that nobody really wants to go in there anyway.
Like the reason to avoid "this NPC who is much higher level than you solves the problem trivially" be a part of gameplay is that it's not fun, not that the PCs don't get enough XP or loot this way. SoT is specifically like "magical graduate school" and any grad-student/faculty interaction in real life is likely to result in "the graduate student has more stuff on their plate after talking to the faculty member, not less."
The problem here is that the school is supposed to be safe, and a learning enviroment. If, in the real world, someone found loose tigers in an unused university building, the answer wouldn't be "well you're not supposed to go there anyway, if they eat you its your fault", it'd be "oh dear lord what?!" and it'd be dealt with. Not by the faculty, but critically, not by the students either. In pathfinder the threshold for "loose tigers" is much higher, of course, because the students can run around with swords and spells, but even then anyone with an iota of self preservation would go looking for people who they know can deal with this: the faculty.
The good thing about the magic school is that the teachers can turn those situations into learning experiences, since they are training "adventurers". But having the faculty straight up ignore obvious dangers to the student body on school grounds is incredibly jarring. Especially since the Magaambya isn't supposed to be a "kill or be killed" training from hell kind of school. Then answer shouldn't be "lol.lmao. ok well don't go there." it should be like what Mathmuse did "very well, lets see if I can teach you about how to deal with these situations."
I haven't read Strength of Thousands, but I hope the AP at least has guidelines for what to do if the students do what anybody would do and just go ask the teachers. Otherwise...chalk one up to space constraints I guess.
Yesterday my character (a rogue with Foil Senses and Legendary Sneak) was spotted automatically by a creature with Bloodsense without any roll.
The GM argued that my character must be aware of the special sense and describe how they are trying to avoid it.
However, it seems to me that this is actually a basic rule that doesn’t require the feat:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2405&Redirected=1
As shown there, any character is allowed to attempt to take precautions against a special sense, provided they know about it and can describe how they are doing so.
That said, the feat clearly states that the character is "ALWAYS" considered to be taking precautions:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5151&Redirected=1
"Always" means they are doing so regardless of whether they are aware of creatures with special senses or not.
My position is that, if this weren't the case, the feat would have no mechanical effect. The procedure for avoiding special senses by describing how and why is already available to everyone, even without the feat. Therefore, if the feat does anything at all, that "something" must be allowing Stealth rolls always, even when the basic procedure (the one that is available without cthe feat) wouldn't apply.
What do you think?
You are 100% in the right in this situation, though this seems more like your GM knows this perfectly well, they just don't like it. Which is fine, but then you really need to talk about it or it'll just get worse.
Out of curiosity, do they have the same problem with Legendary Sneak? I'd think the ability to straight up disappear from view in broad daylight with zero means of concealing yourself would be a lot more jarring than "I sneak so well I can avoid echolocation".
Mathmuse, you're right to avoid Extinction Curse. I signed up for the circus, and then got pulled away to save the world, and I didn't want to go. I wanted to keep going with circus shenanigans.
Actually this might be worth doing an entire thread about... I cannot stand when an adventure does not deliver on its core promise. I was promised circus shenanigans, and I'm still disappointed that later volumes did not follow through.
Hmm
I think a large part of the problem might be that books in the same AP are written by different people, so you can get vastly different feel and expectations. One persons view of a theme or trope might be different then another's so the story could start leaning one way or another. Two books later you might be very far from the original feel.
For SoT, I haven't played it, sounds like your supposed to be self motivated teens, not efficient problem solvers. YA adventures are all about having to take on responsibility because adults are busy with other problems. In Mathmuse's example the teacher should likely either ignore the request or take the time to figure out what they are doing and then tell them the guard is there for a reason, maybe don't mess with it.
Many APs seem like they have a hidden contract that suggests you play it a certain way, maybe it's a genre piece or heavily thematic. Not knowing or caring about that view can make a lot of the interactions in the story not work as intended. A noir detective story, a horror story and a heroic high fantasy story all ask for very different mindsets, yet can all be played with the same rules and even same characters.
This was my experience with Outlaws of Alkenstar, where book 2 is a giantic swerve that also ends up not mattering at all story wise. It seemed like someone had an idea for an (admittedly cool) dungeon but didn't know what to do with it. If I ever run it I'll have to rewrite most of the volume.
But again, this is a narrative, not reality. Pre-remaster, the Rogue was certainly not weak, but was never considered this exceptionally strong class either...
Not sure where you've been, but rogue was considered the best martial class in the system next to the fighter until it was joined by bow magus. Rogue getting buffed saves and buffed gang up only further locked that in.
Generally speaking, I wouldnt say rogue is so much the favored child as martials are favored as a whole. Only nerfs they got were killing flickmace and crit specs. But buffs? Rogue fort saves and gang up, barbarian lost rage penalties and the action tax, assorted buffs to other classes. Casters? Witch made out like a bandit while everyone else has been almost static since launch or nerfed in some way. The focus point buff buffed everyone equally seeing as many martials either get focus spells naturally or dipped into champion, psychic or blessed one for easy points.
Don't forget Thief Rogues getting to add their DEX to Damage on Unarmed Attacks. That was also a huge buff they got in the Remaster just because.
Honestly I can't think of a single targeted nerf that hit Rogues specifically the way Sure Strike hit the magus or changes to Schools hit the Wizard.
Even Fighters, for example, lost the ability to have more than 1 weapon group at their highest proficiency with the changes to Archer and Mauler. Rogue's been living large since the Remaster. And they weren't really struggling before.
If I'm a barbarian with the monk archetype, do I have two separate Class DCs? If yes, which one do I use for an ability that says it uses "Your class DC"?
I've always run it as you having separate Class DCs. Otherwise I don't understand why they would specifiy you become trained/expert in it (though if memory serves, only Kineticist can get you to expert in its Multiclass)
For abilities that say it uses your Class DC I just ask the player where the feat comes from. If it's from their main class, or an archetype that doesn't grant you a Class DC, then it uses your main class DC. If it's from an Archetype that does grant you a Class DC, it uses the Archetype's Class DC.
For example if you have a Fighter with Gladiator dedication, they would use their Fighter Class DC for Gladiator's Roar (because Gladiator doesn't make you trained in any Class DC). If they also had Monk Dedication and Stunning Blows, they would use Monk Class DC for it since Monk Dedication makes you trained in it.
I do think it's a bit complicated though, and streamlining it to just "use the Class DC of your main Class for everything that needs Class DC" should work fine.
They have literally the average AC and absolutely nothing prevents them from carrying a shield. Nothing stops you from taking a feat or two to get heavy either.
The average AC with 8 hit points isn't great. You don't get armor mastery until level 19 like most classes with master armor. That's a pretty painful journey to the average armor class with 8 hit points for a class that does best up close and personal in melee. No heavy armor either.
Of all classes, only Monks, Champions, Fighters and Magus have a straight out better AC progression than Rogue. The Ranger, Thaumaturge and Inventor are in a weird spot because while they get Expertise at 11th, Master is still at 19th, just like the Rogue.
Setting aside Monk and Champion, the Rogue is behind Fighter and Magus for 4 levels: 11, 12, 17, 18. For the others, they're behind in 2: 11, 12.
This is essentially nothing. Sure, 3/6 Rogue Rackets can't easily get Heavy Armor, but 2/6 (Ruffian and Avenger) can do it with a single General Feat, or Sentinel/Champion Dedication. And Rogues can use a Shield for AC about as well as anybody else.
And I should point out, for 2/6 rackets (Scoundrel and Mastermind), ranged builds are a lot more viable thanks to their mechanics (though Scoundrel does need Pistol Twirl to work effectively).
Now, sure, not every rogue will want a shield, whether because of aesthetics or because they have low strength and they need the bulk. But on the other hand, they have in-class defensive options like Nimble Dodge/Nimble Roll, Mobility, Predictable!, Skirmish Strike (especially with Reach), plus Deny Advantage.
All of this to say the Rogue is in a pretty average spot defensively, except for their Fort saves, which are just terrible for a frontliner. This S->CS ability helps a little, but I've been playing a Rogue and I've failed most of my Fortitude saves, so it wouldn't have made much difference.
Badly underpowered spells don't break the game, and don't need to take up time and attention away from new, better material. Boosting bad options is squarely the realm of homebrew stuff.
To my mind, this suggests that you don't think the devs have a responsibility to fix these things. I disagree.
Playing Pathfinder as a PC (as opposed to a GM) is premised on the idea that, if you play competently and are not extremely unlucky, you should be able to (a) meaningfully contribute to overcoming challenges while (b) playing a character who feels heroic. Badly underpowered material doesn't do this; that is, it doesn't deliver the results we reasonably expect from the products we pay for. People who sell defective products are responsible for fixing them; there is nothing at all wrong with holding the developers accountable in this respect.
Plus, Unicores statement here appears to boil down to "well if they release better stuff later, just use that stuff". Which is just power creep, and its a weird stance to have on a game that prides itself on "balance" and avoiding "ivory tower design". Releasing mediocre things that are later replaced with shinier, better things helps with neither.
My Starlit Span made plenty of use of Sure Strike to make sure her Amped Imaginary Weapons landed as hard as possible. All her Studious Spell slots were Sure Strike, and tbh they probably still will be. Plus a retreival belt full of sure strike scrolls.
The spell is still basically unbeatable for those slots anyway, unless I need to prepare water breathing (as a Pixie Sprite, gecko grip was of dubious use thanks to my wings).
This is the strongest argument in favor of this nerf I've yet seen.
I mean...I guess? Like I'll still use Sure Strike and keep it slotted/bought. It just went down from 2/fight to 1/fight (I don't think I ever managed to use it three times in a single fight for my Amped spells).
The power of the spell relative to others I can prepare in Studious Spells, and especially considering it's cheapness through scrolls, is still huge. That hasn't changed.
I guarantee no Magus will stop using as much Sure Strike as they can (or need), they'll just use it 1/fight on their big thing instead of "as often as they can", which, IME, wasn't ever more than twice in a fight anyway.
And Starlit Span will still be the best hybrid study, and Imaginary Weapon will still be worth the 2 feats it takes to get. Nothing of value will have changed.
