I see that Witch is getting an update in like October, but in the mean time, did we EVER get a definitive answer about how the Witch MC Archtype Familiar worked?
I remember there being a LOT of back and forth about whether or not the familiar got the bonus witch familiar abilities.
Side 1 (no) said : The Archtype familiar gets ONE (1) familiar ability by default, and if you take Basic Witchcraft it then has TWO (2) and never gains more by default.
Side 2 (yes) said : The Archtype Familiar is a WITCH familiar and therefore gets TWO (2) Familiar abilities to start out. 2(default) - 1 (Dedication reduction) + 1 (Witch bonus). And that, if you take Basic Witchcraft it then goes up to 3. Then there was FURTHER disagreement about whether it got the additional extras at 6, 12, and 18...
So, for example, if I wanted to retrain a class feat, does that only require spending the downtime (as per book rules), or do I need a boon of some sort?
I know it's probably not optimal, but is there anything rules wise that would interfere with a gunslinger with the Poisoner archetype poisoning their bullets?
My gut instinct is that an attached weapon with a shifting rune should only be able to shift into other weapons that can be attached to the item it's attached to.
So a Shield Spike with shifting could shift into a shield boss and vise versa.
An attached reinforced stock could shift into an attached bayonet.
This isn't RAW and it's probably not even RAI, but it seems reasonable to me.
It would also help with that thing where Poisoner dedication gives you four level 1 or lower common poison recipes, but there are only 2 level 1 common poisons.
So, in conclusion to my question:
In pf1, the slayer was a hybrid of rogue and ranger, and now people say "oh we don't need slayer in pf2 because one of the classes is already effectively slayer".
"Which class/build?"
Taking over each other "Rogue"/"Ranger"
Ah. So the two parent classes are kind of vaguely like the hybrid class.
Gotcha.
I see.
#BringBackSlayer
Edit: proposal, two slayers. 1 is a rogue racket that grants rangers "hunt prey" feature. The other is a Ranger Hunters Edge that grants Sneak Attack.
Sacred & Divine, a book giving Divine casters the love they didn't quite get in SoM. Also expanded options for paladinsChampions, New Cleric Doctrines, a new version of the Inquisitor, and other things.
Possibly a LN and CN Champion, since we have NG & NE.
A shout out for cockroach people! It could be so very fun to play a cockroach person, and the general toughness, stealth, and creepiness of the species would make for some great abilities.
"No no, look I'm sorry but you can't ALL name your characters Gregor Samsa. It'll get confusing."
Good, but for PFS reasons I still want a core line book with common options or ancestry/region linked uncommon options.
An AP that comes out tomorrow may well not be sanctioned till after a core line book that comes out in august of 2023. And any options in it will probably be chronicle based for PFS.
A book and companion 3 part AP focused on exploration.
Expanded gm section on exploration.
Expanded rules and examples of things to do as exploration actions.
Example exploitation actions for all skills.
Skill feats geared towards exploration.
I remember during the playtest a certain amount of arguement about whether a wave caster could still cast spells from a staff if they were below the casters lowest spell level.
I.e. your magus has 3rd and 4th level spell slots. This staff has 1st and 2nd level spells on it. Some argued that since you couldn't cast spells of that level you couldn't cast those spells using a staff either.
Did that ever get definitively clarified?, and if not i really hope it does in the book.
Well, Fane's lets us treat the cards as Daggers (or darts) so I can use them as over-sized daggers in Melee as well, but yes I'll probably carry some sort of oversized blunt object just in case of Damage resistances, etc etc etc.
But my inclination is to make the cards my Primary weapon, and use anything else ONLY in specialized circumstances. The sort of "Just in case" like a normal Barbarian carrying a Bow for flying enemies, or a Wizard resorting to his Staff/Dagger in melee.
Are these giant sized cards then? I was figuring that you were going for a normal giant melee weapon and using the cards as a ranged option.
If you are using the cards as your primary attack and not having a giant melee weapon, that is going to change things.
Though I am not entirely sure that you couldn't have both a giant melee weapon and giant cards. Though that would be up to GM to give you access to both - Giant Instinct only gives access to one (at least from the singular pronouns being used), though it doesn't appear to give any restrictions on using any other giant weapons that you find.
Ah, yes, there was another thread where we established that large weapons don't actually have any rarity restriction, just increased cost and bulk. And since they provide no mechanical benefit except to a giant instinct barbarian, no reason or rule was found to indicate you COULDN'T buy large weapons.
So we're using an oversized deck of playing cards.
Essentially, I think Swashbuckler is better for this build because the dedication benefit is more useful.
Rogue gives me trained in 3 skills.
Swashbuckler Braggart style gives me an easy barbarian friendly way to gain panache, intimidate to demoralize, and panache gives me a +5 speed and a +1 to hit that offsets my clumsy 1 penalty.
That said, I'm open to Rogue build if it brings something good to the table.
Is Raging Thrower meant for throwing something other than cards? Because for throwing the cards, it is only doing 1 point of damage. If there is something else you are throwing, then that would be fine.
Other than that, it looks like you are building a switch hitter. Either big melee damage, or precision ranged damage. I don't see anything wrong with that though. You might look into Finishing Precision so that you can do something more with that Panache that you get - something that will help the cards deal damage enough to justify using them. I would get that in preference to the Swashbuckler's Speed.
With Giant Instinct it's adding 3, and at 7th it's adding 5.
I actually don't understand how a stance fits Kineticist as some people suggest.
The are only stance like thing I can think of is the elemental aura from using kinetic blasts. Are you saying to go into a stance every time you use a kinetic blast? Because it doesn't sound that way. Would be great if that were explained.
The idea of "stance to lower costs" or spending "burn + actions to empower" sounds like it would just be gather power. Which would already be "spend X actions to decrease cost of next blast by Y". But then again using a stance sounds like it could be sometype of archetype using leylines or something. Do you mean it to act like Gather Power or force tapping into planar energies?
Requiring the stance to actually blast however sounds to me more restrictive. Without offering anything. The same thing with forcing Kineticist to get Sorcerer archetype. Kineticist really should not be forced to get Sorcerer abilities, the two classes are not the same. A Kineticist's has just 1 cantrip: The basic [insert element]kinesis. Idk, it might just be preferance for wanting cantrips or not?
My understanding of the Stance concept it's that it would use the Monk's Wild Winds stance as inspiration.
I.E. You enter a stance and it gives you access to a basic elemental blast as a ranged unarmed attack. Thus your attack scaling would be via Handwraps with runes, not cantrip leveling. Also your attacks would be 1 action strikes, not 2 action spells.
Blast upgrades could then be either Focus Spells, Meta-Magic like actions, or some mix of the two.
Alright, i have a silly build idea, which i know is going to be sub optional, but I'd like help making it as good as it can be while retaining a few core components.
Fixed points that cannot be changed:
PFS Legal
Giant Instinct Barbarian
Raging Thrower @ lvl 1
Rogue or Swashbuckler dedication
Fane's Fourberie by Level 4
Building to level 10
Current build
Spoiler:
Going for an intimidation build to synergize with Swashbuckler dedication.
Half-Orc
Giant Instinct Barbarian
Aspiring Free Captain
Stat @1 @5 @10
Str. 16 18 18
Dex. 16 18 18
Con. 14 16 18
Int. 08 08 10
Wis. 08 08 10
Cha. 14 16 18
So Giant Instinct gives you access to a Large Weapon.
It's possible to read the wording as it giving you access to A Single (one) large weapon.
Does Giant Instinct give you the option to buy more/other Large Weapons?
It specifies that it may be "of any weapon type otherwise available at character creation". Does this mean you could take an Advanced weapon if you have access via a 1st level feat? (i.e. Gnome Flickmace)
Does this mean you can never have a Large Exquisite Sword Cane?
And Lastly, if I MC into Rogue or Swashbucker and take Fane's Fourberie, can I get an oversized novelty deck of playing cards?
I'd say "common minerals, like feldspar or quartz" would eliminate most everything chemically interesting if the mineral has to be as common as those. And diamonds are precious so they're excluded (and being 10x more common than what's sold is still not "common").
Sodium or potassium might qualify, yet a GM might have to overrule with the "to good to be true" hammer. I mean, how would one adjudicate such a thing anyway? That rule will overshadow a lot here. Not that you necessarily want those to work because at Range = 0' you'd be blowing yourself up or poisoning everybody.
Salt vs. slugs, but the minute casting time means you'd have to know, which you might if you see their trail.
It might be interesting to conjure something that reacts with normal material to make something else. Then what happens when the spell ends and the conjured portion disappears?? The remaining portion may be reactive.
Gold and Platinum aren't on the list of "Precious Materials" nor are they ever listed as "Uncommon or Rare" materials. Nor is Diamond.
(addendum: Gold and Platinum are listed as options in the SPELL Precious Metals [Cleric Focus 4] BUT SO ARE IRON{in addition to and seperate from Cold Iron} & STEEL, so that's probably not definitive)
And, since again they can't be used to pay any costs, and are obviously magical and not saleable, does it in any way violate the "To good to be true" sniff test? I'd say no.
How to Adjudicate making a 5' block of Metallic Sodium.
1> Metallic Sodium is a Metal, so 5th level Creation spell.
2> Sodium is not listed as a precious material, so it's not prescribed by that caveat
3> Sodium is not listed as a "Rare or Uncommon" material either.
4> Sodium takes several seconds to combust in open air. Allow a few rounds to move away.
5> A clever use of a spell should be at best as good as using a dedicated spell for that purpose of the same level. A Fireball cast at 5th level does 10d6 in a 20' burst, so it should probably do slightly less. 8d6 20' burst basic dex save.
I can think of a lot of ways to misuse a 5 ft solid cube of lead for a start.
A number of leading questions, some statistics on the commonality of certain minerals on earth, and a few carefully worded justifications and we can do all sorts of things.
Arsenic is a metal...
Pure-Sodium
A 5" diameter spherical mass of pulped Titan Arum (corpse flower)
You know diamonds aren't actually rare, De Beers crushes like 90% of jewelry grade diamonds to dust to maintain artificial scarcity. And since it's clearly conjured and can't be used as either a component or solid for money there's no good reason I Couldn't create a metal frame holding a Sixty Million carat diamond. (~27,000lbs)
Here's a hint. We won't have two playlists going on simultaneously.
...now to drive myself crazy wondering if "playlist" was actually a typo or if its the key to the hint.
If you meant Playtest, that means it won't happen until after September 24th, since that's when the Starfinder Evolutionist playtest will end. That playtest was announced on the 19th, and begins on the 2nd, so if Paizo did the two playtests back to back, it'd have to be after it ends on the 24th... coincidentally gencon is that week. Usually the next summer book is a gencon announcement, and Sayre even jumped into a recent thread to emphasize that gencon is THE tabletop con.
So you guys will be holding off for gencon's postponed date to make the announcement, is my guess, with the announcement hitting right at the tail end of gencon and right before the evolutionist ends a few days later.
Hell, lets put the announcement on September 19th (the last day of gencon), and the actual playtest on October 2nd to mirror the evolutionist playtest timing.
But if he meant playlist, we'll have to find his Spotify to know more.
A playlist entitled "Kineticist, Shifter, Occultist, & Inquisitor", but the only songs on it are "Never Gonna Give You Up" and "I Am Very Glad, as I'm Finally Returning Back Home"
Counterpoint: Ancient Elf, the heritage that requires you to be over 100 years old, gives you just a Multiclass Dedication.
Base assumption is apparently that elves who aren't active PCs or important NPCs basically don't do anything noteworthy, don't go anywhere, and learn very little over the course of a century.
"Henlo, i am a human who has been adventuring for 3 weeks, I'm now a level 5 wizard and can lob massive magic explosions"
"I am an aged and wise elf, who has lived for centuries. My stats are actually worse than yours because im a level 1 investigator with the wizard MC. I can't quite cast magic missile."
I'm excited for all of it, but my personal hope is for the inclusion of some extra wild-west style stuff that hasn't been revealed yet.
Things like Lassos as a net variant. 0 damage weapon that allows ranged grab and dragging.
Possibly (both because I think it would fit thematically for inventors and because I'm hoping for a decent sized equipment section) bringing the 'equipment trick' feats into 2e.
One thing, in general, that I'd want from any D&D or Pathfinder book on Dragons is a moderate length section on roleplaying and portraying a dragon as GM.
Most adult dragons have 16+ int and wis, some have 20+.
And yet all too often they're played as mindless ravening beasts. Oh they may be cunning or use tactics, but actually they don't even do that most of the time, they're just played as direct power combatants.
Breath weapon
Claw claw bite
Spell
Take whip
Repeat.
I'd just really liked to see more dragons justifying and using their +4 to +7 int/wis/cha mods.
I don't see why you're making such a fuss over 2 gold.
2 gold? Where does 2 gold come in to play?
A level 1 formula is 1 gold. You guys are arguing about whether or not you can get the other two formulas that are normally granted by Alchemical Crafting.
If it does restrict it (which sounds most likely), you just lose the 2 gold of free formulas.
If it doesn't, you saved 2 gold on free formulas.
It's not like this is going to make or break a character. 2 gold is chump change by level 2.
My concern wasn't the cost of formulas, rather it was to gauge common interpretation as to extent of the limits placed on poisoner's (and by extension herbalist's) 'basic alchemical benefits'.
Primarily, is it:
A> you gain (Alchemical Crafting, Advanced Alchemy, and Infused Reagents, which can only be used for this limited set of things)
OR
B> you gain (Alchemical Crafting exactly as if you took the skill feat normally) & (Advanced Alchemy and Infused reagents, which are only usable for this limited set of things)
I had suspected it was A, but considered that I might be being overly strict in my reading.
While there are clearly divided opinions and I see reason in both arguments, it seems like there's more support for A within RAW than B.
So while for home games I would argue for the more open option, for Society play I'm just going to assume A unless they specify otherwise in some future errata.
