Cale the Calistrian

Vali Nepjarson's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. 257 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 257 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A real, proper, Winter Witch archetype, and a Voidworm familiar.

This isn't even really about the problems with the Witch being under-tuned. Yes, I'd like the Witch to be better than it is, but I'd much rather my character have the right design than be heavily optimal.

The character who is my most important, whose name is my username, and who I have recreated in 3.5, PF1, and 5th edition, has always been a Winter Witch. And to me, that means discovering the occult and strange forms of Winter and utilizing the meaning and intent of coldness beyond the form of coldness.

Basically, I need an archetype that says "Your magic tradition is Occult, but you can also pick any spell with the Cold trait". And then they'd have some Archetype feats to do things like, move through your own Magically created Ice, throw Cold based curses on enemies, and that would re-flavor a bunch of Occult spells in a cold-like way (Synethesia works by making incredibly tiny pathways through your brain out of frost that connects the brain centers for difference senses, ect).

I'd be willing to drop the Witch down to 2 spell slots per level in order to get this, since I know that adding cold spells to the Occult spell list for them would do a lot to cover the biggest deficiency of the Occult spells list, and a lot of those other abilities are pretty strong as well.

And then Vali also needs a Voidworm familiar as he has always had, but while I'm at it, gimme familiars for all the level 1 outer planer creatures. The Cassisian Angel, and the Lyrakien and all that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

While I agree with the sentiment that a lot of control spells are much better in practice than they seem on paper, it's difficult to say exactly how much so without knowing what you are considering to be underpowered?

Do you mean Fear or do you mean Invisibility or Knock? Cause those are all very useful spells that don't immediately come across as useful for very different reasons.

Fear, for example, is considered by most to be a staple Level 1 spell, and the sort of spell you can keep in your back pocket long after most Level 1 spells have lost their luster.

Frightened 2 on a Fail or 1 on a Success is very, very good. Especially if you can do it right after the enemy's turn. An entire round of -2 to everything and another round of -1 to everything is fantastic and very powerful.

That's the equivalent of a +2 for each and every one of your martials to hit, as well as +2 to crit. That's up to a whole 20% of the die which have been moved in your favor. Then -2 for any of your party to get hit. And so on and so forth.

Is that game-changing? Well, yeah it can be. But usually not so much. But it's also a Level 1 spell.

If you're used to 5e, yeah the Pathfinder spells aren't going to feel as all-encompassing. You don't have anything that is going to immediately shut down an entire encounter (most of the time, although it will still happen occasionally). The spellcasters are much more in-line with the power of martials for the vast majority of the game.

In 5e, a well made Wizard (like the kind advocated by gamers like Treatmonk) are going to be overwhelmingly powerful throughout the entire run of a campaign. In PF2e, a Wizard and a Fighter will be equally as useful for something like 60% of all levels. But before they unlock level 3 spells, they're probably a bit under the par of Martials. Still can do very good things, mind you, but their ammunition for doing so will leave them feeling scrapping for spell slots.

Meanwhile, once you hit very high levels, 16 or higher, those casters will suddenly start feeling like the all-powerful God-Wizards they're meant to be. Some high level spells are insanely powerful, Utility, Control, Blasting, or whatever.

So lets look at some higher Level spells.

Slow feels like it does more in 5e, but if anything it's almost better in PF2. Yes, it doesn't have the penalty to AC and Reflex saves, but the 3-action economy is so powerful in PF2 that denying a creature access to their 3rd action is often crippling. Many monsters have very powerful 2 or 3 action abilities that you definitely want to avoid, and with Slow they can no longer use 3-action abilities at all and cannot use 2 action abilities while also maneuvering around the battlefield. And without a lot of Attacks of Opportunities, Pathfinder is a much more mobile game.

A Monster has a super deadly 2-action ability? Slow them, and have the martials all attack twice and then move back for their last action. Suddenly they can't do that at all.

This is so powerful that even when it only lasts one turn on a successful save it can completely turn the tide of an encounter if you make the most of it. If they fail and it lasts the full minute, it can basically win the encounter on its own. And once you can upcast it to 6th level and effect 10 creatures? No control mage should ever not have that on hand.

But personally I think that even better than Slow is Synesthesia. It's possibly my favorite spell of the game for its level. It gives three separate debuffs to a creature that can all be crippling in different scenarios.

25% chance to automatically fail all Concentrate actions. This is amazing against other spellcasters since any spell that has Verbal components is a Concentrate action.

25% change to miss anything you are attempting to target because of concealed. This means attacks, this means targeted spells. A spellcasting targeting you with a spell with Verbal components has to beat both of these checks.

And then the big one, Clumsy 3. That's -3 AC. -3 Reflex saves. -3 to ranged attacks, Acrobatics checks, and anything else that uses Dexterity.

Again, even an enemy that succeeds their save and is only effected for 1 round can be SOL if the party strategizes around it right, and one that fails and is effected for a whole minute is basically done.

Oh, and since neither Slow nor Synesthesia require concentration, you can totally effect a single enemy with both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

As a separate point, I am very curious if any of the Paizo team has ever addressed the general sense of discontent that the community has expressed for the Witch? I know that it is very rare that the developers address things like this, and I agree with that idea that they really probably shouldn't most of the time.

But I have seen them weigh in on balance issues before, so it isn't out of the ballpark that they could comment on this, but I haven't seen anything of the sort.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I have brought this up quite a few times. The Witch is a very important class to me and the current state of it is one of my only problems with Pathfinder as a whole. I feel like I've given whole dissertations on the topic before, so here is the shortened version of that, again.

The Witch is a 3-slot caster who is built like a 4-slot caster. It has the HP and saves like the Sorcerer or Wizard, and only really gets two "things" outside of their spellcasting and other basic class stuff, the Improved Familiar and the Hex cantrip (and Phase Familiar, but that isn't actually a thing to do that adds to the party's capabilities, just a way to stop your familiar from dying as quickly).

Wizard gets 3 things, but also only two that really advance your party's progression very well, the Thesis and the Arcane School (And Drain Bonded Item but that ability seems to be making up for the limitations of the Wizard's 4th slot) Sorcerer also gets 2 things really, the Initial Bloodline Spell and the Blood Magic.

Meanwhile, other 3-slot casters have much better chassis, and more things that they get outside of their spellcasting. Druids get their Order's Focus spell, a level 1 feat, Shield Block, and Wild Empathy. Bards get Counter Performance, Inspire Courage, and a level 1 feat from their Muse. Cloistered Clerics kind of break this mold by only getting 2 things, Divine Font and the Domain Spell, but Divine Font is so insanely powerful that I think it can safely be counted as worth two abilities from the other classes.

Now, I don't want Witch to be a boring, alt-flavored Wizard with 4 spells per day, so the answer seems to be, improve their Chassis and give them more things to do/have as part of the core of the class.

To this end, I'd replace Phase Familiar with a Basic Lesson of their choice, not tied to their Patron (since the Witch is supposed to be flexible in their flavor). Turn Phase Familiar into a level 1 feat. Add a level 2 feat that lets them take a second Hex Cantrip (the Bard can do it, so why not the Witch?).

And since the Witch has 3-slot casting, give them a 3-slot casting body. 8 HP per level, and better saves. I am partial to Fortitude getting Expert at 3 and Master at 17. Reflexes get Expert at 7. Will Gets Master at 9.

And then, while most of the Hex cantrips are fine and, in fact really good, Wilding Word and Nudge Fate should probably be buffed and Shroud of Night should upgrade to advanced darkness at some point.

This would almost entirely bring Witch in line with the other 3-slot casters.

BUT, I also have a build for a 2-slot caster (which is actually my preferred version) that looks a bit more like the Psychic. Since we only have one example of such a caster, it's a lot harder for me to know if these ideas are as balanced, but I figure I'll throw them out here regardless.

2 Hex Cantrips right off the bat, one from your own patron and one other of your choice. Level 2 feat to take a 3rd one.

Basic Lesson right off the bat of course. Phase Familiar would be a level 1 feat.

Patrons would have granted spells beyond just the level 1 ones, similar to the Sorcerer Bloodline granted spells.

Each Patron would also give a Familiar unique ability that would be just a bit better than the normal familiar abilities. Winter would give your Familiar resistance to all cold damage and immunity to cold damage from your own spells, Curse would allow you to cast Evil Eye from your Familiar as if it was the one casting it, ect.

And then You'd get a free level 1 feat depending on your Patron's spell list. Cackle for Occult, Wortwitch for Primal, Counterspell for Arcane, and Phase Familiar for Divine. Neither Phase Familiar, nor Cackle would give an extra Focus Point when given in this manner, but the Witch would start with 2 regardless.

And then, the Witch would also have the enhanced chassis of the 3-slot casters like I laid out before.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

While technically a versatile Heritage, I really, really want to see more love given to the Ganzi.

Everyone loves a good ol' Tiefling or Aasismar, and we have a lot of excellent stuff to flesh them out.

And even the Aphorites have some cool stuff that feels like it is at least enough to flesh out a really good character.

But Ganzi, besides having had no extra love since their inclusion in the Ancestry guide, feel like what they do have is sort of haphazard at best.

No level 17 feat, and the feats that they do have feel very incomplete. The start of feat trees, like the vestigial wings and the chaos magic and to a lesser extent the gripping tail, without any follow up to enhance those.

The Valkyrie/Einherji feats are awesome, but there's only two of them. The random roll feats feel fun but frustrating, since they can be really cool but they're also somewhat unreliable.

I LOVE the Ganzi. They are by a large margin my favorite thing that is unique to Pathfinder. In PF1, they felt really interesting and had a lot of different things you could do with them. The Amorphous limbs, the all -powerful Quibble, the Void Touch, Entropic Flesh, Racing Mind, they were easily one of the more flexible Ancestries of PF1.

We could get a lot of those ideas reworked for PF2, plus more. Maybe a higher level feat could let you control any randomness in your other feats, maybe even some form of a lesser Warpwave.

There is SO much you could do with a child of Chaos, and I'm a little disappointed with what little we have so far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I am finding myself in need of stat blocks for creatures that are beyond level 25.

The GMG has guides for giving stats to creatures up to level 24, for things like AC, saves, attack bonuses, AOE damage, and the like, but what would that table look like if it continued up to, for example, 30?

When these levels are introduced, it will lead in to the players being able to reach levels up to 25, which will include Mythic Proficiency (10+level) and +4 weapons, so with the basic math in hand I can probably eventually reason some basic numbers out, but I'd like to know if any ideas or guidelines have already been established by the community.

On top of which, I'd like to know roughly what levels I actually need. Narratively, what do different levels beyond 25 mean for the world? What are the levels of gods?

I'm working on the presumption that if someone statted up Sarenrae or Asmodeus, they would sit around 30 or so, but is that accurate or nah? Should it go higher?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I have one complaint. One TINY complaint. One ITTY BITTY, TEEEEEEENSY WEENSY complaint. And one that I can easily, immediately, and obviously homebrew to fix, BUT I can see some people calling it a power increase.

The Wand...should do sonic damage as an option. Or there should just be a Key implement that can conceptually open anything, that would be functional as well. Or both (and I'd probably take both in this case).

Then I'd take...I dunno...Timeskipper as my free archetype.

And I'd figure out how to make my Thaumaturge Demense into a pocket dimension inside of a small box. It shouldn't be that hard to figure something out...

Things might get a bit...wibbly-wobbly, but come on, the Thaumaturge is just perfect for this idea!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:


I am not quite sure about the hands.

It's just like for daggers held with normal or reverse grip ( you can just switch the grip with the hand you are wielding the weapon ).

No no, I'm sorry you misunderstand my question. I know you don't wield the shield in two-hands. I only meant to compare it to weapons like the Bastard Sword in the sense that there are two different ways to use the shield (when you have the feat) and you use an action to switch between the two.

My only questions are

1) Can you carry the shield around with the agile grip while not in combat, or does it assume you default to the regular grip when not in combat?

And

2) When you pick up or equip your shield, can you pick it up with agile grip already activated, or do you need to use one action to equip the shield and then a second to shift to agile grip?

The only reason I brought up the 1 or 2-handed weapon thing is as a comparison for the second question, since if, for example, you draw your Bastard Sword, you can chose when you do so to be wielding it in either mode.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So one of the players in our game is playing an Automaton who duel weilds shields, one with a boss and one with a spike, and then uses the eye lasers if a longer range weapon is needed. It's a cool concept, and he wants to utilize Agile Shield Grip feat from LO: Knights of Lastwall.

But there is some uncertainty about exactly how this feat can be used.

Can our PC walk around with one of his shields already in the agile grip, or does he have to have his shield in a normal grip until combat starts and then use the action to assume the grip? And if you were to, say, drop the shield, can you pick it up on the agile grip?

My assumptions are, yes to the first question, and no to the second, but that is based on game mechanics, while logically it makes more sense for the answer to be yes to the second.

The feat basically makes shields act like weapons that can be wielded in either one or two hands, where you can shift between the two states at any time and if you are holding it, it can be held either way, even outside of combat. However the feat doesn't say you can draw a shield in the agile grip, just that you are holding the shield you can use an action to transition into the grip.

I am not actually GMing this game, but the person who is is a first time GM so I'm acting as a sort of consultant and they wanted my opinion on this, but I am honestly not sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
I am sorry, but I really, strongly disagree with your philosophy of GMing, SuperBidi.
It's because you haven't understood my point. All you describe is fine for me. For example, taking your examples:

I've understood your point perfectly well. You're drawing arbitrary distinctions that, if anything, proves my point.

In the first of my suggestions, the player is asking for the ability to use bludgeoning damage. That isn't on their character sheet, the weapon they are using cannot by RAW do that, but it feels so normal and natural that it seems weird that you wouldn't be able to do that (at least if you are somewhat familiar with how swords are used).

That is still power bargaining. It is still the player asking from the GM the ability to manipulate the mechanics of the game.

The difference is just the degree of control that the player is specifically asking for. But at that point the difference is quantitative, not qualitative.

And that's fine. How much power bargaining you are okay with is entirely up to you. But everyone is going to draw that line at a different place and the only way that a player is going to know where your line is, is by asking. And when something unforeseen comes up, sometimes they are going to have to ask in the moment. And I don't think that it's fair to say that a player is a problem at your table just for asking. It's draconian and tells the player that you don't trust them.

Now, I know I've rambled a bit, but to bring this back to Wish, the spell breaks all of the rules and changes a lot of how the game is played, because when you cast Fireball or use some Martial feat as a Fighter, you aren't in-universe describing what you are doing or going to do, or want to happen. When you make a Wish, you speak your intention to the universe and the universe (that is, the GM) responds.

You make the claim that the player shouldn't be asking for a mechanical resolution, or power bargain. I disagree with this idea, but let's put that aside for a moment.

The player casts Wish. "I wish to cast a cold-based Meteor Swarm."

You respond by telling them that they shouldn't ask for a mechanical resolution and just describe an effect. Wish for icebergs to fall on the foe or for frozen stalactites to explode or something.

They say, "I did. That was in-character. Inglethorp the Wizard says that he wishes to cast a cold-based Meteor Swarm. I could have said I wish to cast the Meteor Swarm spell where the meteors are frozen instead of on fire, but that felt clunkier to say."

See what I'm saying? Because the character verbalizes the effect that they wish to happen into the universe, (or prays it in the case of Miracle, or conceptualizes it for Alter Reality, or will it for Primal Phenomenon), the spell straight up requires the player to power bargain. Because it lets the PC inflict their will on the universe.

Even if you want to say, "If I tell you to open the door with Athleticism, don't bother asking to use Thievery unless you can explain how you do so", Wish is different. It lets you break the mold. It gives the player the tiniest portion of GM authority, albeit only for a moment and still at the GM's discretion to veto or adjust. You are allowed to dislike that, and personally I would have made Wish uncommon or even rare, but you can't ignore the writing on the spell, disallow the in-baked functionality of what it does, and call it rules as written.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I am sorry, but I really, strongly disagree with your philosophy of GMing, SuperBidi. The vast majority of behaviors that you deride as indicative of a "problem player" are normal and natural parts of the game, and if they become problems, that tells me a lot more about the GM then it does about the players.

For the instance with Wish, yes, you are right to say that being able to cast a version of Meteor Swarm of any damage type you want is stronger than just being able to cast Meteor Swarm. However, that doesn't mean that the effect you are producing is stronger than Meteor Swarm, it is exactly equally as strong, just more useful in a specific scenario. It would be less useful if you happened to be fighting White Dragons instead of Red.

The effect is not more powerful. The ability to chose which effect you cast is what is more powerful. And, yeah. That's expected. Wish is a level 10 spell, while Meteor Swarm is a level 9. Wish SHOULD be more powerful. Being able to cast any lower level spell and adjust them on the fly (as long as your adjustments don't mess too much with the power of the effect itself), is what makes it more powerful than any individual level 9 or lower effect.

Now, what you decide is an effect that is in line with a level 9 arcane effect is going to be different, GM to GM. If a player fights with you after you have made a decision, then that might be a problem behavior at a table (unless the GM's decision is clearly egregious, but even then the discussion should be made after the game, not during). Changing fire damage to cold damage is fine, but changing it to necrotic or good turn the spell into the purview of a Divine spell instead of an Arcane one, and damage types like force or mental are actually better than the elementals, so I'd have to consider that.

Either way though, you have mentioned a few times that you feel that this sort of thing is the equivalent of power bargaining with the GM. I say yes, but why is that a bad thing? When I am GMing, I expect my players to do this, at a bare minimum and if I was playing at a table that didn't allow it...well I'd strongly consider not playing at that table, since to me that is a core an extremely important part of playing a TTRPG of any kind.

"Can I fire Disintegrate at the pillar holding the roof up, and collapse it on the Manticore?"

"Instead of picking the lock, which might take time we don't have since the guards are right on our tail, can the Barbarian smash it with his Warhammer?"

"The Skeleton is clearly resisting my longsword's slashing and piercing damage, can I try and strike it with my pommel instead to do bludgeoning?"

All of these are reasonable requests. If your instinct reaction is to be mad at a player for thinking outside the box, or fear that they are trying to cheat the system, I'd reconsider the way that you interpret the role of the GM. I have never considered the job of the GM to be to tell players what they can and can't do, but to help players determine a fair and reasonable way to help players do what they want to do.

"You can totally cast Disintegrate at the pillar, but whether the roof falls depends on how much damage you roll. Not enough and don't do anything. Do enough and you will not only do a decent amount of damage, but you'll pin the Manticore under the rubble, forcing it to use at least one action to do an escape check".

"Yeah, smash that lock. Just be aware that if you fail, you'll jam the door shut and it'll be much harder to get open."

"Sure, the sword's pommel can do that. But it isn't designed or optimized for it, so treat it like a shoddy mace, and your runes effect your attack since they're designed to work with the sword's blade."

All of that is successful and productive power bargaining with the GM. Now, maybe some GM's consider these bargains too permissive. Others might be more generous still. And some GMs might even ask players to keep to only the explicitly written effects of things because they aren't comfortable coming up with rulings on the fly, especially if they are newer to the game. All of these are fair. But to say "You aren't allowed to ask for a different effect than what I have specifically given you, and stop asking because doing so is going to be treated with hostility by me", is a clear sign of a problem GM.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Claxon wrote:

Hallucination should only last for an hour and vampires should have 3 rounds to find a way to get out of the sun. And even if the vampire does truly believe that it's night and that they're seeing the moon, they should realize something is wrong when the start taking slow and likely experience pain.

Overall....I would say I wouldn't allow this kind of thing to work as GM but if it works for your group and everyone had fun then that's what counts!

Three rounds, yes, but only a grand total of 3 actions, since they start out slowed 1, then slowed 2, then destroyed. If the Vamp in question is too far away from cover, that's a pretty hard death trap for them to get out of.

On the other hand, Hallucination doesn't effect the beliefs of effected, only their perceptions, and it allows a save every time they interact with the subject of their Hallucination, so...yeah I'd allow the Vampire a new Will save at least every few minutes considering that it should be really confusing to them why they aren't dying every second they see the sun.

So, doable if your level is high enough that they have basically no chance to save against your spell, but at that point you're basically just playing with a creature that is already no threat to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Moment of Renewal also targets 6 people. Healing 1 entity to full, unless it was like, something with 800 or more HP, would still be less healing total than that. And obviously, single target heal and group heal isn't equivalent necessarily, but I still think that I'd allow a single Max Potion for a creature with Miracle.

Wish, maybe not, but my rules when it comes to Wish and similar spells has always been that you can ask for anything you can imagine, and if it's too much...well maybe there are consequences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My IDEAL Witch, is more like this.

2-slot caster. Like the Psychic. Significantly less spells, but in return you get a crap-ton of extra things out of the Witch.

2 Hex Cantrips right off the bat, one from your own patron and one other of your choice. Level 2 feat to take a 3rd one.

Basic Lesson right off the bat of course. Phase Familiar would be a level 1 feat.

Patrons would have granted spells beyond just the level 1 ones, similar to the Sorcerer Bloodline granted spells.

Each Patron would also give a Familiar unique ability that would be just a bit better than the normal familiar abilities. Winter would give your Familiar resistance to all cold damage and immunity to cold damage from your own spells, Curse would allow you to cast Evil Eye from your Familiar as if it was the one casting it, ect.

And then You'd get a free level 1 feat depending on your Patron's spell list. Cackle for Occult, Wortwitch for Primal, Counterspell for Arcane, and Phase Familiar for Divine. Occult and Divine might need new ones though, since I don't like two of the four lists starting off with an extra Focus point for free...

And then, the Witch would also have the enhanced chassis of the 3-slot casters like I laid out before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I did a huge analysis of this a while back, and the shortened version is this,

The Witch is a 3-slot caster who is built like a 4-slot caster. It has the HP and saves like the Sorcerer or Wizard, and only really gets two "things" outside of their spellcasting and other basic class stuff, the Improved Familiar and the Hex cantrip (and Phase Familiar, but that isn't actually a thing to do that adds to the party's capabilities, just a way to stop your familiar from dying as quickly).

Wizard gets 3 things, but also only two that really advance your party's progression very well, the Thesis and the Arcane School. Drain Bonded item I feel is meant to make up for the limitations of the 4th slot that Wizards get being restricted, or just gives the Wizard their 4th slot for Universalist. Sorcerer also gets 2 things really, the Initial Bloodline Spell and the Blood Magic. Then they have Signature Spells which also helps to compensate for the weakness of their casting style.

Meanwhile, other 3-slot casters have much better chassis, and more things that they get outside of their spellcasting. Druids get their Order's Focus spell, a level 1 feat, Shield Block, and Wild Empathy. Bards get Counter Performance, Inspire Courage, and a level 1 feat from their Muse. Cloistered Clerics kind of break this mold by only getting 2 things, Divine Font and the Domain Spell, but Divine Font is so insanely powerful that I think it can safely be counted as worth two abilities from the other classes.

Now, I don't want Witch to be a boring, alt-flavored Wizard with 4 spells per day, so the answer seems to be, improve their Chassis and give them more things.

To this end, I'd replace Phase Familiar with a Basic Lesson of their choice, not tied to their Patron (since the Witch is supposed to be flexible in their flavor). Turn Phase Familiar into a level 1 feat. Add a level 2 feat that lets them take a second Hex Cantrip (the Bard can do it, so why not the Witch?).

And since the Witch has 3-slot casting, give them a 3-slot casting body. 8 HP per level, and better saves. I am partial to Fortitude getting Expert at 3 and Master at 17. Reflexes get Expert at 7. Will Gets Master at 9.

And then, while most of the Hex cantrips are fine and, in fact really good, Wilding Word and Nudge Fate should probably be buffed and Shroud of Night should upgrade to advanced darkness at some point.

I know that some people really want a Witch that goes more off the rails when compared to other casters, but this objectively brings them in line with what we know Paizo currently considers to be balanced.

That said...I would still be happy to see a more...out there Witch as well...he he he.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It's difficult to say exactly how this would work given what the spell does. I disagree with how Sapient interprets the curse. If a being critically fails the save, they are enfeebled indefinitely, so I don't think it's that the aging is by a trivial amount. Rather, I think that the aging is normally temporary. You are effected by the curse, and it ages you into an elderly being, but then the curse ends and you de-age back into your normal self.

This seems especially true when you look at how it effects held items. If your sword is effected by the curse, it becomes shoddy and you can't repair it until the curse is lifted. This implies to me that "old-ness" is being forced on the target of the curse, and can't be fixed through normal means. If you were to scrape the rust off a sword that is afflicted by the curse, it would just immediately become rusty again as old-ness is still being forced on it.

This actually makes me wonder what the effect would be if you cast the curse on a child. And I don't think it would age them to what they would be if they grew up naturally. Rather, I think they would still be a child, but a child afflicted with the qualities of an elderly person. A weaker body, lower energy, wrinkles, grey hair and the like.

Like imagine how kids shows show kid characters who become old versions of themselves (whether it be in a dream sequence or through time shenanigans, or whatever). They don't ever actually look like adults. They look like children with wrinkles. That's what I think the curse would do to you.

In that regard, I don't think that the curse would help hatch the egg faster. It would just...afflict the egg with old-ness. Make the shell brittle and damaged and almost certainly kill the Hippogriff, which the egg would no longer be able to support.

That said, if you had a different spell that did just age things by a certain amount (probably a MUCH higher level spell than Curse of Lost Time), I think it would work. While I would treat the egg as an object and not a creature for most other purposes, in that case the reason objects would take damage is because inanimate objects tend to whither away with time. But an egg would, of course, hatch long before the effects of time damaged it. So as a GM I would say "Yeah, an egg is an object, not a creature, but in this fringe case it behaves more like a creature because of the nature of what it is".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I can think of no reason why not and as a GM this is the kind of clever usage of spells that, if you could get to work for you, would be something I would reward.

But I don't think it's as powerful as you imply. A level 8 spell to safely sustain a spell forever while not being able to do anything else in an encounter isn't THAT big a deal.

Similarly a level 8 spell to guarantee one person an ambush is...like, I feel like it can be done pretty easily and with more payoff with just Rope Trick most of the time.

I'm sure there are good uses for it. But I don't think it's game breaking. And if you find a way or place it is... it's probably rare enough a circumstance that it's worth rewarding rather than punishing.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gortle wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
And EVEN if you argue that you get a +2 to hit over your normal fighter attacks with this set up,
I never seen anyway seriously say you don't get this +2. Its in the wildshape focus spell granted by the wildshape feat its black and white. If a GM takes it away its a house rule.

You misunderstand me sir. I absolutely agree that you get the +2 from the focus spell. The +2 I refer to is from proficiency from the Fighter Weapon Mastery feat. If you don't get that increase in proficiency from the class feature, then the +2 from the focus spell only gets the attacks from Wild Shape to equal those of your favored weapon group.

Since Wild Shape attacks aren't in the brawling weapon group, or any other, you can't pick them as your preferred weapon type, and they'll always be one degree of proficiency behind your Fighter's preferred weapon type.

Gortle wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
losing all of your other fighter stuff in order to do so is probably only going to situationally be worth it.
Fighters have enough feats to do this. Plus it really only takes some of your feats not all. There is generally 2-3 spare feats left to do the other key martial things you are after. If all else fails a martial can simply choose not to transform and still be Ok even if a bit less efficient.

That was kind of my point. Since most fighter feats are tied to weapon systems, requiring you to be welding a bow or a shield or a 2-handed weapon, or an agile weapon, or whatever, most of them are not comparable with Wild Shape, so you're giving up all those things when you transform.

Not all obviously. There's Fighter feats you can take that'll still work, but your options are very limited, especially if you want to take more Druid feats to get better battle forms.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I really don't think that as a Fighter the Wild Form attacks should benefit from Fighter Weapon Mastery.

That feature specifically says that when you pick weapon group, it upgrades all weapons AND unarmed attacks in that weapon group. If it gave that benefit to all unarmed attacks in general, why would it specify that it increases your proficiency with unarmed attacks in that weapon group?

As to whether or not this Focus Spell is too good and breaks the balance of other Focus spells for Martials to dip into, I really don't think it does.

Think about it like this, most of the time when you cast a high level spell or focus spell, it does its thing and then you continue being a martial that is, presumably, good at martial things. If a fighter casts Lightning bolt, it's cost for doing so is two actions where it could be doing fighter things. Maybe in that moment, that is worth it. Maybe it's not. That's for the player in question to know.

If the fighter casts Animal form however, that spell basically replaces your fighter on the battle field. You may have an entire combat where the cost of using that spell is that you aren't doing fighter things. That's a much bigger investment and if you're getting a low-level version of that spell that is definitively worse as a martial than the fighter already was, then it is stupid and pointless. Why use it?

Wild Shape needs to be better than any other single use blast spell that the fighter might pick as a focus spell because it takes over everything that the fighter is and now IS your fighter.

And EVEN if you argue that you get a +2 to hit over your normal fighter attacks with this set up, losing all of your other fighter stuff in order to do so is probably only going to situationally be worth it.

Honestly, even though I don't think the wording of the rules right now supports Wild Shape benefiting from the fighter's upgrade in proficiency from Fighter Weapon Mastery, I would almost houserule that it does because I think it needs it to approach relevancy. Otherwise Monk with FoB, Rogue with SA, maybe Barbarian's Rage damage (arguable), and all the other Martial core tricks that they should be able to bring into a Wild Shape form would make Fighter's kind of terrible for this by comparison.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I would like to note, while I do like Monks and think they're a perfectly good class when you combine their high saves and AC, insane speed, FoB, and stances...and while I love Nonat1's videos, him being one of my favorite Pathfinder YouTubers...

He is notoriously not the best at balance questions. He puts a ridiculously high value on being able to do "everything" even if you're objectively bad at all of it. He does consider alchemist to be one of his favorite classes, and he considers Untrained Improvisation to be overwhelmingly the best general feat in the game.

Monk is good. I've got a player using one right now with the other players playing a Rogue, Cleric, and Magus, and she's come in clutch to save us more than once with how tanky she is compared to the rest of the party.

She doesn't have the best DPR, but that's what the Rogue and Magus are for!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
tuffnoogies wrote:

Ugh. Now it seems rather stingy. That does explain why there's no time limit mentioned though. Thanks.

I am very curious as to how you thought Spellstrike worked and why you thought an unlimited amount of time to recharge it seemed too generous?

Did you think that it gave you back the spell too?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So one thing that I am interested in. In my current game, we rolled for our stats, and I got some high scores so I buffed up Charisma with my Magus just to have something different.

Everyone seems to rank Distracting Spellstrike pretty low, but with a very high CHA and proficiency in Deception, would that be a more viable feat? Or is it still kind of meh, since we have a Rouge on our party and with easy access to short range teleportation, flanking is not hard to get with him?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Amber_Stewart wrote:

Not jumping into the conversation fully, but I wanted to say that I'm always curious to see folks discussing proteans and their particular flavor(s) or Chaotic Neutrality, especially as it contrasts with, for instance, the slaadi from D&D. I tried to go out of my way to make proteans less 'evil lite' or 'comic relief' as slaadi (as much as I love them, especially Xanxost) were often portrayed, especially so after Planescape.

Ultimately I think proteans can't be judged on a broad level for "what does CN mean to them" but rather "what does this individual protean, a member of this individual chorus have, for the moment, as a motivating philosophy and immediate course of action".

And I am incredibly grateful for that. It's exactly what I would want out of the supreme beings of cosmic Chaos in it's purest form.

It really sounds like it's just the Bestiary description that is, maybe not wrong, but perhaps slightly misleading and oversimplified and I was acting on incomplete information.

Regardless, the Proteans are my absolutely favorite things in Pathfinder and the thing which is the biggest improvement over their D&D counterparts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
keftiu wrote:

The rebellions in Vidrian and Ravounel were Chaotic acts, but nobody (other than the imperialists and colonizers) would call them Evil. The High King of Dongun Hold having open relations with the humans of Alkenstar and attempting to mend her people's bad blood with the orcs is definitely not Lawful dwarven traditionalism - and neither is distributing gunpowder weapons to places that didn't have them before, arguably. The work of the Firebrands, the Grey Corsairs, and almost any pirate under the sun is going to be Chaotic, and the Magaambya and Pathfinder Society do plenty of Chaotic things, too.

It's not hard to find positive depictions of Chaotic characters.

Yes, absolutely. But I'm not talking about people who are chaotic. Plenty of them can be good.

I'm talking about native outsiders who represent the alignment of chaos itself, and how they're represented versus the ones who represent the alignment of law.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Chaos is neither dangerous nor destructive. It's ergodic, incomprehensible, and LOUD but it's it's not in any way bad for you or anybody else. The beings of chaos do not mean you harm- they do not mean you anything at all.

You can look at the ability to change absolutely everything about a thing, and you can use that to create wonders and delights, or you can use that to create horrors and to tear down. But the ability to change anything and everything is neither good nor evil.

I mean we know per canon that the fate of the entire universe in Pathfinder is to be consumed by the Maelstrom and return to structureless potential, but the beings in Chaos are not in any hurry to see that happen nor do they not mind those who are trying to delay that for as much time as it is possible to do so.

See, this is exactly how I see it and how I'd prefer it to be interpreted.

But the PF2 Bestiary description doesn't seem to bear this out. The first thing that the description says about them is that they seek to create bedlam, which the dictionary defines as confusion and mayhem, and to hasten entropic ends...

Now maybe the description isn't meant to be the be all and end all, and I hope that is the case, but it's the only PF2 era info I have access to.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I can see how that would lead to some...uh...chaos in the discussion board (no pun intended), but I had hoped that a basic discussion about whether chaos is too often depicted as just another brand of evil in lore wouldn't be that disruptive.

And for the record I'm open and happy to be proven wrong. Again, my knowledge of PF lore is mostly post PF2 and I'd like to be educated on more of the fine details of these things. Conceptually I love the Proteans. They're one of my favorite things in Pathfinder.

breithauptclan wrote:


A Chaotic character that is doing random things and being disruptive to the party and even the players is a problem. But so is someone being too rigid and insisting on making plans for everything and bogging down the decision making in-game. So is the Evil player robbing, pillaging, and looting the towns that you go to. But so is the Good player who is always trying to do nonlethal damage and taking a -2 penalty as a result or spending actions mid-battle stabilizing enemies that their party members kill.

I absolutely agree with that, but I would say that a lot more people I have encountered treat that form of chaotic as standard rather than the extreme when compared to the other alignments.

Well, and evil, but that's an entirely different conversation that everyone should have at their own party.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:

Quote:
And I have never understood the association with chaos and entropy
I mean, entropy is the break down of ordered systems into disorder. That's literally what the word means.

Yeah, I guess. When I think of entropy, I think of the cosmic sense where at max entropy in a system, you have all energy equally dispersed and unless something else acts on it, it never changes.

I hear you on the protean thing too. But their PF2 description on AoN specifically says they seek chaos and bedlam and entropic ends, and I admit I have really only started to get into Pathfinder lore since PF2, so perhaps there is more there that I am not getting?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dancing Wind wrote:

Ah, yes. The Saturday night alignment baiting post.

Flagged for staff attention

I'm very sorry, is this against the rules?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This is a term that one of my long time TTRPG companions who has been playing since the original first edition D&D uses a lot to describe how most developers and people in general seem to treat creatures of Chaos, whether that be Slaadi or Proteans or trickster gods like Loki, like Chaos is a synonym for dangerous, destructive, or even just a different flavor of evil.

I'm kind of inclined to agree, and it's one of my pet peeves about the industry as a whole.

Proteans are described as things to be afraid of, seeking confusion and bedlam, and the end of things via entropy. If they end up being helpful, it's more because of their unpredictable whims and they could easily turn on you for no reason.

But this isn't chaos. Heck, some of that seems almost lawful. Sure, confusion can create chaos, but so can giving mortals dreams where they can reshape their world, giving them the inspiration to change long-standing laws and social norms.

And I have never understood the association with chaos and entropy. Like, the state of entropy is when the universe reaches a state of energy equilibrium, where no more reactions to create a change in the energy state of the universe can happen. That's like...the furthest thing from chaos I can imagine and beings dedicated to chaos SHOULD be fighting tooth and nail against it!?

Meanwhile, Inevitables might be unyeilding and unchangeable, and Aons care only about the universe as a whole and are dispassionate about your problems, but they can theoretically be reasoned with and as long as you aren't doing anything to break the laws of reality, they probably have no interest in harming you directly.

They're dangerous, but really only if you're stupid or your desires conflict with them directly. Proteans are dangerous no matter what.

And they're a HUGE improvement on Slaadi for the record.

And this sort of idea encourages bad stereotypes that to this day leads to bad roleplaying. The players who think "Chaotic Neutral" means doing any random thing because it's funny regardless of consequences or how much it hurts the party. When an actual Chaotic Neutral is someone who seeks to change the status quo of the world in some way, and doesn't want to hurt anyone but also isn't going to lose sleep if it happens on the way.

All to say, I am really hoping to a lot more nuanced ideas about the entities of Chaos in the future.

If the goals of the Aons is to uphold the order of the universe, the goals of the Proteans should be to bring about change in the universe and maybe even create new order before going on to something else.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I've put a lot of thought into this so...while a couple of these are hyper specific, I think they would be very popular books for a lot of reasons.

The Planes of Law and Chaos:
A deep guide into the denizens of Axis and the Maelstrom, as well as the planes themselves.

More Proteans, more Aeons, a deep dive into their civilizations, cultures, gods ties to either group, and all sorts of other creatures which inhabit the planes of Law and Chaos.

And I want the book to be treated as of written by two different authors. The first of whom is enamored with Axis and the ideals of law and the security it provides and who hates the chaos imposed by the denizens. The second is exactly the opposite and makes the case for the freedom and beauty of chaos and hates the suppression of the Axis. Both make very strong arguments, but also as you make your way through the book you begin to realize that both are slightly (or maybe very) unhinged.

You'd get Sorcerer bloodlines and Witch patrons for Protean and Aeon. Sorcerer would get divine for both, but Witch would get Arcane for Aeon and Occult for Protean. A barbarian for law and chaos that would be unconnected to the Proteans or Aeons directly. A couple new monk stances. Archetypes tied to law and chaos. You'd get special items, weapons, and gear for travelling the Planes of Law and Chaos. And most importantly, you'd get a ton more Ganzi and Aphorite content, including lineage feats, high level feats, and generally Ganzi feats that feel appropriate and not kinda bad.

Ancient World:
Probably my least popular choice. I would like a book that really advances dinosaurs, ice age megafauna, and basically everything that is connected to those sorts of things. Add a lot of new dinos, both as creatures to encounter and animal companions. I know we're getting Triceratops and Tyrannosaurus in the newest adventure path book, but I'm hoping for Spinosaurus, Ankylosaurs, Stegosaurus, Sauropod, Hadrosaur, as well as various other animals that can be given the megafauna treatment, or even just things like ground sloth.

I want a Barbarian that is heavily themed after early hominids like Neanderthal, a Dinosaur Sorcerer bloodline (I am shocked that as far as I can tell, PF1 never had that, not even as a third party thing). A Dino Druid and Cleric, a Paleontologist Archetype. Either some Lizardfolk stuff that adds a bunch of dinosaur related stuff or even an entirely new Ancestry that adds anthropomorphic feathered Dromeosaurus...or both. Both is good.

I'd also like to see some variant rules for fighting particularly huge beasts. Elemental templates to give raptors electric speed and claws, a T-rex with a breath weapon, Sauropods that create miniature earthquakes when they walk, ect. Rules that allow huge or larger creatures to face certain directions or have different effects if you target different parts of their bodies. Triceratops gets +2 to AC if it's facing you. Sauropods get some damage resistance if you attack the legs, but also you might reduce their speed if you do enough damage to them. Stuff like that. Pathfinder doesn't have rules for attacking different parts of a creature, or them facing a certain way, and that's fine for most enemies, but if a creature is big enough, suddenly that feels a lot more like something you should keep in mind.

Lost Omens Guide to the Saga Lands:
Exactly what it says on the tin. I adored the Mawangi Expanse book, and I want more of that. And Irrisen is my favorite place along with the Land of the Linnorm Kings. Most of this book speaks for itself, with a bunch of geopolitical information, but I'd also like to see some new creatures, and some cool fairy tale and Viking adjacent ancestry, background, and archetype stuff.

The biggest thing I want from this book is a Winter Witch archetype. One that really improves on the basic Witch chassis and treats it like the Psychic, dropping to a 2 slot coaster but HUGELY increase the hexes and other side features of the class, giving options for multiple hex cantrips and passive magic effects similar to 5e's Warlock Invocations. Let this lead into a future Witch unchained because right now the Witch legitimately is underperforming compared to other casters, and the Winter Witch could be a good test run for the Witch 2.0


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Salamileg wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

Elephant, Mammoth, T-Rex and a lot of dinosaurs.

Elephants are actual mounts in our world and I find it really sad you can't have one in the game. Dinosaurs are limited to small raptors and pterosaurs. There are tons of nice dinosaurs out there that would be pretty cool to have.

Also, Pangolin is in the game. But it doesn't spread diseases...

According to a post on Reddit from someone who has the book, both Elephant and T-Rex are in Quest for the Frozen Flame Book 3 (you're encouraged to use elephant for mammoths)!

He also said there's Rhino and Triceratops there, and the latter of which is, like, my biggest need.

Now I just want Stegosaurus, Ankylosaurs, Sauropod, and...well as many dinos as you can fit.

Plus apparently, the Trike's companion ability is to attack and knock prone in the same action, and then the bonus effect is that it does more damage to prone targets.

Which, you know, might make Trikes end up as a top tier pick, considering how powerful prone is.

But that's him telling me, telling you, and he said he didn't have the book on him and was going off memory, so who knows?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I really think that the whole "precious trait" discussion is a red herring.

Yes, a weapon made out of silver or cold iron should have the precious trait. The precious trait is not what causes those materials to trigger weaknesses.

The precious trait itself does nothing. If there was, for example, a monster with an ability that causes it to dissolve any material with the precious trait, then the trait would have a function but to my knowledge it currently does not really.

As for whether TKP can trigger weaknesses from materials, I can see the argument for either interpretation of the rules, but RAW combined with context clues provided by devs, I really think it should work.

The rules for weaknesses state that if a creature posseses a weakness to a material, then touching that material at all triggers it. Taking a silver coin and pushing it into a werewolf with your thumb triggers the weakness. I really don't think you can argue that TKP doesn't cause the item to come into contact with the target.

On top of that, Logan Bonner has stated in a Q&A session that if you chuck a Warhammer at someone that is silver and has the striking rune, then the striking rune does not trigger because the warhammer doesn't have the thrown trait and so you're treating it as an improvised weapon, but the silver still triggers because that's intrinsic to the object itself and it doesn't matter how you touch the target with it.

Between those two things, I really don't think you can argue that material based weaknesses don't trigger.

The more nebulous thing is whether a GM would allow a lit torch to do the 1 fire damage that it says it does when you hit someone with it.

I would say RAW, no. But I might allow it, arguing that it's a reasonable cost to maybe losing your torch.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I really think that the simplest and easiest way of understanding this is as such.

Arcanists seek to understand magic and the universe through logic and reason.

Occultists seek to understand magic and the universe through emotion and narrative.

Divinists seek to understand magic and the universe through humility and subjugation of the self.

Primalists seek to understand magic and the universe through harmony and togetherness.

There is a world that me and my friends have been building for a while where we have sought out how and why magic is specifically different than physics. If magic exists in the world and it can be quantified, measured, and understood, then is it not just a type of physics that exists in that world?

The distinction I made was simple. The language of physics is math. With enough math, you define everything in physics. The language of magic is semantics. It is because the story says it is. And if the mind can find a connection, it will be there, and it is there because you found the connection.

Occult magic is more how I defined magic, while Arcane magic is closer to wonderous physics.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This is the sort of thing I wish I had known about before because I would have liked to back it on kickstarter.

Will other classes be available in the future? Rest of the core rulebook? Advanced Players Guide? Secrets of Magic ect?

My most important character, whom I recreate in every edition of Pathfinder and D&D as my most important character is a Witch, for example, and he's the guy I would buy one of these for.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
Actually, this is not the prevailing interpretation, at least in all the PFS games I have been and on discord.
I've seen both in play.

Probably depends a lot on what your expectations for how a shield is used are.

Do you expect a shield to be strapped to your arm, or do you expect a shield to be held in the hand? Both systems are common throughout history, so either is reasonable. Greek hoplite shields and Scottish targes are strapped, Viking shields and Roman scutum are center-grip, kite shields can be either or even both. Bucklers are always gripped and never strapped, which is hilarious to me given how bucklers are depicted in the game.

I personally think that center-grip shields are more reasonable for an adventurer, as it facilitates much faster usage of the shield in the case of an ambush or the like. But fantasy depictions tend to learn more heavily towards the strapped condition, even on shields that should be center-gripped.

I interpret the ruling as being for releasing a shield strapped to the body, not the arm. All my shields are gripped, since it seems needlessly harsh to insist a player not be able to let go of their shield the way that a character with a weapon would be able to. Plus, if the shields had to be unstrapped with an action before letting them go, I'd expect there to have been a feat for quick releasing them by now. Seems way too obvious of a feat for either a fighter or like the Bastion Archetype. Especially since it would be very valuable to be able to drop a shield after they break.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
See, this feels like the kind of thing that to me falls under the jurisdiction of "Just because a spell only describes one thing, doesn't mean a clever person can't make it work a different way".

Any ruling on how a single spell works that resolves as the spell doing something it doesn't exactly say it does means the player cannot learn how their spells work by reading them, only through negotiating all the ways they can think of them working with the GM to see which pass the arbitrary test of "clever".

Might as well make up the whole rule-book if you're willing to turn that large of a portion of it into an unreliable source of information.

That seems really unnaturally restrictive to me. And it is the kind of thing that would never be done with things that aren't magic spells specifically.

You wouldn't ever say "A dagger doesn't say that you can use it to cut a rope in it's description, so the one and only thing you can use a dagger for is damaging things with hit points".

Would you say a Scorching Ray can't burn down a tree because the spell says that it must target a creature?

Light says that it can be cast on an object of light bulk. A rope is an object of light bulk, and thus is a viable target for the spell.

And yes, of course you learn how a spell works by reading the book. That gives you a literal description of exactly what the spell does, but yes also you of course then think about what that thing is and talk to your GM about clever ways to utilize those effects that are not explicitly drawn out in the book.

Light is sort of a weird fringe case where the specific long shape of the object, despite it's light bulk, might interact in a way that is unintended by the devs. In these fringe cases, the GM makes a decision that is not in the book. My ruling of "it works, but it only makes 20 feet of dim light along the rope's length" is, I feel, an interesting take on it but one that is neither more or less right than any other.

But this is a TTRPG. Of course you negotiate with your GM, of course every single item, spell, and ability in the game can be used in ways that are not explicitly written out, and of course you make up those rules as you go along. The mindset that you would do anything else is alien to me.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

See, this feels like the kind of thing that to me falls under the jurisdiction of "Just because a spell only describes one thing, doesn't mean a clever person can't make it work a different way". Yeah, there are ways it can be very useful, but I highly doubt it's going to break anything. If you need an area to be dark, magical darkness that overpowers the light can still be a thing.

All that being said, I'd probably but some limitations on it, not for mechanical reasons, but flavor reasons. Since the light is spread out over such a wider area, you only get an aura of dim light, not bright light, unless you roll the rope up.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It's slightly off-topic, but I really would like to see them expand on and enhance what we have for the Ganzi.

They feel really underwhelming to me, especially when compared to the other alignment based planestouched heritages.

Tiefling, Aasimar, and Duskwalker all have way more options, and even Aphorite feels like the options they have are much more interesting and cohesive. Ganzi are overwhelmingly my favorite heritage in Pathfinder and right now what we have feels like it could be a lot better. Not even a token "now your wings can fly" feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Agreed with all of this. The thing that is really necessary for a Winter Witch, as they are seen by those who really love them, is that they need the Occult Spell list, but also Cold spells.

If the Witch had as many given spells as the Sorcerer, you could probably homebrew something easily enough, with a Patron that gave the Occult list but all the granted spells being Cold themed.

Since the Witch doesn't really naturally have that, I do think that a class Archetype is probably necessary.

I'm building one myself actually that gives the Occult spell list, as well as any spell with the Cold trait, drops to a Psychic-esque 2 spell slots per level, but also gives a few other abilities to help buff them up. They get one Hex Cantrip from any Patron that grants Occult spells, and also Clinging Ice. Their Familiar is innately resistant to cold damage and immune to cold damage from the Witch's own spells. And they replace Phase Familiar with another Focus spell called Phasing Frost, which allows them to move over and though snow and ice with no penalties, see though snow and fog, and at higher levels even phase through snow and ice as tough it isn't there (which has some cool synergy with spells like Wall of Ice).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I can find no specific rulings on this, which makes me think the answer is no but I wanted to confirm.

If you are under the effect of a disease or poison, and you are subjected to the same disease or poison again, will that immediately cause another save to go to the next stage of the disease or poison?

We were fighting Ghasts and our Monk contracted Ghast Fever. The next time the Monk got bit, out GM had the player roll another save, she failed again, and our GM said she progressed to stage two, took the damage and all healing was cut in half.

I told him that rules don't say that, and that she won't be further effected by the fever until the next day.

The GM said "that's how poisons work, and I thought they worked the same way?", and I don't think he's right about that either.

Can I get some clarification?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
egindar wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
Lunge and Extending Rune both give you an extended reach for a specific attack, but do not increase "your" reach. Thus neither of them are valid for triggering AoO or Flanking.
Lunge wrote:
Make a Strike with a melee weapon, increasing your reach by 5 feet for that Strike.
Extending wrote:
You Strike with the weapon, and you have reach 60 feet for the Strike.
Emphasis mine. Seems like they both increase "your" reach at the moment you make the attack. The original question isn't whether you can use the reach with Lunge/Extending to threaten flanking for other people to benefit, but whether you benefit from flanking on a Strike with Lunge/Extending, which seems like an unequivocal "yes" to me.

"you have a reach of 60 feet for the Strike" implies to me that you don't have that reach for any purposes other than the strike.

Again, the real question is whether Flanking functions differently than AoO because it is a condition rather than a specific ability, despite using the same wording. I don't personally believe so, but I also see the reasoning for either interpretation.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Djinn71 wrote:
-snip-

The trigger for AoO says that the enemy must be within your reach.

The rules for Flanking says that in order to gain the benefits of flanking both you and your ally must have the enemy within reach.

Lunge and Extending Rune both give you an extended reach for a specific attack, but do not increase "your" reach. Thus neither of them are valid for triggering AoO or Flanking.

The only difference is that AoO is an action while Flanking is a condition. But since the trigger for both of them use the same wording, they can be treated exactly the same way for our purposes.

Now, the argument against this is that AoO is a specific action that could not use the properties of a different action such as Lunge while Flanking is not an action and thus it could be that in this instance your reach could refer to your reach with any ability available to you. This would, of course, include your Extending Rune.

However, the way that I read it, whenever the rules refer to something being triggered by or tied to your reach, it is talking about your normal, standard reach with your standard strikes. Not with any unique abilities like Lunge, Extending Rune, Sever Space, or any other similar ability. Those items and abilities don't increase your reach, but rather they give you a new ability that has a reach outside of your own.

So IMO, the RAW way of reading these abilities, they do not count for the purposes of flanking. The fact that the Flanking rules has to specifically point out that a reach weapon allows you to use that reach weapon's reach to calculate flanking, as if this is an exception to the rules, seems to back up my interpretation of the rules.

But as I said earlier, I can see where there is ambiguity here and how it also makes sense to interpret it differently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

Well, it says I have reach, and I check every box for flanking at the time of my attack.

To my knowledge there's nothing stating it has to be your base reach, or permanent reach, or that you must have had the reach for x amount of time, or anything like that.

I've quoted the rules. Do you have any rules, citations, or sources supporting your beliefs/memory?

I don't know where the ruling was. I distinctly remember reading it on these forums, and I remember it being talked about a decent bit.

Thinking on it, I think the answer was actually given about Attack's of Opportunity. Not flanking. Can you make an AoO with the Lunge ability? No, and the reason it doesn't work inherently is because AoO states that the triggering creature must be within your reach, not the reach of one of your abilities.

There is an entire other feat that does allow that in fact, Lunging Stance.

Flanking uses the exact same language. To flank an enemy, that enemy must be within your reach. It even specifies that if you are wielding a reach weapon, the reach of that weapon counts for the purposes of flanking. It wouldn't need to specify that if flanking worked for the reach of any of your special melee abilities.

So no, RAW, the rune does not allow you to flank or gain the benefits of flanking from 60 (or 120) feet away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If you're hardcore (read: stupid), you could probably rip out the eyes that are effected by the magical blindness and then cast regenerate. Since those new eyes wouldn't be the ones effected by the magic, you could make an argument for them being able to see.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Yeah, and since it's not a ranged Strike, you benefit from your full strength-based attack and damage modifiers. You can even flank with it from WAAAAAY OOOOVVVVERRR THEEERRREEE!

I don't think you would provide flanking since the reach is only active for the one attack.

You would certainly benefit from any flanking position that you had at the time of the attack though.

Quite right. The requirements for flanking are as follows:

• You and your ally must be on opposite sides of the creature. A line drawn between the center of your space and the center of your ally's space must pass through opposite sides or opposite corners of the foe's space.
• Both you and the ally have to be able to act.
• You and the ally must be wielding melee weapons or be able to make an unarmed attack.
• You and the ally can't be under any effects that prevent you from attacking
• You and the ally must both have the enemy within reach. If you are wielding a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon for this purpose.

If my reach is 60, the enemy is 40 feet away, and I meet all the other requirements listed above, then there is no question that I receive flanking benefits. My ally may not however since, as you say, it only applies on the singular attack.

I'm now imaging multiple foes with these weapons flanking from extreme distances. XD

I don't believe that this is correct actually. I believe it has been answered that a Fighter who has the Lunge ability cannot flank from 10 feet away because flanking requires the enemy to be within specifically 'your' range. And Lunge doesn't increase your range, it is a specific ability that has a longer range than normal. A reach weapon counts because it increases your natural range.

By this logic, a go-go gadget extendo-sword would not allow you to gain the benefits of flanking because of the attack.

But then...if you are making the attack then it makes sense that your ally on the other side would still be able to keep the enemy's attention enough that you would have an easier time hitting them. So it logically does make sense.

I can see an argument both ways.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So there is a player in a game that I am also playing in, playing an Arcane Trickster Rogue with the Witch Multiclass Archetype. He wants to learn some new Cantrips for his familiar.

I felt like this was something the game would be unlikely to let you do easily because it straight up takes a feat to get more cantrips usually (albeit a low level one). However on page 238 of the CRB it does list Cantrips as learnable just like normal spells.

So my teammate went to a store and bought himself a Scroll of a Cantrip and went about learning it.

And again I feel like this is really not allowed by the rules. I don't think that Cantrip level scrolls exist and feel like even if you CAN learn Cantrips this way, it could only be from another spellcaster.

I don't really want to be an insufferable rules lawyer, especially about something that improves the overall power of our party, but also our GM is really new to PF2 and I don't want to let him get steamrolled over by a player who assumes they can do something that they cannot.

What exactly are the rulings here? Can you just learn a Cantrip and add it to your spell list, from what sources is this possible, and if you can do it what are the repercussions therein?


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

We shouldn't use old design models to assume that an old class "won't work" in PF2.

The Witch, the Swashbuckler, Oracle, and the Investigator all have extremely different mechanics to their PF1 counterpart. The Oracle especially changed their design in such a way as to justify it being it's own class whereas the PF1 Oracle really could have been a class archetype for the PF2 Sorcerer.

Any class that previously was "too similar in scope" to another class could easily be given a new lease on life and fleshed out in PF2.

As for me personally, I'd like to see Shaman and either Psychic or Occultist in the next book.

Name the book "Delve into the Occult" or something similar. Mostly because I feel like such a book could really grow the Witch's potential. And let's be honest, the Witch probably needs it more than any other class right now.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

For Cathartic Magic, it makes sense to me how emotions like Rage and Fear work, with their reactions and whatnot,

But what about the less quantifiable emotions like Awe? What does Awe do and how do you trigger it?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Besides the Kaiju Incarnate spell, are there any other cool new level 10 spells?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

Keep in mind that critical success on a saving throw must always give no effects in this 2e, regardless the skill/spell/ability used.

For some reason I had thought that at very high levels there were some exceptions to that, but after looking at several spells it seems I was incorrect. I cannot edit the post now to reflect that, but consider Soverign Soul and Singularity to no longer have any effects on a Critical Success save against them.
The alternative might be some sort of power word, though it might not be what you are looking for.

I think I might have been remembering some spells having further negative effects for the caster if the target critically succeeds at their save. In my brain the streams got crossed and I just remembered that they had effects on a critical success save.

That aside, are the spells decent? Well balanced and all that?

1 to 50 of 257 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>