Velisruna's page

JiCi wrote:

I'm surprised that they didn't redesigned kobolds according to Germanic folklore, making them similar to "evil-looking gnomes".

If it was the case, then kobolds being linked to anything else other than dragons would make sense.

I can tell you I would not care to give headpats to an evil looking gnome.

I absolutely would but in an extremely condescending manner.

The thing I'm most excited about it for is the pawn set. NPC Codex gave me a ton of great pawns for both enemies and PCs, and I bet this will add even more options and diversity.

Don't know if its already on the radar but it seems adjustments to an armor's strength modifier never got changed from strength score in GM core. For fortification runes on page 226 it could also be a functional change as it just says "strength required to reduce its penalties" but it increase it by 2. If its increasing strength modifier by 2, that is twice the adjustment from before. Dawnsilver and duskwood armors on page 228 still are definitely just missed though as they reference reducing strength score, rather then strength modifier.

Given that Battlefield Control is the lion's share of a spellcaster's combat contributions (since obviously save spells are wishy-washy and spell attack rolls are practically traps without outside assistance), the Kineticist both handles this almost as well (they still have the same progression as all spellcasters), if not better in certain situations (since certain Impulses are unique options that not even spells can replicate), and can do so all day, meaning if we're comparing combat potential, Kineticist wins out, and the pluses to attack rolls is just icing on the cake at this point. Even a simple forcing of tactics (i.e. spreading out to avoid incoming AoEs) is a win for the Kineticist, because their presence is causing this shift in tactics for the martials to then go and pick them off one-by-one (with them helping on top of it). Sure, a spellcaster's presence can do this as well, but Kineticist can still genuinely provide this when it's Encounter #6 of the day, whereas a spellcaster might not (since they would have actually blown their slots at the apparent opportunities, and are probably limited to lower level weak spells...

We clearly have very different experiences with the game. I find battlefield control to be a situationally useful effect, but save spells are the bread and butter of my caster. You are missing a huge advantage of save spells by dismissing their effect on a save.

Even on long days the caster should still be an asset unless all the encounters are challenging enough to need several slotted spells. Even by level 5 a caster has 7 spell slots, 10 for 4 slot casters, enough to throw a spell every encounter on top of focus spells (about equal to an impulse). Don't dismiss those low level spells either. Illusory Object is still a staple for wasting enemy actions. While a Kineticist might be more impactful on those long days, conversely they are less so on 1 or 2 encounter days when a caster can nova their spells.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Not really, when that larger toolbox is compensated by lack of quality tools, and the game is balanced assuming quality tools are being used, especially in the late game.

This is one of my biggest beefs with current PF2e spellcasting. It seems like there are so many spells that are not being regularly used, with a few standouts. It's why we always get the same spells brought up (Sythesthesia, etc) when talking about how spellcasters are ok.

Part of this is a lot of strong CRB spells set the bar on the power of a spell. You aren't going to see fireball but better get printed. So other spells need to be more niche, but because they aren't as universally useful, they get used less and thus are less talked about.

Not really, when that larger toolbox is compensated by lack of quality tools, and the game is balanced assuming quality tools are being used, especially in the late game.

You do know the toolbox being talked about is the entire spell list? Are spells like Wall of Stone, Slow, or Synesthesia not quality enough? The Kineticist needs to be better at their attacks because they have much less options for targeting defenses, where the caster can wait for the right moment to unleash a massive spell attack.

Honestly I think getting rid of alignment will make it more likely we see a "neutral" champion cause. Before each cause had to try to represent its box on the alignment chart, and there was only one cause per box. The good and evil causes already didn't completely cover their alignments well. Redeemer hardly fit all of the NG deities for example. But without alignment, causes are more open; you can have a champion of nature cause without it needing to be the true neutral cause. They could even print more good causes if they wished, just give each cause its own sanctification requirements that must be compatible with your deity's. All they need is an anathema, a focus spell, a reaction, and a handful of feats based off the cause.

My pick for an unchained option would be having more proficiency tiers at only +1 apart, and use that to replace the weird staggered proficiency some classes have now. If you had six proficiency tiers going from level+1 to level+6 you could do things like have wave casters be one tier lower than full casters, rather than having them be on par some levels and -2 at others. It could also work for things like warpriest's weapon proficiency since having them at full martial progression is seen as too much, but as they are now, they slide around from completely fine to "why am I doing this to myself?".

SuperBidi wrote:

That's not how KCC works. KCC allows you to make a RK check with a second skill, but not to replace the first one, just another RK check. So if you can't get information with Occultism this second check will give you no information.

Still, it's quite nice, I agree, as it allows you to use Bardic Lore as a backup to your Occultism RK checks. So, it's strong, but not overpowered.

Other way around. First you try with Bardic Lore for RK on any topic. Then, if you failed, you retry with Occultism (which isnt' nerfed in the same way).

That does seem at least a little OP to me. Works pretty well with the Thaum's Esoteric Lore, too.

If you're going to assert that it only works in cases where both lores would apply independently, you're basically asserting that the feat is useless except in the edge cases. That interpretation clashes with the idea behind the flavor quote, too.

This won't work for Thaumaturges or anyone else with Duboius Knowledge as with that feat you will always get information for any degree of success/failure.

I have to comment that I strongly dislike the idea that many high level monsters simply cannot utilize any shadow based tactics because their Darkness (which takes 3 actions and lasts only a minute) does nothing because the party has an 8 hour cantrip active since the start of the day and very few monsters have their darkness heightened beyond at most 4th level.

For example a chernobue qlippoth, which is burned by bright light, would be incapable of facing even a lower level party without taking constant fire damage because it cannot cast an area of darkness higher than 4th level using its entire turn.

This seems like more of a problem in the monster design than the rules though. Especially with 2E's monster design, creatures could be given spells higher level than their CR would normally allow. Giving a CR 10+ monster level 4 darkness seems to be a mistake in the same vein as giving a CR 16+ monster Dominate at base level. Useful for how it functions in the world, but rarely relevant in a fight against PC that have a chance against it.

Nimble losing -2 AC is rough but still workable. They end up -2 or -1 behind light/medium armor martials once the PC gets master armor proficiency and are on par until then.

I really wish savage at least got to get expert barding with this though. They would still be 2-3 AC behind Nimble which is getting below caster AC. As is they are still at least 4 AC below nimble which the errata seems to imply they aren't anymore? How they are now, being stuck at trained AC with only +6 from barding + Dex (38 AC at level 20 vs 44 for a martial PC) means nearly any attack that would hit a PC will crit and everything but what would be a crit miss will hit a Savage companion.

Using that with a fist attack you pinch together your pointer finger and thumb in front of your eye and go, "I'm crushing your head!"

The war priest in PF1 cast only up to 6th level spells. A fighter with cleric Archetype can cast up to 8th level spells. So why isn't a fighter with a cleric MC a superior war priest? You can buff yourself up to +40 attack with an MC warpriest. You can even cast heroism on yourself and attack once in the same round. Then go crazy hammering.

And as I stated, a regular cleric/fighter at higher level was stronger than a war priest even without fervor. I made a cleric 16/paladin 4 and she destroyed what a war priest could do in battle.

The claim is specious at best. There is no basis for it other than that specific set of mechanics. I can't even fault it for power gaming because war priests weren't the most powerful priest warrior type. They were ok, but sort of weak if you want to build a full on divine class hammer. My paladin 4/cleric 16 was far more powerful than a war priest concept and better at making war.

It seems odd to make this idea the basis of the idea of a concept you can't supposedly build in PF2, when you very clearly can.

Only getting 6th level spells matters less when spell scale by caster level, not just spell level and they aren't your main form of attack. Comparing spell levels across editions is very silly when 2E spells are very toned down from 1E spells (for good reason.)

I'm not going to scroll back through this 500 post thread to find where you statted your cleric paladin that "destroyed" warpriests but I'm guessing its because you had 16 levels in a full caster class and got to add you Cha to attacks and saves. It doesn't even matter if some divine multiclass build could out-math warpriests in some situations because warpriests were a strong class that played well and fulfilled the idea of a divine caster / martial hybrid as they were calling on blessings and boons and smacking face hard doing both parts more frequently than any other class could.

The 2E warpriest falls flat to some people (including myself) because 2e is typically more challenging with tighter math that the warpriest can't seem to catch up to. I would love to make a warpriest of Gorum slapping massive Channel Smite greatswords around but the character ends up too fragile, frequently missing, and still doesn't keep up with martials even on big turns. Going for Fighter with cleric multiclass feels like 90% fighter especially early on where you have basically no spells. It gets no divine powers other than spells and it gets very few of those. You can build the concept, it just feels very weak or that it doesn't actually fit well.

No one can quite explain why buffing your warpriest up in PF1 to do battle was worth doing, but buffing your warpriest up with available spells in PF2 is not.

There are a lot of reasons this worked well in PF1 but not in PF2. The 1E most divine spell lists had many strong self-only personal buffs that couldn't be placed on others. Warpriests specifically had the ability to cast spells on themselves as a swift action allowing them to buff and full attack on the same turn.

In 2E, outside of battle form spells, nearly all buffs spells can apply to allies and martial characters make far better use of accuracy buffs than a caster can. Also, when buffing an ally they are able to make use of the buff sooner than having to wait a full round if the buff was cast on the caster.

Honestly I don't think you could fit the PoE classes or even ascendancies into a single class as they are all versatile by design. The marauder could be a barbarian or fighter or even champion with a heavy defensive set up but then you also have a totem spamming chieftain build or RF Jugg. Deadeye Rangers sling projectile spells basically as well as bow attacks while pathfinder is used for everything for its flask abuse.

If you are looking for PoE based tabletop gaming, some of the streamers put together a PoE tabletop system and streamed it a few years ago. You see them play it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnd16AlDT6s.

Which is why I would place a Knight/Samurai class not as a Master Swordman, but as a resolute non magical warrior. With the main mechanic being something that helps you survive longer than other classes.

Which is also why I said:
Samurai as the non-mounted path.
Knight as the mounted path.
And then a 3rd option for the light armor path.

The difference between what I suggest and the Champion is that the champion is a magical class that's all about punishing enemies for not attacking him. Meanwhile, my suggestion is a non-magical class that is all about denying enemy attacks and staying even when they are not getting healed.

Perhaps it could be a class archetype for champion, losing the divine magic abilities in favor of mundane powers. Exchanging the Champion Reaction for Resolve which could mitigate conditions received and keep you standing when you drop to 0 hp. Divine Ally could become what gives you your path of mounted / bow / sword master. Sharing feats could be an issue though so it still might be better as in own class just based off the paladin chassis.

Warpriests seem to fall behind in essential ways.

First their doctrine is weirdly mostly defensive, largely improving their proficiency with fortitude saves and armor with their earlier expert proficiency in weapons being the only offensive benefit over cloistered.

Their accuracy is almost always worse from either not having strength or dexterity as key stats or having lower proficiency.

They fall behind in flat damage from their class three times over compared to fighters and other martials from weapon specialization. Their proficiency is often lower reducing the damage they gain from it, they get it 6 levels later than other martials and they never gain greater weapon specialization.

Plus they are worse at condition removal than a cloistered cleric as most of those require a counteract check which is determined by your wisdom and proficiency.

Then they lack the buffs to close the math distance and the ones that should close the gap are either unreliable (death knell) or work better on better combatants (heroism).

It seems like the warpriest that pours most of their spells and abilities into being a martial combatant still ends up rather unimpressive at it. A fighter spending all their feats on the cleric multiclass would make a better warpriest than a warpriest.

The one use I see for them is in very small groups where being able to pull double duty as a frontliner and caster is of much more value than having a specialist in each role but even then the fighter still gets a lot of the utility from spellcasting with the mutliclass feats without compromising their frontlining abilities as much as being a cleric does.

While in the traits themselves aren't balanced against each other that doesn't matter as the weapons themselves are what need to be looked at. No weapon with agile has more than 1d6 damage other than the sawtooth saber but that's an advanced weapon. Backswing and sweep can be found on weapons with up to 1d10 or 1d12 damage alongside other powerful traits like forceful. Some weapons even have a combination of the two traits like the hatchet which has agile and sweep traits.

The way it reads is this:

There is a kobold attempting to ambush the party. The DC to spot the kobold is X. But since only one person needs to spot the kobold and everyone gets a check the DC is X+5.

So somehow the kobold got sneakier because lots of people were looking for it.

Or better put, "When multiple characters all have a chance at a check, it is more likely one will roll high and succeed; thus if you want a group skill challenge to be as difficult as one attempted by a single PC you need to increase the difficulty." So in your example the kobold didn't get better at stealth because multiple people could see it. The GM gave them a scout better at sneaking so the challenge of finding it would be about equal to a single PC trying to find a normal kobold.

Here is the image for mine #27.

It looks like Old Cheliax doesn't extend to the northwestern tip of Garund. I wonder if this means Cheliax lost control of the Arch of Aroden, or if the sea is used as the border just for simplicity on the large scale map.

I think Horizon Hunters seems like a great replacement for the Grand Lodge. The "loyalty to the society above all" thing drove many of my characters away from it that would have perfectly fit Horizon Hunters. Though from the sound of it the factions are likely to more represent the ideals of the society so some of the others may also look like Grand Lodge replacements, just because so many of the factions in PFS 1E were very separate or even partially external groups.

I am hoping the Dark Archive with Zarta as the leader return in some form. I love the theme of that faction and the arc Zarta got in the later seasons. It is also an appropriate faction for the society, seeking out knowledge, and containing and studying dark relics.

Bard: Duettist + Sound Striker
Duettist gives you a familiar that can use your performances and sound striker gives you performances that deal damage. Yes, it will burn through performance rounds but you can output a lot of damage in a single round when needed. At level 8 you can do over 16d6 sonic damage for 6 rounds of performance. If only it stacked with thundercaller as well.

Trying to plan out some characters. My fighter can't get intimidate as a signature skill without multi-classing rogue. Something is clearly wrong here. I don't see what Signature Skills add other than frustration.

Velisruna wrote:

If manyshot boosted the character above the rest you are either reading it very wrong or are playing very unoptimized characters. There isn't anything wrong with that but a ranger who takes the standard archery feats and uses one of their most useful spells (as Instant Enemy was mentioned) in no way relates to the wizard having the most potential to break the game.

eh

So lets say its level 6 and an optimized ranger. Thats functionally 4 attacks when full attacking with manyshot+rapid. Its really not hard for a ranged character to murder the crap out of things before melee can get there if they're throwing that many attacks.

This may be an issue of the forum overvaluing narrative power and undervaluing more than level appropriate damage. If he's for example one rounding an AP's BBEG because of his favored enemy bonus + composite magic bow + deadly aim + 4 shots that's still an issue, even if the party wizard can make his own demiplane in 12 levels.

My point is a wizard with the same level of optimization as that ranger will be just as effective at eliminating enemies but will also be able to redefine the narrative, even at the same level 6.

Just looking at 3rd level spells (there are still plenty of good non combat spells lower than this) some of the highlights (by no means the extent) of what a level 6 wizard can do: rapidly appear as many different individuals, completely mimic a dead person, travel through solid rock, contact eldritch creatures, keep someone from being resurrected or know if they are, create totally obedient miniature dragons, reliably and quickly fly quicker than most walk, turn into mist, turn a group invisible, puppet another creature (great with low morals and good bluff), pierce any magical disguise, force someone to constantly follow another, force someone away from another, make someone do something so long as it sounds reasonable, safe camping wherever and doubles as a one-way mirror in combat, solve all language problems, and allow a group to breathe underwater.

These give the wizard many more ways of approaching problems than a non-caster has and the non-combat abilities of other non-magic classes don't even come close to what these spells allow,especially at only level 5/6.

If manyshot boosted the character above the rest you are either reading it very wrong or are playing very unoptimized characters. There isn't anything wrong with that but a ranger who takes the standard archery feats and uses one of their most useful spells (as Instant Enemy was mentioned) in no way relates to the wizard having the most potential to break the game.

And wizards having the greatest ability to break the campaign itself is the main reason I considered them "OP." You can break the math easily whether with a pouncing barbarian, smiting archer paladin, or maxed DC wizard, all of which will trivialize combat. High level casters are the only ones with consistent means of breaking the campaign itself as magic allows for abilities that bigger numbers can never replicate.

Here's a number of builds I've done with 6th/9th level casting that also go into melee:
Melee Occultist
Natural attacking Skald
Sylvan Sorcerer buffing an animal companion
Wild Shape Druid build I threw together after being disappointed in the shifter
Strength based Investigator, lamplighter could be traded for empiricist depending on preference

I’m not sure I would have helped a family that keeps bodies lying around!!!! What kind of game is Starfinder? I thought it was Pathfinder in space, and that doesn’t — No, actually, that sounds exactly like Pathfinder in space. Carry on.

The bodies are great for the garden; better off than leaving them in the streets.

Wouldn't a shifter optimization guide just link to to a druid guide?

Technically this was SFS, not PFS but whatever. I was running one of the new scenarios and the party had just recaptured a curious, intelligent alien that had gotten out of its containment. Not knowing any Pact languages, the first thing it did when it initially escaped was start fiddling with a nearby console. This messed up the environmental systems and caused the deck to lose power which is why the pcs were told to investigate. While they were capturing the alien they checked the console it was at and saw it had basically been pushing random buttons. After capturing it one of the PCs wanted to double check and see if they was any sort of pattern they could decipher. In order to give a proper demonstration of what the log looked like for the terminal, I put my face on the laptop I was running off of and then face-rolled on my keyboard. Doing so accidentally blue screened my computer forcing to restart. By the time we had recovered from laughing it was half way back up again.

Mechanics are allowed, its halflings that aren't, along with all of the pathfinder legacy races.

-Always have a ysoki on-board; rub their head for luck before the jump.

Ysoki themselves started this rumor to have an easier time getting hired aboard starships.

Another vote for the odd boost being useful for feat prereqs. My Solarian starts with 13 dex to take the step up feats before level 5 and my soldier starts with 13 wisdom to grab connection inkling at level 5. Having built characters in pathfinder who needed odd scores in some stats for feats, it's nice to not need to reduce your main scores for no benifit other than qualifying for a feat.

It is not an effect that targets creature type. Immunity to mind-affecting effects is likely a racial feature of constructs so all constructs by default are immune to mind-affecting effects. An android is a humanoid though, not a construct and lacks the immunity to mind-affecting that being a construct would grant and as none of the envoys improvisations have specific effects depending on creature type they should all function normally on Androids, excepting other shenanigans such as a deaf android.

I've had a chance to look over the rule book now that its out and want to throw my opinion into the cacophony. Solarian is pretty bad, at level 1. As people have noted both of the manifestations are outclassed by what you can purchase that level and the starting zenith revalations are niche at best. It gets better as they level though as Stellar Revelations are the real main class feature. These are their actual powers that let them do stuff besides just hit things. Just hitting things is the soldier's shtick and soldiers do little beyond it besides what they can get through feats. Solarians on the other hand have abilities even at level 2 like gaining Invulnerable Rager level DR, a 1 round blind, or AoE sickened.

Also I don't think I've seen it mentioned in this thread but the Solar Weapon automatically scaling is a much bigger deal then it would be in Pathfinder. Items resell for only 10% of their value and you can't upgrade your items to the next higher tier. Unlike Pathfinder where you get your base masterwork/special material item and keep slapping enchantments on it, you will continuously be reselling your weapon and buying a new one. If you do this every time you get a new level of gear it will devour your WBL as you lose 90% of the price of your last weapon. The blade scales continuously and the Solar Crystals which boost it need to be replaced less often. The minor ones are level 5/6 and don't really need to be replaced until level 11/12. Going 5 levels without replacing your weapon only sets you back 1 point of damage (going from +1d4 to +1d6 at level 8/9). Compared to a soldier, if they couldn't replace their weapon for 5 levels they would lose 3d8 or 2d10 damage. This is comparing the Blaze Flame Doshko (level 8) to Inferno Flame Doshko (level 13) and the Tactical Swoop Hammer (level 5) to Advanced Swoop Hammer (level 9) respectively. Upgrading to a Wrack Devastation Blade or Advanced Doshko at level 7 to keep your weapon up loses you 4950 or 4770 credits from the money you lose reselling them. The Solarian may be behind the curve sometimes with what the latest and greatest weapon can do but that doesn't matter if they soldier can't afford to purchase it.

What type of Psychic caster is she? The Abomination discipline gives Psychics immunity to fear for several rounds each day; Mesmerists can use touch treatments on themselves to suppress or remove shaken and higher fear conditions; Occultists can still use their focus powers while shaken.

You could also drop a thunderstone on yourself and purposely fail the save; deafened is better than no casting.

As for traits there are many.

Also in my experience, enemies using intimidate to demoralize in combat is very rare; I've seen it used once ever, though I mostly play paizo published stuff (scenarios, modules and occasionally APs). If its happening its either an enemy built for it or the GM is targeting you. For the first stay at least 30 feet away from them or block line of sight, if its the second that's a people problem not mechanical.

The fear spells (Cause Fear, Fear, Feast on Fear, Banshee Blast, Symbol of Fear etc.) should be either illusion or enchantment, not necromancy. If they force the target to be afraid (influencing emotions) they should be Enchantment; if they create the image of something frightening (eg Phantasmal Killer, an illusion spell) they should be illusions. None of these spells "manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force" (CRB pg 211, description of the necromancy school.)

IMO Slayer. I don't like the Ranger's class features unless you know you are always going to be fighting in a few terrains against a few monster types. For Rogue I do not like the numbers on 3/4 BaB with no accuracy boosts and then taking a -2 on top of that. Slayer gets Ranger's no-dex-needed TWF feats, static boosts to hit and damage on top of full BaB, and a bit of sneak attack on top which is more gravy then your main source of damage. Slayer is the best TWF, especially if you want Str-based so you don't rely on agile weapons.

Are there any low level spells that would ?

Create Water and a tub.

Does it count if you pay all of your wealth to get another wizard to do it for you? Otherwise you are completely outclassed since the wizard's main body is on his own secret demiplane, astrally projecting himself places with a second hidden demiplane with clones set up. The wizard has ninth level spells, the rogue can hit someone fairly hard if he can catch them unaware.

It would be great if the sidebar could be added back in but otherwise the new layout looks great!

In the Kineticist's Wall Infusion it only defines the dimensions as either being up to 10 ft high and 120 ft long or up to 20 ft high and 60 ft long. It says nothing about having to be a flat plane or if it can be curved. So long as it stay within one of the two sizes could I curve the wall such as into a semi-circle, or have it snake in an "S" shape? All other wall spells like Wall of Stone, Wind Wall, and Wall of Ice all specify not just dimensions but also what shape(s) the wall can take. So is the Wall Infusion restricted to a flat vertical plane or can it be curved or tilted?

Also, does the entire wall have to be within 30 feet of the Kineticist? The infusion states that "The wall appears with 30 feet" but this would severely limit how big the wall could be if its not shapable. Even with the shortest maximum length you would have to drop the wall right on top of yourself for it to reach the full 60 feet.

It may not be the proper place for this but can we get an update on what familiars use what magic item slots. Since this FAQ there are only a few familiars that are allowed to have magic item slots and use wands and scrolls in PFS. Bestiary 5 just gave a bunch of new familiars and the list hasn't been added to since March 2012. This is actually the anniversary of this thread requesting that the Pooka be added to the list of familiars that can use wands as it has ranks in Use Magic Device naturally and the Familiar Folio calls it out as capable of using wands and scrolls. There is also this older thread that John Compton responded to and said updating what familiars could use magic devices in PFS was on his to-do list but if that was ever done it was never posted anywhere.

FAQ: How does Battlemind Link work? "If you both make melee/ranged attacks against the same creature, you both make attack rolls and both use the higher of the two dice for your attack rolls (plus bonuses)" is too vague as to how it functions in turn-based combat where the combatants might have a different number of attacks.

So a few years ago there was this thread asking how battlemind link works. The problem is it didn't work as written as the thread concluded. However it then got an updated in the errata. Unfortunately the update didn't fix the spell, it only corrected an editing error, changing "melee or ranged" to just "melee" in the first effect. The spell is still broken but the FAQ request was marked as "fixed in the FAQ". Other than adding in the spell components, which were left out in the original printing, there have been no other updates either in an FAQ or errata that I could find.

There have been other threads asking about this spell that did not get as big as the first thread: here, here, here, and here.

Hopefully this spell gets clearer wording as currently it does not work as written without GM intervention.