Search Posts
Oh I didn't think of the Azarketi at all! That's a really good idea. Looks like their lore is quite interesting being also tied to Azlant. On a side note - I just realized I accidentally posted this thread under the Paizo General Discussion and not Pathfinder 2e General Discussion!
I was looking at the nymph sorcerer bloodline with an eye towards water based spells when it occurred to me how cool it would be to create something a bit more twisted in the vein of Dagon without actually rolling a cleric of Dagon and getting banned from my gaming group :P It seems like all of the elements are already there but they exist in disparate places and they don’t work easily together. There is the Aberrant bloodline but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the sea/storms. There is also the Song of the Deep background. An enigma muse bard with a conch could maybe fill the bill if I squint really hard. Finally there is the Tempest Oracle which in some ways seems like the most thematically appropriate choice but… well… hopefully oracles will be better in the remaster. In terms of ancestry, a pitborn Tiefling seems like a natural way to create a mutated spawn of the deep. Undine could grant trident proficiency which would be a nice addition. Would be nice if there were a way to combine a spear with some of the effects of a staff. What Cthulhu-esque character would you create if you could?
One of the facinating points that Mark Seifter made (and I'm paraphrasing as best I can) in the roll for combat stream yesterday was that the design of the wizard is to a large extent a holdover from D&D and that the class tends to expand into so many different areas that its hard not to come away with a design that in the end is a jack of all trades and master of none. And also its hard to really have a specialist caster class that doesn't in some way step on the toes of the wizard because the wizard has such big toes. The big example he cited was a necromancer - we could actually have a full necromancer class if the wizard class were reimagined into something more streamlined. Hopefully the remaster will be able to address the problem somewhat but I have a feeling we'll have to wait for a 3rd edition (should one eventually come) to really fix that.
I just got my pdf copy of RoE. Haven't had much time to peruse as I've been on my lunch break, but judging by the couple of cantrips I've seen here so far, I'd say we casters have some good things to look forward to. So I am not as concerned about casters in the remaster as I was previously, especially with respect to the removal of stat bonuses to cantrip damage.
I think I'm a lot less worried than I was previously. For cantrips, I would really like to see some sort of option for a ranged fort save. I also really think Daze could do with a slight damage buff. And after further reflection, the ignition buff in melee could be useful if we get some more options to make wizards more survivable.
Well that is really good to know then. Yeah, that is a relief to hear. Thank you for sharing that information.
These spells aren’t exclusive to the kineticist?
I think the problem I and many other people are having with all the changes to wizards, cantrips, and the like is really a mismatch of expectations vs what the designers are trying to accomplish. It's clear to me now that casters were never intended to be blasters or have damage remotely approaching that of a martial. Rather the purpose of casters are to support the martials via buffs, debuffs, and the occasional oddball hat trick. Frankly, this is not what I came to play. But to be fair the designers never advertised the classes as such. The question that I, and I beleve others need to come to terms with is what to do next. Obviously grumbling on the forums isn't going to change anything. I see 3 choices: 1. Keep playing what one is currently playing and accept that this is the way things will be.
Sorry - what does RoE stand for?
Regarding the melee boost to damage for Ignition, I’d have say this is still an overall nerf. Being in melee as a wizard is almost always a very bad place to be.
The overall problem is, as it currently stands, Spell Attacks lack access to a type of bonus which is considered mandatory at key levels of the game. Enemy AC scaling is predicated on assumed access to these bonuses. With some levels hurting much more than others. ^ This times 1000!
Yep. I think there's an impression that because there's hundreds of different spells in the game that casters are somehow much more versatile than martials. I do think they are a little more versatile but probably like 20% more versatile and not 2000% more. The reality is that you're almost always going to bring the same spells to each adventuring day - the odd niche spell for character flavor not withstanding. Incapacitation spells are right out since about a third of the fights I've been in have been against monsters greater than party level. I would go so far as to say that Incapacitation spells are de-facto GM use only. Cone spells look great on paper but are very difficult to pull off in practice. Buffs are a bit of a toss up. Some of them like Stoneskin are pretty good, but frankly buffing is not a play style that I personally enjoy. I will do it when the need arises but its not why I chose to play a wizard. A lot of the other spells look great on paper but are really just too situational. In theory, a prepared caster could do the Gandalf thing - i.e. ride to the library of Gondor, research the enemy and then prepare the ideal spell list for the adventuring day. In practice, this opportunity very rarely presents itself. Because I rarely know the audience we'll be playing for I almost always go for the greatest hits: Fear, Magic Missile, Slow, Fireball, and yes True Strike. In fact, Magic Missile is probably the one spell I rely on more than any other due to enemy AC and/or magical resistances. I guess I'm getting a little off topic at this point, but I would honestly give up 75% of the spells in the CRB if the remaining 25% were good, dependable spells that were applicable for most encounters.
Regarding the cantrips vs spell slot spells question, I currently have a level 9 wizard and I still routinely use cantrips for several reasons: I usually don't know how long an adventuring day will be so I tend to play conservatively. Sometimes its just not practical to use a spell slot spell - maybe it's over kill for the situation or maybe it risks harming party members (I really envy negative font clerics with the Selective Energy feat). And sometimes I want to try out something unconventional like Organsight which (on paper at least) would pair well with Telekinetic Projectile. I would love to use Acid Arrow, but I just don't see it as viable without True Strike and I just don't see the point in that - again because of the spell slots but also because it prevents me from using meta-magic or casting shield or any number of other things I might need that third action for. And while Hero Points could theoretically be used, in my experience there are just too many things that can go wrong for a squishy caster in battle to risk using that last hero point on anything other than stabilizing. Also, regarding AC debuffs, yes it is pretty easy for melee folks to exploit this via flanking but not so much for a ranged caster. Clumsy would be very helpful, but I have yet to see anyone I've gamed with carry a spear or bring another means of causing it.
That's a really interesting point. I can see why a Magus would want that, especially when fighting a boss with high AC. My issue with True Strike is that as a pure caster, spell attack spells and cantrips (which is like, probably half of the attack cantrips in the arcane list) are really not viable without it unless your just taking potshots at low level enemies. I don't understand why I need to spam this spell just so that all these other spells can be useful. That is why I think a static item bonus would be better.
I should've explained what a gate attenuator is. Here is a link to the discord notes from Paizocon. "Gate attenuators are a magic item for kineticists that act both add grant 1/day spells to the kineticist and give them up to a +2 item bonus to their impulse attack rolls." So its ultimately less powerful than a weapon potency rune, but still much better than nothing. So kineticists get the same proficiency bonuses that casters do, but they also get up to a +2 item bonus for their attacks.
...and replace it with a gate attenuator analog for casters. I understand this spell has its fans, but I think this is the number one reason why we don't have any item bonuses for spell attacks. And I get that I should be using my save spells to target monsters weak saves but then if spell attacks aren't suppossed to be viable then they really shouldn't exist at all. Here is why I think True Strike is not a fun spell. I just don't think it makes sense why I should have to spam this one spell to make all these other spells viable. If I'm an evoker, I shouldn't have to carry a Staff of Divination just so that my disintigrate lands at least 50% of the time. Also, it precludes the use of any meta-magic with spell attack spells. Now, I know this disregards the utility of True Strike for martials who might have a caster archetype. I admit that is kind of a bummer but martials have plenty of other ways to get bonuses to hit so I don't see this as being really all that much of a game changer for martials at the end of the day.
I previously read this thread but I'm still confused about this. If I'm playing a Rogue and I take a Sorcerer Dedication at level 2 and then Basic Sorcerer Spellcasting at level 4 does this mean that at character level 4 my cantrips are scalled to level 2 (my character level / 2) or are my cantrips still at level 1 (my highest level spell slot)?
Reading through Treasure Vault, I noticed that the Rope Dart doesn't have the Monk trait. I'm surprised because the weapon features somewhat prominently in Wushu, so it seems like it would be a natural fit for a Monk, at least thematically speaking. I thought it might be a typo but then I noticed a similar weapon, the Meteor Hammer, also doesn't have the Monk trait so I'm guessing it's intentional. Curious if anyone can shed light on why?
I think the Red Mantis might make better villains or rivals for your players, depending on what kind of assassins they want to be. The Red Mantis are pretty amoral in who they accept contracts on, but also their god is specifically geared to hate people trying to ascend to godhood. That might clash with the goals of a typical adventurer who might be a bit pickier with their clientele, or who is in it to acquire power and magic. Those are a lot of good points. The Red Mantis are (at least as I'm imagining them) an absolutely terrifying organization. The PCs should never feel like they can 100% trust their superiors. Some of the best spy thrillers deal with situations where the heroes have been "burned". I could see a fun plot line being where the Vernai issue a burn notice/edict such that all other Red Mantis are obligated to kill them. Player motivation does seem like a potential issue - especially regarding godhood. Maybe a revenge plot line might help? On a related note I had the idea that at one point the PCs might be ordered to put down one of their own who is trying to ascend to godhood themselves - sort of like Apocalypse Now / Heart of Darkness. I feel like a big part would be finding enemies that are even more evil than the Red Mantis. The Skinsaw Cult come to mind as a possibility. I think there's also a big question of how to encourage/force PC loyalty to one another. I was thinking they could start as new recruits on Mediogalti and go through various tests together. Potentially there could also be a bonding ritual (conceptually maybe similar to the Vaudelrie of Sabbat vampires in Vtm) that incentivizes cooperation - perhaps through an ongoing minor boon. Or maybe it could be more stick than carrot - perhaps similar to the binding ritual used by the Moon Elf assassins in The Dragon Prince.
Operating openly is pretty antithetical to the Red Mantis - even on Mediogalti Island, I don't think their temple is open to the public, and those who wish to hire them are forced to do so indirectly. Even in a Lawful Evil nation like Cheliax, they might be just as likely to assassinate nobles and state agents, and so need to keep their heads low. That makes sense, and it might work better for the campaign. It makes me think of the tv show "The Americans" - the heroes in that show never really know what is going on in the Soviet Embassy - the political machinations of their handlers are largely inscrutable which makes it hard if not impossible to trust them completely. Perhaps even for Red Mantis PCs seeing such a safe house would be an extraordinary event in itself. "Chantry" is an awesome word that doesn't get used enough I think so too!! I stole it from the Tremere vampires of VtM but I feel like it would fit the Red Mantis too.
After reading Mark of the Mantis I’m feeling inspired to make a homebrew campaign with PCs taking the role of Red Mantis assassins and trying to think of what a “station” (to borrow modern day espionage terminology) would be like since I assume there would be some of organizational presence in most countries along with something serving as a base of operations. I was thinking that given the religious nature of the Red Mantis that perhaps a temple dedicated to Achaekek would be the most likely venue. In an evil kingdom such as Cheliax, perhaps the temple would be in the open in the same way an embassy might be. Or would they prefer total secrecy? What about in a good aligned kingdom? Would the PCs even know of its whereabouts or would their only contact with the larger organization be through a handler of some sort? What might such a place be called? “Temple” sounds a bit too much like someplace where the unwashed masses would be welcome. I think it should convey more a sense of exclusivity - open to only a select few initiates. “Chantry” and “Lodge” come to mind. Curious if anyone has thoughts/ideas?
Thank you Aaron and Leon. I just got home from work and a response was waiting for me in my email inbox! Everything is being handled very satisfactorily! I guess I get nervous when waiting but it sounds like my circumstances were a little more complex than usual.
It’s been a week since I emailed them about my issue
That makes sense, thanks y'all!
If a Universalist Wizard uses their Hand of the Apprentice focus spell to attack a foe with Magic Immunity (for example, a Will O' Wisp), and if the attack hits (and assuming the wizard beats the flat check to target a hidden/concealed enemy) would the attack do damage as per a normal melee attack or would the enemy take no damage due to magic immunity?
Outside of some ancestry feats that reflect drow abilities (faerie fire/darkness innate spells, a different suite of ancestral weapons, etc) and light blindness, in what ways are drow actually different than cavern elves? I cheated and looked up a couple of the monster entries for Drow in Archives of Nethys. They all have Spoiler:
a +1 status bonus to saves vs magic which is on top of the usual saves vs mental effects that elves can get through ancestry feats. That seems like a really powerful bonus, although I don't know what (if any) spells/items might grant the same thing. To be fair, light blindness is potentially a really big problem to deal with, depending on the campaign. But I'm not sure if the two would balance each other out or not! Curious what the community thinks...
In 2022 Absalom Reckoning? That's over 2000 years ago to the current year. Why would you care what happened then? ;) Indeed! I realized after posting that I missed a perfect opportunity to use an AR date!! But why limit the Drow to 4722 AR? The Drow are eternal and everywhere :D (as are my accidental double posts it would appear :-/
In 2022 Absalom Reckoning? That's over 2000 years ago to the current year. Why would you care what happened then? ;) Haha! I realized after posting that I missed a perfect opportunity to use an AR date!!
Just curious if there’s been any updates regarding if we might see them as a playable ancestry any time soon and also express my desire to purchase any future sourcebook that could have it. I’m currently rp’ing my cavern elf as a Drow and my GM kind of, sort of plays along but it would be awesome to have a legit ancestry/heritage with its own unique ancestry feats. Would also be awesome to have an archetype or two focusing on Drow magic. From what I understand, there has already been a Drow themed archetype focusing on hand crossbows, so maybe there is cause for hope.
As somebody who prefers to play casters over martials, I feel like 90% of casters' problems could be solved through the action economy. When the game first came out there was a lot of favorable discussion about spells that had different variants for different numbers of actions. But it became apparent right away that only a tiny fraction of spells have this feature (magic missile, heal, and harm are the only ones I'm aware of). For Acid Arrow, instead of giving casters +1/+2/etc magical implements (which I personally think *would* make casters overpowered) why not instead have a 3 action version that grants a nominal amount of splash damage on a miss. That could be an interesting alternative to always having to cast true strike before a ranged touch spell. For Burning Hands (and other cone attack spells), why not have a 3 action version that allows you to exclude an ally from the area of effect. There is always one person who manages to get in the way and this would solve that. Of course, doing all of these would kind of mess up the value of metamagic feats, so... Why not have a 3 action version of Haste that also allows you to use the extra action for a meta magic feat. Maybe some of the underwhelming capabilities of casters will get fixed/improved in Secrets of Magic. Time will tell.
There is definitely a case of GMs playing monsters by the stat block instead of by the adventure description, and I wonder if the tendency to use pre-loaded modules in VTTs is making some GMs approach encounters without reading carefully about how they fit into the adventure or immediate plot. I can't speak for how my GM is approaching this, but what I have noticed is that the fog of war that our VTT implements definitely makes encounters more difficult than they would be at a real tabletop. I feel like when using fog of war in a VTT there needs to be either some allowance from the GM for things like metagaming and out-of-character strategizing or else more XP needs to be given out to account for the increased difficulty. Otherwise its just really difficult not having the same situational awareness as everyone else in a game that assumes a high level of teamwork and complementary tactics.
The success outcome for the Trick Magic Item action says "For the rest of the current turn, you can spend actions to activate the item as if you could normally use it." I take that to mean that this action is not compatible with the 3 action versions of heal and magic missile but could still be used to cast the 1 or 2 action versions of those spells (for a wand of heal for example). Is that correct?
This is one of my favorite guides. Thank you for creating it! I believe the sorcerer class feat for Bespell Weapon should actually be level 4. It is listed as a level 4 feat on 2e.aonprd.com and per the errata on Paizo's FAQ: "Page 199: In the Sorcerer Feats sidebar, change the level of “Bespell Weapon” from 6 to 4 to match the feat itself."
Like many others, I looking forward to the Secrets of Magic book later this year and very happy about the new classes coming out - especially the Magus. There are a lot more options beginning to open up for gish-like characters and this is definitely something to be happy about. One option that I would like to see is a way to imbue (perhaps via crafting) some of the properties of a magical staff into another weapon. As the CRB points out, staves are indispensable for an elite spellcaster but sometimes it would be nice to replace a staff in favor of something more exotic. There appear to be precedents in the game lore too that I believe support this request. For example, the hellknight signifiers of the order of the nail carry halberds - that would preclude them from simultaneously wielding a staff. Also, the mighty Sorshen of New Thassilon carries a double-bladed glaive in lieu of a staff. I don't think she would carry a glaive unless gave her an equivalent or superior benefit to a staff. (On a side note, I'm surprised she didn't make it into LO: Legends!) To be fair, I will say that its really nice that you can cast spells from a staff using only one hand so that makes it possible to wield a one-handed weapon in the other hand (like Gandalf in the Hobbit movies for example). But it would still be nice to have some of the advantages of a staff while wielding a two handed weapon or simply a one-handed weapon by iteself!
One of my favorite things about Paizo products in general and Pathfinder, in particular, is all of the wonderful art decorating the pages of these products. I am very happy that Paizo hires highly talented artists who consistently produce such memorable work! Some artists like Wayne Reynolds are very well known and their art is instantly recognizable based on the particulars of their style, which evoke a certain feel to Pathfinder that is unique to the game. But oftentimes I find myself drawn to a particular piece and wanting to know which artist made it so I can learn more about their work and (to the extent I'm able) emulate their style in my own hobby artwork, but then there's no signature or initials visible that indicate who might have created it. One of my favorite interior art pieces is the changeling hellknight on page 131 of the Lost Omens Character Guide. But there's no signature or initials so I have no idea who might have created it. So... I guess this is my very roundabout way of asking if there's an index somewhere that would tell who created what pieces of art? If that's not available I would still love to know who created the changeling hellknight piece!!
The group I am in has been playing PF2 once a week for a little over a year now and during that time we have had one TPK and two near misses where the GM had to intervene by nerfing mobs on the fly. We definitely aren't expert players by any means but I feel like our party all has reasonably competent players. From what I can see, the math in PF2 is tuned very well to expected outcomes. It's balanced very well on the averages but because of the critical rules it can be very swingy on the tails of the dice distributions and because of that it doesn't take much bad luck to down multiple characters or produce a TPK. I personally don't have a problem with this as I like the excitement the critical (+10/-10) rules produce but I can see that it might frustrate some people. I have suggested to our GM that they be more liberal in handing out Hero points to compensate for some of the luck swings. On an unrelated note Gortle, I really like your class guides (especially the one for sorcerer) and I really respect your opinions!
In the 2e core rulebook, there is an elf heritage called "cavern elf" that gives you darkvision. It's my understanding that cavern elves aren't the same thing as drow but given that elves are said to adapt physical characteristics relating to their environment I would expect they look distinct from other elves. I have searched the web and the various 2e core and lost omens books and I haven't seen a description or image of what a cavern elf might look like but I might've missed something. Can anyone point me to a reference? (Side note, slightly irrelevant but my pandemic hobby has been taking up drawing so I would like to *attempt* to actually draw such an elf :D)
What is the communities thoughts on Jeremy's hot take here? How do your play experiences mirror, or contrast, from his? I for one really like Pathfinder 2e as does my gaming group and we have been playing for a little over a year now. The choices are meaningful, interesting, varied, and for the most part balanced. Yes, optimizers (like me) can drain the fun out of it, but that's true for every game.
Do the sorcerer's blood magic effects for granted spells apply to the heightened version of those spells? For example, if an elemental bloodline sorcerer (who has a 3rd level granted spell, fireball) casts the heightened 4th level version of fireball (whether it was signature or added as a 4th level repertoire spell) does that 4th level fireball get the blood magic effect of +1 damage per spell level for +4 points of damage? Thank you in advance for any answers!
This question has been asked in one form or another a couple of different times before in this forum (for example, here and here) but I didn't get the feeling that the community really had a clear (majority) position on this. To restate, if a character takes the sorcerer multiclass dedication and then later picks up the Basic Blood Potency feat and chooses Dangerous Sorcery as their sorcerer feat, does this feat only affect the spell slots granted by the sorcerer dedication or does it also affect any spell slots granted by the character's (base) class. For example, could a Wizard pick this up to get a damage bonus to spells from their wizard spell slots? Would the answer to the above question apply more generally? For example, could a Sorcerer gain the benefits of Spell Penetration for their sorcerer spell slots by taking a Wizard dedication and Advanced Arcana?
This is wonderful. Thank you Paizo, and community!!
I will be muting the rest of this thread but first I want to point out that Draco is discussing data that is still being collected which is a perfectly useful thing to do. It is a few of the people in this thread who are shouting him down who are making things pointless. In my experience, it takes guts to put yourself out there and present an analysis that you've worked hard on. Whether I agree or disagree, Draco has worked hard to put together this dataset and I have tons of respect for anyone who does that. So for what it's worth (which is nothing), I stand by Draco.
There is a variant rule in the Gamemastery Guide that allows you to drop the level bonus to proficiencies. It's a bit of work to implement but it may align more with your preferred style of play.
Hey Draco, I just got around to looking at your dataset and oh my goodness this is pretty amazing. Thank you for posting this.
No it doesn't, because I'm using those examples to highlight that more information than just a few letters is needed - not to make a claim about what the overall data set will say. Okay, just to clarify, are you saying that your dataset of 14 cherry picked observations provides the same weight of evidence as my 53 observations which I didn't know anything about prior to picking? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter if the "O" data is weaker evidence because I'm trying to make a claim? Or something else? And besides, Draco18s has already posted the compiled data set so there you go.Don't get mislead by missing a few words in a post - Draco18s posted a compilation of monsters 10th-level and up, not the whole data set. That is a fair point. That's like asking whether the mail will get delivered tomorrow. I have no idea, but based on past events it seems reasonable to assume that the status quo will continue.My point was that Paizo isn't picking monsters for the Bestiaries based on filling out the 'right' spread of how many have which tier of AC, so a Bestiary trending any particular way isn't enough evidence to definitively answer the question that is the thread title. I agree with you that Paizo isn't picking monsters to fit a particular spread right now. But I disagree about not having enough evidence. A spread exists, it's just (apparently) not being intentionally selected by Paizo. At the end of the day, I think we have to go with what we have today. We have a Bestiary 1 and a Bestiary 2 (which I don't currently own due to a subscription snafu). We don't currently have a Bestiary 3 even though it's been announced. So in judging the spread of monster ACs we have to go with the population we have now. Bestiary 1 and Bestiary 2 and whatever's been published in the current APs are literally the population we have right now. By the logic you're using here, health researchers can't draw any conclusions about infant mortality because babies from 100 years from now haven't been born yet.
Did you just jump straight to "O" knowing that lower ACs would be there or did you randomly pick that letter? Except that it does if you've specifically cherry picked those examples. And no, you don't need to compile the entire data set to spot a trend. There's a difference between "a trend" and "an accurate trend" though, which was what I was trying to point out. You can see a trend, and that trend might even be accurate - but you can't be sure without the full data set. I am not saying that we can be *sure* about anything. I am only saying the trend looks real (or accurate as you say) and is worthy of discussion. And besides, Draco18s has already posted the compiled data set so there you go.
Yes, that is what I've been discussing with Krispy. I'm inclined to think its not an issue at this point.
That's like asking whether the mail will get delivered tomorrow. I have no idea, but based on past events it seems reasonable to assume that the status quo will continue.
That's true in my group's case (I am not the GM). The second to the last fight in Hellknight Hill. My goodness we would've TPK'd had the GM not pulled a couple of punches. In our current home brew adventure we've been fighting a lot of higher level constructs so... may just be the this particular adventure.
Got it, yep that makes sense. I think it might be a little harder in practice to get a +3/+4 on aid given that you need a critical success to do so, but it looks like you're right overall about the 2-6 range. Thank you for walking me through that.
I understand how subtraction works. Also are you referring to capital "A" Aid? To be fair, we probably aren't using Aid enough. But Aid is a reaction and so I don't see how that is a...The Aid Reaction requires you to have spent An Action to prepare to Aid. Thank you, I forgot about that.
Where is the +7 stat bonus coming from? It's my understanding that status bonuses don't stack.
That was needlessly salty on part. I apologize for that. What I am trying to say is that if we *assume* taking all 3 actions as strikes (regardless of whether we actually do or not) then we should expect to hit at least once about 70-80% of the time. Assuming the designers' stated goal of 55% success rate (not including MAP) then we get (assuming full MAP) the following miss chances: 0.45 * 0.7 * 0.95 = 29.925% chance to miss all 3 times or equivalently 70.075% chance to hit at least once - within my original claim.
Did you just jump straight to "O" knowing that lower ACs would be there or did you randomly pick that letter? Also you have only 14 observations here compared to 53 for me so I'd say that if anything your data has less evidence than mine. And no, you don't need to compile the entire data set to spot a trend. Second - If you're having trouble hitting things on your turn, take steps to swing that in your favor. Look for Status Bonus to Hit, Status Penalty to enemy DCs, Flatfooted, and Circumstance to Hit. You can easily get it to where your first attack as a non-fighter should be hitting on a 2-6 against a wide range of opponents, even those with high AC's. Um, I specifically called out these things: And yes, I understand this is what flanking, demoralize, trip, inspire courage, etc. are for You can easily get it to where your first attack as a non-fighter should be hitting on a 2-6 against a wide range of opponents, even those with high AC's. I haven't seen this, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. What would be an example against an on level or higher enemy with high/extreme AC where a fighter only needs a 2-6 to hit? Third - Don't use all three actions to Strike. I can't stress enough that a third action to Strike is a bad choice and you're extremely unlikely to hit with it - once you're in the range where you can reliably aid, aiding another characters first strike with no MAP is a much better use of an action. I understand how subtraction works. Also are you referring to capital "A" Aid? To be fair, we probably aren't using Aid enough. But Aid is a reaction and so I don't see how that is a better use of an action. I'll file this under "I used to hit 95% of the time with my first attack in PF1 and now I feel incompetent" category. I never played PF1 so I wouldn't know.
|
