glass's page

So, other than that particular case, I don't have an issue with shadow conjuration, but no, I don't consider it to be other spells that it can mimic. A sorcerer with it can't cast any other conjuration spells from scrolls that they don't know or activate wands just because they know shadow conjuration

Wait, what? Spell trigger and completion items do not normally care about what spells the caster knows, only what is on their spell list. So a sorcerer could absolutely use wands and scrolls of any Conjuration spells that are on the sorcerer spell list (and not spells that aren't), regardless of what spells they know.

Unless the sorcerer has some extra restriction that I have been missing for the last quarter-century?

For the first turn, you were wrong about some of the specifics, but largely right about the overall effect: Dropping the bow is free, not swift. But unless they had something else to do with their swift action, that does not really matter. Conversely, 5ft step is its own thing and not technically a free action (what it actually is is confusing, as Azothath notes), but that distinction basically never matters in practice.

For the second turn, you were correct. Before they could ready a shield as a move action, they have to retrieve it. Which is another move action (unless it is in a handy haversack or something). They do not get the smush the two move actions into one, so they are not attacking that turn. Of course, they could retrieve the shield on one turn, and ready it on the next, making standard action attacks each time.

If [Battle Oracle's Curse] is changed, then please also update Weapon Trance to be more like Embodiment of Battle, in that it upgrades as the levels climb.

The disparity between the two focus spells (that seem to exist for the same purpose) only makes sense in a context of Battle Oracles getting something that Witness to Ancient Battles Animists don't. Currently, that's the spell immunity working for beneficial spells too.

Embodiment of Battle is Sustained, while Weapon Trance just flat out last the full minute, so the former should be better, all other things being equal. Whether it should be that much better is an open question.

My favorite so far remains, "Rattlesnakes of the Runelords."

Would the PCs all be female gunslingers? [/slightly obscure musical reference]

I remember one in a PFS scenario, where...

glass wrote:

Like a couple other posters, I have never known Readying-against-spells to be a specific issue - the cost is very high, and the potential payoff is no better than the AoO you probably would have got anyway (although TBF, you do get both). So it is rarely attempted.

A spellcaster does not normally provoke an Attack of Opportunity when they are casting defensively, though--unless the enemy threatening them has the Spellbreaker feat or similar abilities.

Yes, but casting defensively already comes with a chance of failure which can be non-trivial for casters not built to be in melee, especially for their best (highest-level) spells. So the poor mage alone in a small room is screwed either way.

the issue is not whether the party uses the tactic or not, but whether the GM uses it or not. And for the GM to simply add a couple of extra mooks with bows whose job is to look for casters and shoot them when they cast, purely for spell disruption can and does effectively negate a spellcasters effectiveness in any combat.

If the GM is not looking to make the caster players miserable he can simply...not do that. And if he is looking to do that, then this house rule will not help as he can easily find some other way to achieve the same result.

Like a couple other posters, I have never known Readying-against-spells to be a specific issue - the cost is very high, and the potential payoff is no better than the AoO you probably would have got anyway (although TBF, you do get both). So it is rarely attempted.

There is an issue with pure-caster enemies in small rooms without minions being underwhelming, but that is mostly due to AoO not readying. And the solution is some combination of a) don't use those encounters, or b) accept that they're going to be relatively quick and easy and move on. House ruling to help those encounters would have knock-on effects on encounters which are less unfavourable to the caster.

We had a session last night, so yesterday afternoon I sent the bard's player the following email:

Hi [bard player],

I do not know if you had a chance to check out [this] thread linked below, regarding house-ruling Composition Cantrips (hereafter CCs) to be less wonky (and fortissimo composition [better]). But since we have a session in a few hours, I need to firm things up a bit. I still need to work out the exact wording, but I the general gist is:

- You can maintain CCs from round to round, rather than recasting each round, by spending your first action of the turn).
- If you do so, and one is modified by a Spellshape effect (apart from lingering composition obviously), you can make a Performance check to keep the modification going as well.
- If you fail the check (or do not try), the CC continues but reverts to its normal effects without the benefit of the Spellshape. If you crit fail, the CC ends and cannot be restarted until your next turn.

The upshot is that you can get a few rounds out of fortissimo, but it is not guaranteed (and it does not depend on applying multiple Spellshapes to the same spell, which might be wonky or broken in other circumstances). It also means that, if you have used Harmonise, you can keep both CCs going for a single action (as long as you can make the check to maintain the Spellshape). So you will no longer need to spend all three actions on CCs multiple rounds in a row!

Two things I still need to figure out (if either of them come up tonight I will make a ruling on the spot, which might not end up being the final version):

1. If you get an extra benefit from a crit on the initial Performance check for a CC a Spellshape thereto, do you need another crit to keep that extra bonus?
2. How to handle lingering composition.

Thoughts? Does that work? Would it be enough for you to keep fortissimo composition rather than swapping it out?

The bard did use fortissimo composition, but the fight ended the turn after he started it so the ability to extend it was irrelevant - with two lower-level creatures, it was probably the easiest fight they've had in a long time. They actually did scythe through this one!

It turned out to be a short session (and they did some non-combat stuff) so that was the only fight of the night.

I said in the email (and it is still true) that I need to figure out the exact wording and a few edge cases. But overall I am happy with how it is taking shape. That said, there has been no real testing yet, so I will see how it goes over the next couple of sessions and report back.

Or maybe you've never seen a high level Fighter in action in a strong group. ;) They have better proficiency than anyone else, that +3 puts them farther ahead, Agile Grace caps their MAP at -6, and Pick crits HURT.

No maybe about it - this is the first fighter I have ever seen (unless there was one in a one-shot that I have forgotten), and he is level 8. So I am not going to have seen the effect of any level 10 feats.

I believe the fighter primarily uses a hammer. I do not think it is Agile, so he would not benefit from Agile Grace without swapping to a different weapon (although he could switch to a light hammer and still be in Group). He could not switch to a pick without losing the benefit of Fight Weapon Mastery.

Are there any feats to reduce MAP for non-Agile weapons?

(The thaumaturge uses a pick for some reason).

(And yes, not every enemy is a solo severe boss, so there will be lots of things they can crit reliably.)

I don't have a copy of the character sheet handy, but I believe his attack bonus is +20 (+8 level, +6 Master, +5 Str, +1 item), with Gang Up + fortissimo potentially giving an effective +5 on top of that.

Against AC 24, he hits on anything except a nat 1 and crits on a very respectable 9. But that is against a Low AC for an on-level monster. The high AC is 30, meaning he hits on 5s and crits on 15s. Still not too shabby, but far from the near-guaranteed crits people have been talking about.

And those are with his first attack - once MAP kicks in, he is critting the Extreme AC on a nat 20 same as everyone else, and the Low one on a 14.

I have not done an in-depth analysis of the distribution of ACs within a level, but my gut feeling is that High and Extreme ACs are more common than Moderate and Low ones.

Trip.H wrote:

Easl wrote:

Reactions always pause the trigger creature's actions in terms of mechanical execution of the rules.

No, this is incorrect. Player Core 1, p422: "If you use a move action but don't move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability."

That does not appear to contradict what Trip.H said: You still have to resolve one thing at a time, and specific-beats-general applies to the when.

glass wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Trip.H wrote:

example of "the exception defining the rule."

Which is false.

It absolutely is not false - it is very much a real thing. There is even a fancy Latin phrase for it: Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.

Really? There's Latin so that's true?

Reread my post. There is a full stop between "real thing" and "There's [...] a Latin phrase for it." No "because" or other indication of causation.

Yes, it's a very real ambiguous falsehood and logical mistake in almost any way it could be understood.

Using longer words to say it is false will not make it so. It is a real principle, which is applied by real courts of law. But it applies to any rule or ruleset, even ones which are less important in the grand scheme of things (like Pathfinder).

The classic example is a sign which says "No swimming on Tuesdays" - absent any other signs or other sources of information, if it is Wednesday you should feel free to grab your swimwear.

I cannot be bothered to do another wall of quotes...

Re regaining spells twice per day
That's not a horrible idea, as it would help future dungeon crawls without really changing anything for campaigns which natural have few encounters per day. However, I feel like introducing it eight tenths of the way through the campaign would be disruptive.

I will consider it for future campaigns, but the time to add it to this one would have been before the bard player suffered through the lowest levels with (even) fewer slots and the sorcerer player gave up and brought in another martial.

Re Off Guard being easy to access
In a sense that's true. Any two melee martials can get it just by Flanking, and there are other ways too. OTOH, Flanking is also incredibly easy to get out of or make impossible, and likely does not benefit the whole party. Unless you have Gang Up, at which point it becomes incredibly easy to apply, basically impossible to get out of, and every melee character can benefit (even if there are an odd number, or the enemy hides in a corner). The other ways of doing it tend to be harder or more restricted - the rogue has a couple of ways to get it that he rarely needs, and the fighter can knock people prone when he crits IIRC. But that's about it in my party.

Anyway, I already stipulated that status bonuses are a slightly less common than Off Guard, and if you consider fortissimo plus the underlying courageous anthem and you crit it gives a higher total effective bonus, so in those senses it is better. But again, it is higher level and significantly more expensive, so it should be better!

One thought: How feasible would it be to put art of spiders (and other common phobias) on a different PDF layer than other art?

Trip.H wrote:

example of "the exception defining the rule."

Which is false.

It absolutely is not false - it is very much a real thing. There is even a fancy Latin phrase for it: Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.

glass wrote:

Thanks Teridax - I missed that detail because the bard IMC basically never benefits from his own anthem, so extending it to the end of his turn for free would make no difference. But may player's bard is not all bards - I'd imagine Warrior Muse bards would get a lot more use out of it.

Your Bard never benefits from their own anthems? Are they using Courageous Anthem and then just never casting anything that uses a spell attack?

Rarely. And when they do, they generally miss by far more than one (or even 3).

Attack-roll spells are even more prone to doing nothing than save spells, and see my other thread for how they've generally got on with save spells.

The other, subtle change to this is that anthems are not auras: they don't follow the Bard around. They impact who was in the area when it was cast and that's it.

Really? I never picked up on that. Now I am aware of it, I think I shall continue to ignore it - I am just not seeing the upside.

As for the Fortissimo part... it sounds like it'll work at your table, which is really all that matters. I would never do that at mine because the Bard is going to get a stack of Orchestral brooch and the Pick Fighter is going to use that +3 to crit everything into the ground.

You must use some super-low AC monsters if a +3 status bonus is enough to reliably crit them.

Even if they could afford to check away 100 gp per encounter, which of course they cannot.

In my table I think downing someone with a reaction would always disrupt it. Not because the reaction can disrupt but because being dead (or unconscious) tend to mildly reduce the ability to act.

FWIW I mostly agree with this, although I would note that "disrupt" is a term of art - things only disrupt if they say they do. But lethal damage can certainly interupt, which is sufficient.

I can agree that there's a bit of mental reconciliation that needs to happen to reframe the Bard's once-per-round compositions as a continuous, uninterrupted performance. The issue I'd see with the above, however, is that sustained effects last until the end of your next turn, which I think would be a significant mechanical buff to compositions: with this, there's a significant risk players would still not Sustain their compositions, but would instead cast a composition every two rounds to apply the benefits across most of that duration. I'm not sure if there's a way to bring Sustaining into compositions without reworking their mechanics overall.

Thanks Teridax - I missed that detail because the bard IMC basically never benefits from his own anthem, so extending it to the end of his turn for free would make no difference. But may player's bard is not all bards - I'd imagine Warrior Muse bards would get a lot more use out of it.

Maybe I could say something like "The caster may expend their first action each turn Composition Cantrips for another round. This is similar to Sustaining the spell, except that the spell ends immediately if the caster does not use the first action in this way on any given turn."

BTW, when I said this....

They fought a banshee, and it rolled well on its damage, and they rolled poorly on their saves. Without a Reaction available for counter performance, half of them would have gone down immediately and the rest (left with greatly depleted hp and fighting the banshee and a bunch of minions without the party's heaviest hitters) would not have been far behind.

...I was talking complete nonsense.

There was an encounter where everybody failed of crit failed against a nasty auditary effect, and counter performance turned them all into a critical successes and saved the party a whole world of hurt. But I cannot remember with what, exactly.

It definitely was not with a banshee, which at level level 17 would presumably have TPKed the party whether they had counter performance available or not. (There was a nasty fight with a banshee recently in a different campaign - I must have conflated the two in my mind.)

It's a cost for being a caster. Every caster pays it and every spell slot spell costs it, so it's irrelevant when you are comparing casters with each other.

Again, the cost is less (albeit still too high IMO) for those casters with more slots. And in any case, the original assertion I was arguing against was that the bard class was "already extraordinarily strong" - not strong for a caster. Extraordinarily strong, full stop.

Especially when you simultaneously say spell slots are useless for casters, lol. Then they are worthless anyway and shouldn't be mentioned at all. Choose.

That is not a contradiction; it is two sides of the same coin. When a class has a super-limited resource, spending that resource should do generally something fairly significant. When it regularly does little that feels bad. When it regularly does literally nothing except waste the slot and the actions, that feels even worse.

If you have more of something, it gets a bit more leeway on being individually imactful.

What are you talking about? Even trying to count everything and relaxing criteria, it's not true and most full casters have the same slots.

TBF, I only checked the wizard and sorcerer before I made that comment, so lets see. By my count, there are nine full-casting classes in PF2. Of those:

Cleric has Divine Font
Oracle flat-out has four slots per level
Sorcerer flat-out has four slots per level
Wizard has Arcane School Slots and Drain Bonded Item

All the rest are 3 per Rank (except the poor psychic who gets 2), so you are technically half correct - four out of nine is not quite "most". It is however a significant proportion, and includes all the classic/famous classes other than bard EDIT: and druid.

Of course, your counter-assertion was also wrong: Four out of five have 3 (although one of those is animist, which is weird), one has fewer, and four have various amounts more. Definitely not mostly "the same" either.

The number of spell slots issue is an arbitrary one that your party is forcing on your bard player.

Nobody is forcing anything on anybody. The whole party feels the need to get to the bottom of what is going on before the lighthouse recharges and/or Belcora completes her plan. And while they could maybe slack off a little bit, they are not entirely wrong.

Yeah I'm just like, completely lost how your AV run with four martials in the party isn't causing the bard to generate free value just by existing.

He does generate value, but not "just by existing" and it is pretty much all he does. While the rogue provides twice the buff to attack rolls genuinely "just by existing", and gets to do significant attacks as well.

I think the AP itself makes it pretty clear that the players should be taking more time than that.

Page number? Because without getting into spoilers, I am pretty sure it says the opposite.

Remember that glass said the whole party is struggling with the campaign?

Did I say that? I didn't mean to!

They've had some tough fights, but they won them in the end and there has only been one character death (the bard players' previous character, funnily enough). All I said was that they were not ROFLstomping Extreme encounters.

Gang Up is making flanking easier and more consistent- but it's a bonus you could already move people into place to get without it. That's why folks are valuing Fortissimo's +2 higher, because you can flank along with it.

Yes, Fortissimo stacks with flanking, but by definition flanking also stacks with Gang Up so that cannot be a point in favour of either of them. Anyway, Gang Up does not just make flanking easier, it makes it possible in a myriad common situations where it would normally be impossible.

And again, fortissimo is much more expensive. It should be more effective!

You really should stop being so hung-up on [spell slot cost].

No, I really shouldn't. It is a real cost, and not mentioning will not make it go away.

Quote:

So why are you not giving me examples of those "good spells" so I can mention them to my player, rather than going on about the incompatible archetypes he should have?

I have neither the time nor the inclination to write my own version of Gortle's spell guide (which would be 99% identical anyway).

You have the time and inclination to spend multiple posts calling me an my player stupid for not building a bard character exactly the way you would, and to mention a spell guide that would apparently help but not link it (a quick DDG does not turn up anything for bards).

Quote:

email stuff

Seems like you don't quite understand that pf2e casters exist primarily to buff martials, apply 1 turn debuffs to bigger enemies and occasionally sweep up chaff. Those underwhelming success effects are what the entire viability of casters rests upon in this system and are why so few spells are worth knowing.

ISTM that I understand quite well, being as those are exactly the things I have been complaining about all thread while people keep telling me that bard is a super-strong class. It seems that you agree with me that full casters are not all that in PF2, so why the arguments?

I mean, the primary reason why the Bard (one of the best spellcasters in the game with an evergreen 1a spell to back up their 2a slotted spells) feels bad is... probably because it has Medic, an archetype whose best use is stapling a 1a action to characters who have none?

I don't think that is the issue - he does use Battlefield Medicine of course, but not all that often as it can only be used once per character per day (so five times in this party). Out of maybe 54 actions in an adventuring day.

Most of the Medicing is done between fights.

Like Bard is the strongest caster in the game

Even if it were true, that would be damning it with faint praise. And most other full casters have significantly more spell slots (either literally or effectively) and everyone gets the Proficiency bumps at the same levels AFAICT.

glass wrote:

the xiao wrote:

I digged Arcana Unearthed medium save, was good for things like this.

Yeah, I use the Medium save progression quite a lot in my homebrew classes.

Ooh, what’s medium save progression? I’d love to have every class/creature in my games to have a good, medium, and poor save progression.

Starts at +0, ends up at +9, goes up ever other level in between. Basically roughly half way in between Good's 2/3 and Poor's 1/3 of level.

The version I use has two of each number from +0 to +9 across the 20 levels. I cannot remember OTTOMH if that is exactly what the original Arcana Unearthed did.

I emailed my bard player and told him about the spells Unicore suggested, with some commentary of my own added. And I figured I might as well C&P it here:

Hi again,

_
The below-mentioned thread was mostly full of arguments, but it did recommend a few specific attack spells to check out. Some of them look like they might be worth casting occasionally. They are:

_
Magic missile. I am pretty sure you already have this, but its damage only scales every other Rank and it is at low ebb at the moment.

_
Slow. Single target so for bosses rather than mooks, but bosses almost almost always make their saves so you're trading 2 actions for one of theirs. Which might not be a bad trade if you weren't also trading a 3R spell slot. Not one of their better suggestions IMO.

_
Calm. Less impressive effects than slow, but usable on groups, which potentially have lower saves (and even if they don't, they have a more chances to fail). Worth a look IMO.

_
Confusion. Same issue as slow, at least until very high Ranks (after AbV will have finished), and at a higher base Rank. Better effect on failure and crit fail, but how often are you going to see those?

_
Visions of death. Does damage on everything except a critical success, so you're contributing even if the status effects are likely to be underwhelming (the crit fail effect is significant, but anything worth spending a max-Rank single target spell on is not likely to crit fail - and anything that does crit fail is probably killed anyway).

_
Laughing fit. Another single-target spell with an underwhelming Success result, but at least this one can be sustained for a while. Plus it is only Rank 2 with no real need to Heighten AFAICS.

_
The same poster also mentioned an non-attack spell: Sense spirits as something that would be useful in AbV, and it does sound like it should be. But it has a 10 minute duration, so it is useless you already know there are spirits or haunts there to cast the spell. And if you already know that, you do not need it. That's not literally true, as it gives a bonuses against Haunts and Spirits beyond just knowing they are there, but it is pretty underwhelming. It would become a lot more useful if you could Heighten it to sixth level, but that is pretty much exactly when the campaign ends.

glass wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

- critting the skill feat, not impossible with a maxed Performance including item and status bonuses within easy reach of a Bard, brings a +1 to attacks over Gang Up's benefit.

This OTOH is not true - the net bonus that fortissimo provides caps out at +2 with a crit. That it tells you the full bonus rather than the increase does not change the fact fortissimo increases a bonus you already have by a maximum of +2.

I do not get it. Do you mean that you are comparing Fortissimo to Courageous Anthem + Gang Up ?

No. I am comparing fortissmo's actual net effect with Gang Up. When it says your final bonus is +3 on a crit, only 2 of that is coming from fortissimo itself. You already had +1 from courageous anthem without using fortissimo.

I'm not sure what you find more wonky about recasting Courageous Anthem as opposed to sustaining it. There's very little functional difference between the two behaviors.

I know there's not much functional difference (at least for the at will elements), and said as much. But it is not the functionality. It is just wired to be stopping and restarting a performance every six seconds.

... It seems like the only practical thing you're talking about here is buffing fortissimo, but then I'm not sure why you're burying the lead so much.

Not burying the lede: I am happy with the affect on fortissimo, but it will work with every Spellshape that affects Composition Cantrips - including the ones I am not familiar with. Those are what I am concerned about, and the reason for the thread.

I meant the Reach weapon that the Rogue is using.

That certainly helps. But when you are a relatively squishy melee guy, it is extremely helpful even if you don't have Gang Up. So it is not really an opportunity cost.

Note also that :

- the bonus to attack from Fortissimo will apply whatever the positions. If there are 2 melees taking place, it is unlikely that the Rogue will be in Reach of both groups of enemies.

- the bonus to damage from Fortissimo applies also to all spells, not only attack ones.

Those are true, but like I said before - we are comparing a single L6 feat with no other costs against a combination of feats including one at L8 that also costs actions and Focus Points. The former should have a bunch of limitations compared with the latter.

- critting the skill feat, not impossible with a maxed Performance including item and status bonuses within easy reach of a Bard, brings a +1 to attacks over Gang Up's benefit.

This OTOH is not true - the net bonus that fortissimo provides caps out at +2 with a crit. That it tells you the full bonus rather than the increase does not change the fact fortissimo increases a bonus you already have by a maximum of +2.

Glass, your recounting of this bards efforts to cast spells offensively runs very counter to my own experiences with PF2 and many others as well.

I genuinely do not remember the last time that the player cast a spell from a slot apart from the aforementioned see invisibility. I think he has pretty much given up on the whole thing, which is obviously a problem.

There are just way too many encounters in AV that would be absolutely wrecked by heightened calm, confusion, visions of death, laughing fit, or slow, not to mention how clutch spells like sense spirits are in the campaign and then they should also have force barrage at ranks 1 and 3 as there are a lot of creatures hard to hit and damage that that spell totally bypasses.

Thank you! That is exactly the sort of specific spell suggestions I was asking for!

The trouble with force barrage is that it only scales every other Rank, and level 8 is a low point. But I will have a look at the others and mention them to my player.

The party trying to squeeze 6+ fights into a day is working massively against your caster

What can I tell you? The players fell like they need to hurry. And TBF, they are under a certain amount of time pressure (and they have no real way of knowing exactly how much).

Hi all,

As anyone who has seen my recent threads in Rules will know, I have a player in my AbV game who is playing a bard. And both he and I are both pretty dissatisfied with certain aspects of the class.

Specifically, for the purposes of this thread, I am talking about Composition spells like Courageous Anthem. It seems weird to me that you have to cast them every rounds rather than casting them once and sustaining them. For the at will ones, this is wonky but not a major problem, when things like fortissmo come into play it suddenly looks a lot worse. But OTOH, I do not want to overcompensate. So I am proposing the following:

- Instead of recasting a Composition Cantrip every turn, a bard can spend an action to Sustain it.
- If the Cantrip is modified by a Spellshape the bard must make a Performance check when they Sustain it. If they fail, the Cantrip is Sustained but it loses the effects of the Spellshape. If they critically fail, the Cantrip is not Sustained and cannot be restarted until the caster's next turn.

This will allow the aforementioned fortissimo to keep going for a while. But as I argued in the other thread, it provides a lower net bonus than Gang Up for a much higher cost (although TBF it has other other advantages), and Gang Up works forever. So I am not unduly worried.

But are there any other combinations I should be wary of?

Gang Up requires specific positioning/tactics and specific weapons for max benefits. In white room comparisons, its impact is far less than Fortissimo. It seems that your party optimized around its use, which is great, but not a given that would apply to any group.

It requires melee characters to be in melee range. Hardly an unusual situation.

Whereas Fortissimo will always bring those benefits, as well as additional damage that Gang Up does not bring.

The only attacks that benefit from one but not the other are Ranged attacks, which I already acknowledged were a limitation. In a group with more Ranged attackers, Fortissimo would be relatively stronger. But in my group that is almost perfectly optimised to take advantage of Gang Up it is extremely useful but far from broken - exactly as it should be.

However, Fortissmo absolutely does not "always bring those benefits" - it brings them only if the bard spends an action and a limited resource to activate them. By contrast, the rogue just needs to stand there.

Sometimes the rogue needs to move into position, in which he also needs to spend an action. But a) that's only sometimes, whereas the bard always needs to spend an action, b) he gets to move into position with that action, he isn't spending it purely on Gang Up, and c) he is much more likely to get that action before the rest of the party acts, because rogues are much better at initiative than bards.

TBF, there are probably more other ways to get Off Guard than to get a +2 status bonus to attack rolls (including flanking the old-fashioned way), which is another point in favour of Fortissimo. But we are comparing a level 8 feat which has significant costs (including multiple other feats) against a level 6 feat which doesn't and provides twice the net bonus unless the bard crits on a skill check. The latter should have some pretty significant limitations.

as well as additional damage that Gang Up does not bring.

One or two additional point of damage per hit never hurt, but it often does not change the "number of hits to kill" metric which is what matters. The hit bonus is what matters, in both cases.

Note that as far as hyperbole is concerned, a +2 in attacks for martials makes them hit like level+2 characters. An Extreme encounter becomes merely Moderate for a level+2 party. And Low for a Level+3 party.

No they do not, because a level+2 or +3 would have, and need, the same tricks (and more besides). And because the characters' numbers, and the DCs and monster stats that oppose them are not linear with level (or at least, the slope of the line is not 1).

Just nitpicking on this, at least for my Bard's build (actual PFS one BTW).

Maxing Performance and using Orchestral Brooch to ensure a crit success are basic Bard tricks.

Basic bard tricks which are impossible for this character (Performance having been temporarily sacrificed for Medicine and Orchestral Brooch being way out of his price range (and as someone point out in my Witchflame thread, not available in Otari).

Using Multifarious Muse to grab Martial Performance to increase Fortissimo's duration is completely using Bard things.

You recommended shooting enemies with a bow - I would not call that a bard thing, even though it is something bards can do, and even though bard feats can make them less bad at it. It is something anyone can do.

I have read advice that wizards should carry a weapon around to use for their third action after casting a 2A spell - which might be useful advice, but does not make attacking with a weapon a "wizard thing" either.

That said, TBF your suggestions were more in the bard's sphere on average than gesalt's - persuading one of the other players to take the bard Archetype so he could stop using Courageous Anthem being particularly egregious (ironically, one of the other characters could cast bless, but using a spell slot for a lesser version of what the bard could do at-will seems like a poor trade).

The fact that it belongs to another class' base chassis does not make it somehow improper to use on a Bard.

I did not say it was improper, just that it was not a defence as the bard as a class.

All that said, I reiterate my opinion that if your players do not want to change their current ways, which is obviously completely fine, then being able to use Lingering Composition and Fortissimo together, while not RAW, just might be the best way to go.

I might decide to do that, although at this point I am inclined to come up with a different way allow Fortissimo to last a little longer (its being restricted to Maestro bards is not really better than being restricted to Warrior bards, even if it alleviates the immediate problem). Also, I don't want to set a precedent that might come back to bite me on other combinations.

But I still do not understand why, even in the general case, +2 to hit for "the whole fight" (provided it is over in 3 rounds) for two feats and two FP makes people recoil in horror. But the mathematically identical -2 AC for the whole fight (regardless of how long it lasts) from the rogue with a reach weapon is fine, despite costing one feat fewer, no FP, and no actions (except possibly moving into position, which he would need to do anyway to attack).

Admittedly, Gang Up does not help ranged attackers, but since everyone in the party (except the bard) is melee, that does not really matter.

Quote:

Sounds like this is not one of those those times - trap options are definitely "the system's fault".

Ok yes, that one is the system's fault, but things like the bard being the party medicine slave or failing to recognize that 1 of the boss's actions is worth more than two of theirs are not.

It is not a cantrip. It is not just trading actions, it also costs a spell slot. And if the boss critically succeed (which they often will if they are really "bosses") you're trading all that for nothing.

As for the bard being the party's "medicine slave" - someone has to be. TBF one of the other characters might have less need to use their FA to shore up their class, but nobody should need that (and the game should work without FA). And, to bring this back to the point, needing said shoring up is a clear sign that the bard class is not "already extremely powerful"!

Quote:

Free up actions to do what? The only other useful actions he gets from the bard class are his spells, and those are situationally useful at best.

One for all (swashbuckler archetype) and the handful of spells in the system that don't suck like illusions, the good buffs, any spell that has a strong "success effect" for single target, AoE incapacitate spells that will remove a mook or two on failure. Most turns will quickly devolve to good spell, one for all, reaction aid. Understanding what constitutes a good spell is another one of those player skill things.

So why are you not giving me examples of those "good spells" so I can mention them to my player, rather than going on about the incompatible archetypes he should have?

(Apart from slow, but see above.)

Also, "most turns" cannot be spell plus Swashbuckler thing. At absolute maximum, 12 turns per can be.

Quote:

Also, having a "spammable reaction" would conflict with counter performance, which (while situational) is one really useful when it applies, and has saved the party's bacon a few times.

And all those turns it's not getting used is a wasted reaction. Wasting action economy is bad.

We have very different definitions of "bad". To me, not optimisng to the Nth degree is not "bad", it is normal.

Also in this case, your optimisation advice would have TPKed the party. They fought a banshee, and it rolled well on its damage, and they rolled poorly on their saves. Without a Reaction available for counter performance, half of them would have gone down immediately and the rest (left with greatly depleted hp and fighting the banshee and a bunch of minions without the party's heaviest hitters) would not have been far behind.

In the bard's case it means recognizing that most enemies will pass their saves and only mooks have a reasonable failure rate and picking and casting spells accordingly.

He has picked his spells accordingly, mostly taking utility spells which just work, like see invisibility (plus heal, of course). Those are inherently situational. Which would be fine if his at will abilities were less underwhelming, but....

glass wrote:

Something I have never quite understood about the ARG:

A species is X RP (35 for the Drider, in the OP's example). Great, but what does that actual do? Is it a cost to be paid somewhow? If so, how? If not, what earthly use is it?

The ARG is a tool for the GM, not for the player.

I am aware. What I was not aware of until Dragonchess Player filled me in was how that tool was supposed to be used.

The RP function is to evaluate the relative power of the race, so that the GM can see if a specific race is more or less powerful than other races.

I don't need "RP = 35" to see that, all other things being equal, a drider is more powerful than a human. That's obvious at a glance. To be useful it would need to do more than that (and TBF, it does).

See the Creating a New Race section. The number of Race Points is a gauge of power level for the race and the estimated level adjustment for including a character of that race in the party (for encounter design/CR purposes). Races that deviate from the "standard" of about 10 RP can be more difficult to challenge, depending on the character level.

Thank you! I had been wondering about that for years, but I somehow managed to skip over that part of the book every time. That's partly on me, although I might question why it is buried on page 218 (rather bring the first thing the book tells you).

Sometimes it's not the system's fault.

The whole thing is a trap.

Sounds like this is not one of those those times - trap options are definitely "the system's fault".

They'd be better off doing things like throwing a lingering anthem or dirge to free up their actions

Free up actions to do what? The only other useful actions he gets from the bard class are his spells, and those are situationally useful at best.

TBF, the player does tend to be pessimistic about their own abilities, and therefore overvalues things which just work over things that enemies can save against or be missed by. But that overvaluing is only slight in this case, because anything which involves the enemy's stats is extremely unreliable.

-more non-bard stuff-

Like The Raven Black's, even if he took all this advice it would be those things making him powerful, not the bard class.

Remember how this debate got started - Hammerjack said the bard class was "already extraordinarily strong" which it just isn't. Non-bard things that make the character powerful have no bearing on that. The character already makes a powerful contribution to the party's success, it is just that most of that is outside of combat.

Also, having a "spammable reaction" would conflict with counter performance, which (while situational) is one really useful when it applies, and has saved the party's bacon a few times.

You need more than just your base stats and class chassis proficiencies to actually perform well.

Exactly, and you shouldn't. A class should be able to do its job without having to do a deep dive into archetypes. That is precisely the problem I have been complaining about!

The Bard is Master in Medicine. They cannot be also Master in Performance at level 8.

You're correct, of course. Performance was maxed out until seventh level, and presumably will be again at ninth. He wanted to take Performance at seventh, but felt they had to take Medicine first. He makes dozens of Medicine checks in an average day, and maybe two Performance checks.

Someone has to max out Medicine, and the bard player drew the short straw. In those circumstances, Performance is as high as it practically could be but not technically maxed out.

Quote:

The party are: Thaumaturge, fighter, rogue, ranger. And the bard of course.

This party should be casually ripping through severe encounters so their builds and play patterns must be super questionable if they're having the kind of trouble you're saying they do.

Yeah, insulting my players will totally solve the problem. They obviously have the relevant proficiencies as those things are kinda fixed. They have maxed out attacks stats, and a semi-permanent effective +3 beyond their own scores between the bard and the rogue. But the enemies' numbers are just so much higher.

I am sure there are things they could do to eek out another point or two, but I am not aware of anything which is reliable and affordable.

Though since the bard apparently thinks trading 2 for 1 with slow or similar effects is bad, I guess that goes without saying.

I mean, I agree with him. Although it is more like trading two actions (and a R3 spell slot) for half an action on avearage, since any enemy you could meaningfully use it on will Crit Succeed at least half the time. That's not just a bad trade, it's horrible.

The Bard PC is not optimized at all. This likely explains why they do not feel good doing Bard things.

I am not sure how you are determining that....

Their Performance should be maximized always, so that they have an easier time succeeding, and even crit succeeding, at Lingering Composition and Fortissimo.

I am pretty sure his Performance is maximised, and he did regularly succeed (and crit sometimes) on Lingering Composition. He uses it less often these days, perhaps because it is incompatible with the two-Compositions thing.

-incredibly specific build snipped-

So my player should tear up his character concept, play one super-specific build, and spend half the party's loot on stupendously expensive consumables which are not even available in the campaign area? And then, and only then, can he be good at "bard stuff" (for values of "bard stuff" that include a whole bunch of rather non-bard stuff)?

You don't think those requirements, rather than my player, might be the problem?

(Having typed it out, I realise "stupendously expensive consumable" is a tautology in PF2.)

It sounds like your party wants to tackle the dungeons of the abomination vaults by going one room to one room, fighting encounters that last 2 to 3 rounds, with 10+ minutes between every encounter.

I do not think that is what the party "wants" so much as what PF2 requires.

With no potential threat of creatures running to go get help, they are going to be able to do that with almost every encounter in the campaign and of course that is going to make medic an incredible dedication and spell casters feel worse.

Again, the encounters are not easy individually. Stacking two or three together is not going lead to PCs going down. And as easily the squashiest PC, the bard is likely to be the first to die.

I am guessing that there are mostly martials in the rest of the party?

Yes, see above. There used to be a sorcerer, but that player swapped to a rogue.

Do they usually squeeze 6 to 10 encounters into a day?

Probably. I have not kept a precise counts, but often try to push on further than I probably would in their case.

I am guessing that they probably don’t even carry many healing potions or other immediate healing resource?

Traditionally they have used huge amounts of healing resources to get though fights. That has been less necessary recently as they have gone up in levels (and Battlefield Medicine has become more effective). Although they have still had a few hairy fights recently.

I promise you that medic doesn’t feel all that powerful of an archetype when an entire floor of a dungeon is likely to mobilize and hunt the party down

Well no, a dead Medic is not going to feel powerful. Which is what would happen to them (and everyone else) if party tries to fight a whole level of AbV at once.

Medicine was mentioned as being at Master, so this already is level 7 at least. From the "72 seconds" comment, I'm assumingthat it's level 8 specifically.

Correct (12 spell slots = 12 rounds of doing something other than Composition Cantrips). They literally just hit 8th last session, so they have not done a lot at 8th level yet. In fact, I forgot to check and give them their XP until during the session, so they were probably not fully levelled up even when they were nominally at 8th.

But even next session when they have their full eighth-level features, I am not anticipating a step change in his capabilities.

Are there three martials in the party? Bard's +1 doesn't feel great in a party of three, or a party of four with a second full caster.

The party are: Thaumaturge, fighter, rogue, ranger. And the bard of course.

How many encounters in a day are there? If Medic is outshining the rest of the class in your eyes, you're talking down a dozen spells as "72 seconds of effectiveness" and it's Abomination Vaults, I'm assuming more than three encounters a day.

I have not kept a careful count, and ultimately it is up to them how long they push on. But they tend to do quite a lot of encounters before calling it for the day - especially recently, as they have been feeling some additional time pressure (no spoilers, but anyone familiar with the AP will probably realise why).

Is this coming from the Bard's player not feeling effective, or are you trying to make somebody else's character better in your view? (I presume the former, but just making sure.)

A bit of both TBF. He did ask if he could use Lingering and Fortissimo on the same effect, and when I said I didn't think so, he said Fortissimo was crap and asked if he could swap take something else instead. Conversely, he has not complained about spending multiple whole fights doing nothing but courageous anthem and rallying anthem every round, but I think that must be pretty boring.

There is also the factor that what he chose instead of Fortissimo is Soulsight, which I feel is going to be a PITA.

- A party-wide +2 to accuracy would be upgrading every martial to a Fighter while keeping their class features.

It is numerically equivalent to what the Rogue gives just by standing in the room with a Reach weapon (at the cost of one whole feat).

- "72 seconds of effectiveness" is weird for me to hear, because when I do grab spells, I'm trying to avoid spells that are only good for a single round. At this level, Haste, Slow, Fly, and heightened Invisibility are all spells that will last a whole fight.

I did not mean to imply that none of their spells last beyond the round in which they were cast, just that those were the rounds in which they were potentially doing something more impactful than singing.

That said, the only non-instantaneous spell I remember him casting OTTOMH was see invisibility (and then he got hit by an effect that s&%# down spellcasting, so he was doing nothing useful with the vision). I think he might also have fly, but when you're in a small stone room it is limited use. I don't know why he does not have haste.

I might know why he does not have slow - I think he is working on the assumption that enemies will at least pass their Save (which is slightly pessimistic, but only slightly). Which would means at best it trades two of his Actions and a R3 spell slot for one of the enemy's Actions. And if they Critically Succeed, he traded all that for nothing. At least it doesn't have Incapacitation.

- Of all the casters, Bard is definitely the one I want to be when I do run out of spells. A party-wide at-will buff is great, and as an added bonus, it means those attack cantrips have a little better accuracy than the other casters would.

Other full casters generally do not run out as fast (although still way too fast at low levels IMO).

I digged Arcana Unearthed medium save, was good for things like this.

Yeah, I use the Medium save progression quite a lot in my homebrew classes.

Something I have never quite understood about the ARG:

A species is X RP (35 for the Drider, in the OP's example). Great, but what does that actual do? Is it a cost to be paid somewhow? If so, how? If not, what earthly use is it?

Timely thread, as my PCs are also on the 7th level of AbV, and are quite likely to go to G5 next! Like the OP, I think I will give the hammer returning.

(Unlike the OP, I am mostly not bothering to change the Legacy elements - as far as my group is concerned, Legacy PF2 is still perfectly usable PF2, for the most part.)

Thanks Randall!

The easiest way to make casters feel more powerful is to chain more encounters together. Spells that last a minute underwhelm when encounters last 3 rounds but feel pretty awesome when they go 12. Also, more targets makes AoE spells a lot more likely to do so some cool stuff.

IME, that is the easiest way to kill PCs or force them to run away, which is the opposite of making them feel powerful.

Discounting being a full caster as a minor feature makes for a very skewed assessment. Especially when they are at least level 7. If those spell slots aren't adding significantly to what they contribute in a day, there is some operator error.

Full casters aren't what they used to be!

Even if we assume that all their spell slots are relevant (rather than just the top two-ish Ranks), they have twelve spells per day. 72 seconds of being impactful, if they are all combat spells. And that is assuming those spells do anything at all, when it is pretty common that they do not (missed attack roll, or critical success on the save).

I mean I cannot rule out "operator error" as you put it. But I cannot see what they could differently (other than play better class).

You're probably right that its a bad idea - most of my PF2-related ideas seem to be! But there seems to be some pretty severe hyperbole going on. The bard in my AbV is far from "extraordinarily strong" - if he were, I would not be looking for ways to give him a boost!

Sure, +1 hit and damage never hurts, but it frequently does not help either. On 90% of rolls the hit bonus makes no difference. Changing that to 80% of rolls hardly makes Extreme encounters "speed bumps". Similarly, the damage bonus is pretty underwhelming even when you hit - even at +2 (or even +3).

If he doesn't have to move, he can give +1 AC and saves as well. How can I contain my excitement?[/sarcasm]

I am mostly discounting his spell slots, because even if they were individually impressive (and they frequently aren't) its such a tiny proportion of the adventuring day that it does not move the needle. By far that character's greatest contribution to the party comes from his Medicine at Master and Medic Archetype - nothing to do with the bard class.

For example, could a bard use two Free-Action spells that modify the same bard Cantrip?

EDIT: And if the answer is "no" by RAW, how badly would it break things to allow it?

Well.. it doesn't say that the affliction ends when it ends when it ends.

That's exactly what it says.

Rather it says when the affliction can be reduced again. This serves as a clarification to the reader on what a "case" is.

It only "needs" to clarify what a case is because the previous half of the sentence unnecessarily introduced the word (needs in scare quotes because, again, it is pretty obvious what case means in the context).

For example if a victim gets exposed to a poison they are already suffering from its not a different case, same with diseases that restart or reoccur.

I am a firm believer in a spelling things out, but even I have my limits and this is well past them. Are you really saying that if that sentence was not there, you'd keep track of every affliction this was cast against and only allow it once ever rather than once per instance? Because that is what would be required for the sentence under discussion to actually do anything.

It really is not a terrible spell either

At Rank 2? It's abject.

Any Affliction worth using a precious spell slot on is one where the subject is pretty likely to fail their saves. So in a lot of cases, it brings them down to one stage before final, and then they bounce back to final and suffer the effects again. Exactly as they would have done had they stayed where they were. Obviously, if the final stage is "you die" then that does not apply, but how many of those exist at level 3?

The issue I see with letting it reduce afflictions to zero is that it lets one run rank 1 versions that are still capable of removing any affliction as long as you use it before it progresses.

What? It's Spell 2; it doesn't have a Rank 1 version.

Being able to nip potentially nasty Afflictions in the bud before they get worse (and require more serious magic) is a feature not a bug IMNSHO.

Thanks Errenor!

Goth Guru wrote:

2: If the GM doesn't have a copy, you can only use a rule if you buy or print out a copy of the rule for the GM.

I assume this is just for 3rd party - as all the Pathfinder rules are available online for free

Maybe they they are printing from AoN? Not everyone has (or wishes to use) the Internet when/where they play.

OTOH....

1: No fumbles. A 1 is just a non hit unless true strike is being used.

..."No fumbles" is not a house rule. "Yes fumbles" would be the house rule (and a horrible one IMNSHO). OTOOH, nat 1 not missing with true strike is a house rule.

Unless you meant primitive firearms do not misfire (the only "fumble" rule in the game AFAICR), in which case that is a weird way to phrase it.

You need to read the bolded text in the entire sentence which its present in.

I did, but it still did not seem to add any meaning. Obviously, things end when they end - that is a tautology, and does not need to be stated. I am a firm believer that all rules text should do something, and be dismissed as meaningless only as a last resort.

In this case, you're probably right: The most straughtforward reason is that those words do nothing, and that it was probably the intent. But since the spell is (at that Rank) pretty terrible, I am going to stick with the more generous reading anyway (stretch or house rule though it may be).

But Otari is a 5th lvl town. Normally nobody has this kind of magic there (4th rank is 7+ level). No NPC can cast 4th rank spells and no shops are above 5th level. It's possible to order from Absalom, but it's several days.

You're correct - I forgot that the PCs now out-levelled the town.

The Raven Black wrote:

And to think Otari is full of retired Pathfinders ...

Reasonable. But who says retired Pathfinders should be higher than 5th level? Also it's so full of them that we now about exactly one, and in a completely different adventure :)

Who's the one, and from which adventure?

----------------------

Circling back to the question of what Rank of cleanse affliction you need, when I read it yesterday afternoon I thought it was clear that you needed Rank 4 for the reasons outlined by Finnoan. But when I looked again during the session, it was not so clear cut. You need Rank 4 to Counteract a Curse, but not to reduce a Curse. So then the question becomes, can you reduce a Curse to stage zero. The text of the spell:

Gentle restorative magic pushes back the effects of toxins and more complex maladies. Choose an affliction on the target, such as a curse, disease, or poison. If it has advanced past stage one, reduce the stage by one. This reduction can be applied only once to a given case of an affliction, with the case ending when it's completely cured. Although the reduction can't occur again, heightened versions of this spell attempt to counteract with each casting.

The question hangs on the part I have bolded. Were it not for that, it would be fairly clear that you can only reduce an Affliction which has already advanced past stage 1 (which Witchflame never does). But then the bolded part would be irrelevant and meaningless.

Thoughts?

cleanse affliction is the way to go yeah. It doesn't even need to be high rank

It would, for the reasons Fionoan outlines.

As part of the remaster they merged Remove Curse, Neutralize poison and Remove Disease to create more generic removal that targets all three, so for all intents and purposes Remove Curse is fully replaced.

Only if you play a pure Remaster game, which I do not (apart from anything else, this campaign started before the Remaster was a thing).

Another option would be the Break Curse Skill Feat as a means to do it without a resource cost, But 8 hours means its not really feasable unless you are already at the end of the day.

(Added a link for future reference). The PCs could theoretically have that feat, but I am reasonably certain none of them do.

--------------

Thanks everyone! I just wanted to check whether I had missed anything, but it does not seem like I had missed much. I did not know about the feat, but if any of my PCs had it presumably they would have.

The party are level 7, so Rank 4 is indeed their highest-Rank slot. I am not sure if any of them know it anyway (the bard might), but Otari is only 20 minutes away.

Basically, as the subject line. The witchfire has a rider on its attacks called Witchflame, which (on a Fail or Crit Fail on the save) is "permanent until removed". So how would one remove it?

Witchflame has the Curse trait, so presumably a remove curse or sufficiently high-rank cleanse affliction would do the trick, but are there any other (more accessible) options?

You did not quote me, but this seems to be a response to my post....

As if talking to a genie, it's best to still be clear about restrictions from the GM side and set interpretations earlier rather than later.

No, it isn't. Because the game has hundreds, probably thousands of rules that will be followed as normal in a typical campaign. If I am GMing, I am not going to waste time confirming all of those. Instead, I am going to talk about the rules I am changing (which is a much shorter list).

Because that the rule only works of off GM Core is only partially true. The rule works off of GM Core and the vanilla rules in Player Core. FA has few restrictions, but it also has few allowances, which means that where the rule is not expressly states, the vanilla rules apply.

Obviously?

But just as obviously, the core Archetype rules do not include any FA-specific restrictions.

1. Dedication limits still apply, which is to say, to move on to a new dedication, you need to satisfy your current dedication with a minimum of 3 feats.

Again, obviously. What did I say that made you think I did not realise that?

2. Deviant Feats are not available, as they are not a part of the default archetype progression without GM opt-in.

I have never heard of "deviant feats" so I cannot comment on this one.

Personally, I am hoping that PF2 breaks the mold of previous edition lifecycle behavior.

It won't. The only way Paizo does not eventually release a 3rd edition of Pathfinder is if they get out of the RPG business, or cease to exist entirely. And even in that case, mostly likely someone else will buy or license the IP and do so themselves.

----------------

I think .5 editions are a terrible idea. Making hundreds of fiddly changes, making the system incompatible (while pretending that you aren't) and difficult to remember, while avoiding big changes that could actually fix anything, is just the worst of all possible worlds. Either keep the rules the same and release genuine revised corebooks (which of course Paizo has already done, more or less), or create a new edition that actual sets out to improve things and fix problems.

Even if that was not true in the general case, Paizo would be on a sticky wicket trying to release one after the Remaster. While the Remaster is not a true .5 edition, it is close enough that actually releasing one would feel like double dipping.

----------------

As for what I would like to see in PF3 when, in the distant future, it finally arrives:

- Fewer, chunkier feats. Not necessarily massively fewer, but averaging over a feat per level is a lot of feats. Which kinda forces them to be individually underwhelming (and the few standouts that are not underwhelming are OP by comparison).

- Do something about getting HP back after the fight, that is less fiddly than Medicine checks.

- Make non-weapon magic items (especially consumables) less underwhelming.

And probably a bunch of other things that are not coming to mind right now.