graystone's page

"While these ancestries are uncommon in the same way a magic item, a feat, or a spell is, an ancestry is something you choose at the beginning of the campaign. Specific campaigns might provide a list of uncommon ancestries that are particularly appropriate for that setting, such as hobgoblins in a campaign set near Oprak, or lizardfolk for a campaign in the Mwangi Expanse, and grant access to those ancestries. In other games, these ancestries are as available as your group desires them to be."

So specific settings grant access, not something the player does: That's the reason for my saying "questionable usefulness" in the average game. The fact that 'PC' goblins are common and are therefor found everywhere but things like lizardmen that lives in mountains, water, marsh and deserts are hard to find...

That being said, I'm very happy to see the additional racial feats in LOCG, which I do think add a lot of depth and make many of the races much more "playable" without feeling a need to take adopted. I'm a little confused as to why Leshy didn't get any 13th level feats however.

I can say that the expansion of core race options is one part of the book I'm quite satisfied with, though even there you have feats like devil's advocate that make calling them situational seem far too kind.

On the leshy, IMO it's not so bad: lizardmen have only 1 9th and 1 13th while hobgoblin has 1 9th and 2 13th: leshy have 3 9th so IMO they have more versatility on options instead of only having 1 9th as they can pick another 9th for 13th and that's an option the other new 'races' can't do. That and I'd expect to see more 'race' options for them in later books like we got for core this time.

The Bestiary Leshies use 30ft so I'd go with that until official clarification.

That'd be great if it's correct. It'd mean you could make a monk with a respectable ranged attack they could flurry: the fact that the stat for the leshy actually fit for a monk is a bonus. ;)

I'll echo what some of the others have said in this thread: the book is pretty and the lore sections are well written But this just makes the contrast that much more stark when you look at the actual rules parts: rules are either very situational or have something questionable about them. For instance seedpod sounds cool but how do you use a ranged ability that gives you no range? I will say the 'race' section seems better than the archetype one: between archetypes that seem to work against the lore, rare feats with no explanation of how you access them and ones you have to ask yourself how often it's come up and the section is much less exciting. Add to that that the 3 new 'races' are uncommon and even the majority of that section are of questionable usefulness.

As the title says... Seedpod gives you a "ranged unarmed attack" but nowhere does it say how far away you can make the attack. I asked when the feat was previewed but I didn't get an answer then so maybe I can get it answered now.

From my perspective, rarity is making more work all around: we now require ban and un-ban lists and they tend to be more intricate as you sometime need a item by item ban or un-ban [dimension door fine, planetary teleport not] where PF1 was more blanket [like no guns]. It requires a lot more up front work and it makes games play differently even when they have the same basic rulings.

I've played in several games with different DM's and the number of 'ask your DM' rules make it seem like I'm playing different versions of the same game: it's like one plays like D&D 3.0 and the next is like PF1 and the next D&D 3.5 and trying to remember the differences. It's even more difficult if you're playing them at the same time...

From my PF1 perspective and bans and allowed content, most times I'd find 'legal options that are online'. More rarely, there's be broad bans [no gunslingers, no summoners, ect]. For PF2, it ends up a back and forth over every individual uncommon+ item/element as most DM's don't list things that fine in the 'looking for players' post: it's not going to list things down to individual items 'alchemy crossbow allowed, katana not allowed, ect...'. Uncommon content just ends up being a speedbump from what I've seen, as any time it comes up, everything stops as the PM's start.

All the poor little organ grinder monkey Familiars being repurposed for this intense combat reloading, cranking this huge crossbow and loading another bolt within 2-3 seconds. Think of the monkeys! :'(

Wouldn't it just be easier to build the familiar into the crossbow? Add gerbil into the crossbow reloading wheel and watch it run... Just add some food, a water bottle and some prestidigitation once in a while to keep things clean and you're all set.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but the ability of familiars to wind the crank of a heavy crossbow or carry an item of light bulk isn't specified in the familiar rules.

Heavy crossbows having cranks or requiring any set str score to reload isn't specified either: for all we know it's a screw mechanism that requires little str but takes more time...

They last for all time... How else do you explain dungeons having lights after hundreds of years? ;) [think most video games] Just another 'ask your DM' area.

We all just ignored the part where someone said vegans were like an insane priest trying to bring about the end of the world, huh? :P

Yep... ;)

Why reskin? You just use wands for giants [staff size] or staves for pixies [wand size]. The relative size doesn't alter the magic or function any.

The abstractions of Bulk are applied consistently. Every value given is given assuming a specific context, works within that context, and breaks down quickly and obviously when tried to be stretched outside of that context.

You can't say it's "applied consistently" then in the same breathe say it "assuming a specific context". If it needs context, it's not consistent by definition as consistent doesn't need it: it just IS. I don't need to know the context to tell if something is 6' long: it just IS 6' long and it doesn't change. A creatures doesn't shrink because it's been KO'd and needs to be taken off the field of battle and it doesn't grow handles for ease of travel: what's the context for weight/bulk suddenly doing the same thing that's seem silly with other things?

The only context that should be needed for weight/bulk is gravity and I can't recall a D&D game in 30 years that had me re-figure weights because of that. It'd be nice if packing actually MEANT something but unwieldiness doesn't seem to care how much effort you put in to making something easier to carry... Saying unwieldiness is a factor and then having 10 shortswords have the same bulk packed as held loose in your hands isn't bulk "applied consistently" as it ignores mitigating factors it purports to include: in a context based system I should be carry more in a carefully packed backpack than held in my arms but that isn't the case.

treat the rules as if context doesn't factor

I do this because because the context changes from person to person: what is a vast number of - items changes from person to person, so there is no set value. When I go from one Dm to another, the context shifts. Same with bodies and bulk: some may add up the equipment, some might ignore it, ect: with no consistency it's left up in the air. When things had weights, I didn't have to guess at the context and hope it matched the DMs.

PS: I think I've said what I wanted to say. I doubt that anything you could say will change my mind on bulk so to prevent a back and forth that goes nowhere I'm moving along unless something actually new is said.

The Only Sheet wrote:

TOS 2nd CORE edition is'nt free, but it's one heck of a powerful product! I am about to release the next build, which adds Dynamic Play!

This will allow players to activate spells and condition on the fly while they are at the gaming table. With support for the stacking rules and the ability to create custom content, TOS 2nd CORE edition is most likely the best character manager you'll find for Pathfinder 2nd edition!

If you get serious about playing PF2, then you have a serious option to handle your PCs!

The Only Sheet

Since you are obviously the person(s) behind the sheet: Is there any demo version available? How do the printouts look? Which options are included or will be included in the future?

It being Excel ONLY is what killed it for me.

thenobledrake: #1 There is a difference between using an abstraction and using one in a consistent way. While I dislike the abstraction, what really bugs me is the inconsistent and seemingly random way it's used. It an abstraction that on one hand tries to encompass unwieldiness while on the other hand it tries to simplify and IMO they work at odds before you throw in numbers used for 'balance' like much lower than actual numbers for 'dead weight' KO'd creatures.

#2 the context of bulk is to carry things... OK, done. I shouldn't NEED to know the reason behind why I'm carrying something and neither should the DM. Either I can or can't carry something: it shouldn't change depending on the situation. If my horse can carry 5 KO'd people off the battlefield but can't do the same with 5 non-KO'd people, that's a failure of the system and not a contextual issue. It'd be like saying my HP's or saves fluctuate depending on context on my actions...

"that's just how the rules operate": IMO, they work poorly. I don't think it's too much to ask that things work consistently: both from an item vs item perspective but a situation vs situation one... It was just so much easier to add pounds than worry about what context I'm trying to lift something. :P

Would a returning Javelin be considered a "reload 0" weapon? A lot of feats want that.

No, weapons with reload “—” must be drawn to be thrown: returning just remove the draw.

And is there any way to boost a Javelin/Shuriken range besides Ranger's Hunt Prey and Far Shot?

Legendary shot lets you ignore 5 range increments.

Your example is true but the suggestion that it is the only place that bulk works that way is incorrect.

Who said it was consistent? IMO it's super inconsistent. Bulk works in different ways depending on seemingly random factors...

Secondly, you notice I replied to a specific assertion: "It's a lot harder to carry a bunch of loose sticks than the same sticks tied together in a bundle." This is 100% false in the game as how you pack things has 0% affect on it's Bulk. This ALWAYS works this way. If you have a place were something is less bulk depending on how it's collected/packed/ect. please let me know. Worn vs unworn isn't the same thing: it's packed vs unpacked.

The rules encourage the GM to adjust for players attempting silly things like carrying 10,000 rations as well.

Sure, it limits "vast" numbers of - bulk items from not counting as L bulk... Good for that? So 1 less than vast and you're good? Cool... That helps me prepare for my next game.

the book does encourage the GM to adjust for situations like this and directly mentions the GMs ability to do so in the creature weight section. Yes it is arbitration for sure, but that is a design intent in this case

It does the same thing for ANY rule in the book, so I'm not sure how it's a 'fix' for anything. The DM has the ability to alter or change any rule they want: that doesn't mean that base rules shouldn't make sense because of that. I don't think pointing out that carrying a fully equipped small character is the same as carrying 3 whips in wrong: it brings into focus just how vague the bulk system is and shows that it's more bulk efficient to equip a small creature and carry it than carry the equipment itself. Sure the DM can change that but when the bulk from when I pick up a paralyzed PC suddenly increases when the PC packed to save weight because it's for bulk savings I'm calling BS. If they are 3 bulk when they have to be taken to town, they are 3 bulk when they are taking a nap in my backpack holding out gear...

Mellack wrote:

That would seem counter-intuitive. A fully armed and armored small creature has a total bulk of just 3? Even if that gnome is wearing plate (bulk 4) has a longsword (bulk 1), artisan's tools (bulk 2) and an adventurers pack (bulk 1 or 2)? So why is it harder for that gnome to carry all his stuff than it is for a halfling to come along and pick up the gnome, equipment and all? That just doesn't follow for me.

It's a lot harder to carry a bunch of loose sticks than the same sticks tied together in a bundle. Think of a kitted-out character as big bundle of gear.

The only thing is that this doesn't apply for anything else: holding 10 loose shortswords in your arms and carrying 10 carefully packed shortswords in your backpack are the same bulk. This implies that bulk ignores unwieldiness and/or ease of carrying past it's basic design. This also means that something about creatures inherently makes them easy to carry: everyone must come with easy to grip handles...

The in-narrative justification is that bulk is meant to represent how unwieldy carrying things are. When you carry an object it is going to take up room in your bag, or your grip, or what have you. When someone carries you, all that stuff just kind of stays attached.

This leads you to a situation where it's much easier to pack down a halfling with as much equipment [say 20 bulk in backpacks, pouches, sacks, ect] and then put said halfling in a backpack and carry them because the halfling is only 3 bulk and backpacks can hold 4... Small creatures have become better than bags of holding!

I love the new actions system, but I am afraid about something. Let's say we have a level 1 Elf, with a Bow and speed 40 ft. And on the other hand we have a Dwarf with speed 20 ft. If the elf decide to move+move+shoot, the dwarf will never catch him even if he use his 3 actions to move, cause the elf move 80 ft with 2 actions (and then he fires) and the dwarf only move 60 ft.

Please tell me I am wrong.

The thing to think about is kiting with an animal companion with a speed of 35 but only 2 actions. It's faster than 30 move creatures but can never outrun them...

There is still a massive gap between a trained and untrianed skill, more so than between a trained and legendary one, at least by the time you can have legendary skills.

There are several ways to get +level to untrained skills so the gap can be less that that of trained and legendary. And This all assumes you're at a high enough level to care about such things: if you're only going to be using the character at low level, the gap isn't going to open up much even without taking a feat for + level.

graystone wrote:

DemonicDem wrote:

Hello again, forgot to post this last time.

The Ranger Class feature Nature's Edge (page 169) says that: "Enemies are flat-footed to you if they’re in natural difficult terrain, on natural uneven ground, or in difficult terrain resulting from a snare."

However, the section on Uneven Ground (Page 476) states "You are flat-footed on uneven ground," which makes part of the feature redundant.

The target might NOT be flat-footed because of an ability like Rock Runner and Steady Balance or using a Jade Cat.

This is a situation of specifics conflicting with each other. Either way, this is not for us to decide.

I'm not making a judgment on it, JUST pointing out that it is in fact not redundant as not all creatures might not be flatfooted.

Hello again, forgot to post this last time.

The Ranger Class feature Nature's Edge (page 169) says that: "Enemies are flat-footed to you if they’re in natural difficult terrain, on natural uneven ground, or in difficult terrain resulting from a snare."

However, the section on Uneven Ground (Page 476) states "You are flat-footed on uneven ground," which makes part of the feature redundant.

The target might NOT be flat-footed because of an ability like Rock Runner and Steady Balance or using a Jade Cat.

Sort of off topic but it goes to graystone's post.

One thing I really hate about PF2 familiars is this odd mix of customization and restriction. Your familiar's abilities are malleable, not based on any existing stat block, and can change from day to day.

...But your familiar must be an animal (no imps, sorry) and depending on which animal you pick certain choices end up locked in as a result.

It's a really bizarre mix where things are super open ended in most respects and then oddly restrictive in ways that don't seem to actually add anything.

That's why I just want a familiar that's a primordial ooze that you shape every day instead of pretending it's a real animal: I'm fine with 'treating' it as an animal, but also shapeless mass of familiar too.

Grumpus wrote:

QUOTE="graystone"]I think this ability is written this way because EACH DAY you can select different familiar and master abilities. Basically your familiar remains the same animal, but each day it can represent itself in many varying ways. One day it can fly, the next it might have darkvision, and it could have different cantrips on different days.

Hang on. If a familiar should be able to fly, a bird or bat or whatever, you have to give it the fly ability, do you not? Are you suggesting that a familiar can take any form you choose, and you can change that choice on a daily basis?

If your animal would have an ability you MUST take it [or 2 of them if you have more than that]. Now if you pick Hedgehog that has none of the abilities, you can have it fly one day, swim the next all while using scent or darkvision. To get the most out of your familiar, pick one that has no traits so you can actually pick instead of locking yourself into a single one.

It will come out before the APG playtest, which is still on schedule for sometime in October (trending toward late October at this point).

Thanks for stopping in to the forum to let us know! I was afraid that when something was said it'd be on some social media platform or pod cast I don't use. ;)

We want to get these right, and while is will in no way be comprehensive, we hope to hit a lot of the concerns all at once

Sounds great: just hearing that it's in the works and having a rough timeline is enough to make me happy.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

has left us in a bit of a crunch.

I hate that word, don't overwork yourselves please!

I think it could be the PF2 tagline at this point: they've said that they made an "aggressive schedule" and that comes along with it.

I had this question with Cantrip Connection: It says "designate a cantrip to add to your repertoire every time you select this ability". Saying "every time you select this ability" sure SOUNDS like you can take this one twice.

Arcane/Occult

Find yourself a transmuter for Physical Boost: +2 status bonus to the next Acrobatics check, Athletics check, Fortitude save, or Reflex save it attempts.

"It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon." I'm reading that as referring to "doesn’t take up a hand". As such, nothing about it being a weapon applies, as the start of unarmed states "An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon". What this boils down to is this:

A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed.
You can use the hand covered by You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand.

The rest isn't needed as it states in unarmed "It also doesn’t take up a hand".

Is there a distinction between an attack with a grasping appendage with the unarmed trait and a weapon with the free-hand trait? If not, could the free hand trait be added to the relevant attacks in place of the unarmed trait for clarity?

Unarmed attacks aren't weapons while weapon attacks are: this matters for actions that specify weapon.

A similar question, are monk style attacks free hand?

As long as they are unarmed and are described as using a hand/arm this applies: "It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon."

Following that, are all instances of the "fist" weapon, such as those gained from polymorph spells and used by monsters, identical to the one listed in the weapon chart? Specifically, do they belong to the brawling group?

I'd say "fist" is just like saying "shortsword": the traits and other things mtch the weapon no matter what the base damage is.

So pretty sure this is definitely not a correct interpretation. As per the rules: "but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow." In other words, while shooting, the other hand is "in use" and used to loose the arrow/make an attack. You can't be "using" that hand at the time, which doesn't have a lot of in-game effect, but it would ruin stances that require you to have a free hand, for example, and you'd fall off a wall using combat climber with a bow.

The difference for me is climbing is a continuous action/activity and it doesn't say the hand stays free unlike reloading arrow. Without "To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free", I'd agree with you: the way it presented is they the action on the arrow don't last long enough to even be a free action but is rolled into the attack/strike. When you're hand is "in use" for less than a free action, I'm not seeing it having any appreciable affect on flanking. And this also hinges on fist being the only unarmed attack.

My point was more so that it's unclear, and at least one other person on quick scan of the thread thought it worked this way as well.

I think I'd blame it on the quick scan as it doesn't seem unclear. I'm honestly not seeing a viable second read: I'm not sure what could be changed to make it even clearer.

You think it reads one way, I think it reads another, I'd argue that's pretty much the definition of "unclear" :).

I'm struggling to see your point of view on this. "You can Strike with your fist or another body part" If can makes the "other body part" questionable, why doesn't it also make fist questionable? Why does "can" only apply to the other attacks and not the fist? I'm not seeing a way to parse it to make read the way you suggest.

Even if someone rules you had to use a fist, bows are 1+ hands, not 2 and that means while not attacking, the hands free. This means you can use a buckler, cast a spell or threaten with a fist. If it was like you thought, bows would require 2 hands.

Unarmed Trait: "It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon."

Free Hand trait: "You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand."

Hands: "You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free."

At no time is your second hand not free by the rules when using a bow: it's always free. The bow requires a free hand to shoot but never says it ever stops being a free hand to do so. As you can see by looking at the weapon traits, you never wield the bow in your free hand: as such, that free hand that has the free hand trait allows you to use abilities "require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand", like flank.

The only thing to quibble about would be the "and not otherwise using the hand" but with a reload 0, it's all one action and the wielding itself leaves a free hand. It much like how raising a buckler doesn't prevent a bow shot either even though the arm is already in use.

I think it's unclear as to whether the "you can" implies that everyone can, or that only those with the proper unarmed attacks can (though everyone gets fists).

I don't think it's unclear: to me you are allowed to attack with other parts of your body.

If "can" is an issue, then it brings into question if you're even allowed to use a fist... For the quote on the table, it's about the potential for stats for the attack to be different and not a possibility the attacks aren't available. For instance, a DM might rule a kick deals more damage but lose agile, a headbutt deals less damage but adds forceful or a tail adds trip by giving up finesse.

If you use a two-handed ranged weapon, you are out of luck since you have no free hand/fist to threaten with. Even a bow uses both hands while shooting.

Even if someone rules you had to use a fist, bows are 1+ hands, not 2 and that means while not attacking, the hands free. This means you can use a buckler, cast a spell or threaten with a fist. If it was like you thought, bows would require 2 hands.

Zwordsman:
Drawbacks: IMO, I see no point in them as the mutagen boils down to a +1 over what your expected equipment gives you. IMO, they seem needlessly punitive for no reasons. Having them be strong is actually a plus for me as now they seem unexciting. Getting a +1 for a -2 is a net negative...

Bombers: I'd be fine with that or allow something like a spell attack for attack.

Chirugeon: the only thing going for them really is the prospect of x3 healing per batch... Fixing the ability to just use the alchemy tools and use craft for all medicine related things would work. + int to haling is interesting: not sure about it being a base ability though. Another ability that would help them a lot is the ability to toss healing by treating it as a bomb: this would help a LOT with action economy with the alchemist as a main healer.

perpetual choice: yeah, it's awful. With the duration, you quickly only need 1 or 2 per day so the prospect of an unlimited amount is underwhelming.

Alchemists: for me, I like the basic idea they have for it. That said, I thing it needs a redesign starting with the alchemy items and working it's way up. The items seem lacking at the levels you get them and you spend FAR too long without a 'cantrip' type ability.

Myself, I'd ditch the drawback... they are just awful. As for mutagenists, my thought is to give them internal mutagen.

internal mutagen: When using Quick Alchemy to make a mutagen, you may choose brew one dose inside yourself instead of normal. If you do so, the mutagen takes affect without the normal action required.

Steve Geddes: I was mainly saying that I don't think there is much difference in DEV time between errata and FAQ: both are going to require a meeting to go over it. The only difference is who deals with the consequences of what they decide. So I don't think a focus on FAQ vs errata is a time saver: this was the idea of the OP, to focus on FAQ's.

As to more/less or faster/slower, I agree everyone is going to have a different idea on the ideal amount. Myself, I'd say I'm in the middle as far as amount: fix things that are different from what was intended [wizard extra class feat/dueling sword cost] while grammatical/spelling/ect issues aren't a worry for me. As to time, I'd like to see it as fast as possible for a core book as everything coming later is building on that base so the quicker we get things right, the easier it is for other to build on it by referencing the correct info. The last thing we need is an error multiplied by being referenced and used in future books: it takes less time to fix it right now than push it off until later.

Yeah, I think the ability to freely heighten lower level spells easily allows you to have a different spell in every slot. It does mean that it's important to pick up low level spells with lots of heightened possibilities if it's important to you to see different spells in your highest slots.

They get 0 bonus slots.

Well everyone is trained in unarmed attacks and "You can Strike with your fist or another body part" so you can have a bow or crossbow and flank [you can kick] and nothing says it's a 'penalty to AC for melee' so it looks good RAW. Most likely not RAI but I don't think it's an issue power wise. It should also work for spells that target AC using a spell roll/attack.

graystone wrote:

For the OP, if you don't care about the fixes as "it matters very little to actual game" the it shouldn't matter one way or the other to you as neither way changes how you play.

It matters in that correcting errors, clarifying confusing points and revising a design philosophy which has resulted in some undesirable consequence is work and effort the design team aren’t spending making new stuff.

I’m resigned to the fact the errata/FAQ process will continue (I think those of us who don’t care are in the minority of the Paizo fanbase). However, it’s not true that it makes no difference to us - opportunity cost is a real thing.

I'm not seeing how fixing "the wizard gets an extra class feat" or "the dueling sword is 20 gp as opposed to 20 sp" [the OP's examples] is a big impediment as far as new stuff is concerned. I'd be more with you is we were talking about tracking down every spelling error, grammatical error and such that didn't impact anything but things that actually affect players and are easy fixes? It doesn't seem a big ask.

Secondly, as the OP was suggesting that issues instead should be dealt with FAQ's, the design team would STILL be taking the same amount of time dealing with the issue: the difference would be someone adding an FAQ to the site or editing the book/pdf and that doesn't have to be the design team.

I'm not arguing malicious, just that they felt it was more important to release anything rather than make sure it's fun to use.

I think the thing you're missing here is that just because it's not fun for you, doesn't mean the majority of others think so too. For instance, I see there starting focus ability as useful and fun and you don't... Was it wrong for them to make an ability that I think is useful and fun because it didn't mean your vision of a non-buffing transmuter? Are abilities meant to be usable be everyone all the time no matter the circumstances in your mind?

Physical Boost: I know the time I had someone have this in the party, it got used all the time. In combat, trips and grapples boosted and when the wizard was trying to get away from a Vine Lasher and out of combat it was used to break down a door, boost saves vs a trap being disarmed and for jumps.

Wizards and melee: This seems to be the main issue you have IMO. The druid, with it's wildshaping, has that built into the class and the spell list at it's base as it's a main focus of the class. The wizard is more diverse in it's focuses, even specialists. Just taking a look at PF1 and it's base powers were a buff and Telekinetic Fist, neither one jumped out as super fun for a melee wizard. It took the APG to get the Shapechange School and something like that might scratch your 'melee wizard' itch.

graystone wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

for just twice the resource cost of choosing it beforehand.

3 times: Field Discovery, level 5.

Well, as you'll have roughly a third of your reagents used in your chosen field, it's closer to 2.

For myself, I didn't see that happen: If you can make 3 instead of 2, the 3 tends to get much more with bombs or healing: when you have the option to make 10 or 15 of an item it's a big difference when you're looking at a limited resource.

This is from me playing 2 Chirugeon's and 1 bomber and seeing another bomber: from my experience I'm always finding myself running out of items and that's with leaning HEAVILY into making Field Discovery items. This might get better after you get perpetuals, but I don't ever see myself ever making an even split of items.

Another reason I'd don't think I'd do an even split is I've not seen a lot of demand for mutagens: When you balance the +1 you get from them over the normal bonus you get vs the awful drawbacks, it's unusual for anyone to ask for them to be made. I've had more requests for things like Eagle-Eye/Comprehension Elixir that don't fall into a field.

for just twice the resource cost of choosing it beforehand.

3 times: Field Discovery, level 5.

I honestly can't see a reason NOT to fix every error and to clarify confusing areas. I hope everything gets fixed and if that requires lots of errata, then that's fine with me. IMO, far too many things that were errata got 'fixed' in PF1 by using an FAQ and that's something I'd rather not see for PF2.

For the OP, if you don't care about the fixes as "it matters very little to actual game" the it shouldn't matter one way or the other to you as neither way changes how you play.

The big issue with Alchemist is it only allows one play style: cower in the back with the squishies and throw bombs. Except bombs are such a limited resource that you can't even do that well. Mutagen is garbage because unlike 1E, where it increased your AC, in 2E it decreases it, making you more vulnerable.

The only ways to make Alchemist work is to go MC Wizard for spells or MC Champion for heavy armor. RIP my old Beastmorph Alchemist who charged into melee and tore ass.

My personal view is the Alchemist is so awful that errata won't fix it. It needs to be completely redesigned from the ground up, like 5e did with the Ranger.

Yep, until you get your 'cantrips' at 7th, you're a dude with a crossbow most times...

Myself, that MC Wizard made an alchemist workable: pass out healing items at the start of the day and use cantrips [electric arc/shield].

PS: If you can roll your begging DC for an Alchemical Crossbow, that can be a viable way to extend your bombs as each one lasts for 3 attacks with it: add in a MC ranger for hunt prey, crossbow ace, Running Reload, ect and it gets even better

graystone wrote:

citricking wrote:

A good choice for a strong character is a guisarme using fighter

Trade that guisarme for a flickmace and shield. ;)

I figure the reason you're using an guisarme is that you want to use your 3rd action to assurance trip.

Since the OP never clarified what they wanted to be 'strongest' at, I think a reach d8 that allows for a raise shield/shield block is a viable alternative to 3 actions for attacking [you're spending extra feats either way].

My post was as an alternative option, not a critique on the option given by citricking. ;)

And in real life we aren't taking blows from trolls.

This IS the internet and there are lots of trolls around... :P

A good choice for a strong character is a guisarme using fighter

Trade that guisarme for a flickmace and shield. ;)

Sorcerers are fiddly, but they can avoid a lot of that by taking Arcane Evolution feat.

IMO, that feat makes them MORE fiddly: you have a book and you can pick a spell in it and it might give you new spell you can cast or another signature spell. That's more to keep track of and figure out for the day: ie fiddly.

Spell Substitution is only really useful if you a) have time, b) knowledge of what is coming, and c) have the spell in your spellbook. That last one is especially problematic.

A: changes based on your table, but with repair and treat wounds on the same time table, it seems likely to happen in most.

B: Not really a factor in what I'm talking about. It's not knowing what's next but knowing what's not working. If spell x sounded awesome and you took it a few times and it turns out not to works like you thought, you can try a new spell. Or you have all mental spells prepared and it turns into an undead area.

C: this fixes itself in most games I've played. Enemy spellbooks and/or other players books [sorcerer, bard and wizards [and multiclass] might have them]. With arcana being a trained skill automatically and int based, borrow/learn spell isn't an issue most times.

Overall if the player isn't sure what spell to take for the day, IMO Spell Substitution lets you pick what spells you like and even off the wall niche spells are fine with a 10 min break where a sorcerer only has that option during prep and with an extra feat. For instance, water breathing might be something you didn't expect to need in an adventure but when you come to a flooded passage, with a small break, it's now castable.

It's not quite as fast as HLC, but for the trade-off of not having to install multiple applications on every single system I use, I'll take the minor hit.

Pathbuilder was pretty easy to load and didn't take up much room: this is even including having to install an emulator for the PC and sideloading it on a kindle.

However, my experience since then is it has done nothing but get faster. At this point in time - for me, at least - it beats the heck out of my bank's web interface or PayPal's business portal.

I can only say lucky you. ;)

My friend uses a gaming rig and has a crazy fast internet connection and the last time I heard it's still a sizable lag any time you do anything with it.

Are the focus spells useful too? Yes.

*nods* yes, they aren't bad at all. +2 to your melee guys maneuvers is quite good and your pick of more Speed, climb or swim Speed, darkvision, claws or scent is a pretty nice set of options too: any one might be situational but the whole package means there is always something you can use.

+20 speed allows alone allows the wizard to avoid danger
1/2 speed climb/swim avoids athletics checks the wizard is likely bad at
Darkvision/scent can be useful for finding hidden/invisible creatures, not a bad thing for knowing where to send your spell.

flavor

Flavor is in the eye of the beholder: if you think the abilities lack it, then add some so it feels better for you. If Physical Boost doesn't excite you, then describe it as making the targets muscles bulge and the target moving quicker when they use the spell. The spell 'just' giving a numerical bonus in no wan makes it flavorless unless you don't try.

I don't like playing buffbots

Well, that's an issue brought over from PF1: a lot of their spells WERE buffs. If you are seeing too many buffs, the person that LIKES buffs might think there are too little of them. This is an issue with the total number of spells and not IMO of it favoring one type of play.

And the focus spells for the transmuter has one buff and one polymorph type whuch seems as balance as possible for a spell list that is heavily both types of spells.

I keep mixing this and the specific thread for it up, my bad.

No worries, it happens to me too when there are multiple threads talking about the same thing. Maybe it'll be you reminding me next time. :)