Hi there! First, I want to say that I'm very excited about this AP! I'm running it starting this coming Saturday, and am prepping now. I did have one admittedly odd question.
I've been adjusting Book 1 for a 6-PC party, which is what I'm running it for. I noticed that the treasure levels for Level 1 (which I'm working on now) seem a little high for a 4-PC megadungeon adventure. They should be the equivalent of a 5-PC party-level treasure, but seem a bit higher (more higher level items and more consumables).
I just wanted to double-check if the treasure level was supposed to look a little on the high side and, if so, if that was deliberate to prepare PCs for the rest of the dungeon. If it is, then I'll add extra treasure as normal, so the PCs don't end up under-resourced. If it's just randomness, then I'll take the extra treasure into account when I adjust the AP.
Thanks for posting this! It's a great guide. As someone who played a lot of wizards in PF1, and whose first character was a wizard in PF2, I appreciate the thought you've put into this. Admittedly, that's at least partially because it's finally nice to see someone argue against the "Universalist/Bond Conservation" trick, and for specialists in general. I'm absolutely with you on both points. You've also got me rethinking my Spell Substitution build which, as I've gotten higher in level, has felt a little more restrictive (since I'm itching to cast more higher level spells, but haven't been able to do that). I'm looking forward to playing around with the ideas you put forth!
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You could also pick up Dual-Weapon Warrior Dedication. That nabs you Double Slice, which can help mitigate some of those MAP penalties (by giving you multiple attacks at current MAP). It also gels well with what will (presumably) be the 16 strength you're going to have to maximize your chances with athletics-based debuffs.
Imagine a sequence like so:
Round 1: Trip, Double-Slice with two agile weapons (probably won't hit with both, but extra attack means extra chance to hit with one and do some damage)
Round 2: Double-Slice (at no MAP with damage bonuses), something useful (Finisher, Tumble, what-have-you).
A lot of people seem to be focusing on swashbucklers making one big attack each round. I think that's a great idea, but I also think people are missing out on the potential for milking the base +2 precision damage you get while in panache no each attach. And with Dual-Weapon Warrior giving you Double Slice (which is a great feat), I think there's some real potential to build a kind of switch hitter/debuffer with a gymnast swashbuckler.
(Of course, there's the drawback of using up your 2nd level feat slot on something other than the nice feats there, but it seems like a reasonable option to me.)
--David
I had a few quick questions about Magical Shorthand and learning spells in PFS.
Regarding Magical Shorthand, it allows you to learn spells in downtime, and describes the process as the following:
"You can use downtime to learn and inscribe new spells. This works as if you were using Earn Income with the tradition’s associated skill, but instead of gaining money, you choose a spell available to you to learn and gain a discount on learning it, learning it for free if your earned income equals or exceeds its cost."
Do you still have to make the skill check to actually learn the spell? It doesn't say here, so I'm not sure if this just allows to flat out learn a spell without making the Learn a Spell check (you just make a check to see how much it costs), or if there's some point in this process where you have to make a Learn a Spell check.
My second question is about learning spells in PFS. In P1E, you could, during downtime, track down a spell from another pathfinder and learn it at an increased cost (I think 50%, if I remember correctly). Does anyone know if a similar mechanic will exist in PFS, so that we can learn spells during downtime (such as through Magical Shorthand) without actually having to have acquired a copy of the spell during a scenario?
Thanks in advance!
--David
(I think my last attempt at this post got eaten by some horrific inter-dimensional forum beast. If this is a duplicate post, my apologies!)
So I've been working on a multiclass wizard-alchemist character (wizard with alchemist multiclass feats), and was interested in getting some feedback. The character is a conjurer who summons and then provides damage or debuff support: damage through spells, and debuff through spells and/or particular bombs (especially Bottled Lightning, which gives the flat-footed condition). The idea here is that after summoning, they can be a bit flexible (based on party needs) as to what kind of debuff they can throw.
I like the character in concept, and like the idea of role-playing what I imagine is a kind of nutty experimenter who can sling both arcane spells and bombs, when they're not accidentally blowing up their lab or summoning swarms of some ungodly insect. The build is intended for PFS play, though I haven't yet added in the extra PFS stuff, such as factions or training.
Despite my interest in the character, I'm still not sure if I'll *play* it. I've had a devil of a time balancing choices in wizard feats versus alchemical multiclass feats, and so there are some good wizard feats I've had to opt out of. Still, I do like the idea, and would love to get feedback on the build as it is.
Here's a link to it:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YMPllXfbVAquIqXgQ19EiwWsnhKNndXf8UrXq_r fxJs/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks for your time and consideration! And I do hope I managed to post this this time...
I can't speak for the other poster, but plausability seems largely irrelevant to me. Obscuring Mist clearly states that it conveys concealment, nothing more.
From the text:
"You call forth a cloud of mist. All creatures within the mist become concealed, and all creatures outside the mist become concealed to creatures within it. You can Dismiss the cloud."
If that's not enough, there's clear (to me, at any rate) rules precedent for this. First, P2E clearly distinguishes between different types of fog (which is what I assume you've been referring to?). Fog limits visibility to half a mile, mist to one mile, and haze to three miles (pp. 517, under "Fog"). So, that establishes that mist is separate from fog and haze.
That mist is concealing is corroborated by an earlier entry under Perception, under the entry for Concealment and Invisibility: "Concealment: This condition protects a creature if its in mist, within dim light, or amid something else that obscures light but does not provide a barrier to effects. An effect or type of terrain that describes an area of concealment makes all creatures within it concealed." (pp. 467, emphasis added]
Note the language: all creatures within an area of concealment gain concealment. There are no modifiers for location within that area; concealment is a mechanical effect applied to everyone who qualifies for it within an area that grants it. So the rules for concealment are perfectly consistent with Obscuring Mist.
You're absolutely right that the text of "Fog" suggests that fog penalties might be additive, based upon the amount of fog and distance between people. There's certainly some confusion there (1). But I'm having a hard time seeing the validity of applying that reasoning to Obscuring Mist in particular, when the rules are much more clear about how concealment from such sources work and said rules are consistent with the text of Obscuring Mist.
P2E isn't P1E, and physics in Pathfinder in general do not (thankfully!) operate like real life ^_~ My whole point in bringing up P1E's Obscuring Mist description on the other thread was precisely to note that this time, Paizo left such text out. Given the rules noted above, this further suggests that OM applies a blanket concealment effect, and nothing more, to people in it.
(1) Though note that the book says that such effects can provide cumulative penalties to checks. At best, you could argue that such effects impact attack roles within a mist or fog, but seems to me that it would have no effect on changes on the condition of concealment.
[Edited for grammar. Whoops!]
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: i think all mentions for fog from spells/items only reference giving concelment (not being "thick enough" to actually hide/stealth in them).
i think the concept of fog thick enough for you to completely hide (to get the hidden condition) is more about GM/Hazards that can create such a thick fog to do so, and not by player agency ones.
tbf, it needs to be some really really thick fog, to be able to disappear in just 10-20 feet of it.
now, if this fog is like 100+ feet away and it's thick enough, then maybe you can, maybe you can't, i think it gives the agency to the GM to make such calls.
As a GM, if I were running a home game and someone pulled this tactic in an area that was *already* misty or foggy, I would be strongly inclined to rule it as creating thicker conditions. RAW, that probably wouldn't work, but I'd strongly consider pulling some GM perogative there.
Because, I mean, technically speaking, you could cast Obscuring Mist in a bank of heavy fog and make everything *less* hidden. Which would probably bend my sense of logic a little too much for a home game ^_~
Quandary wrote: I'm not going to totally divert this thread, but the situation on fog rules actually isn't quite that clear:
First of all, fog itself only references Concealment applying when viewed thru "significant amounts of fog" which isn't quantified.
It doesn't seem clear whether one square of fog (i.e. minimum volume in game) is sufficient to count as "significant" or not.
Obscuring Mist does directly state all square suffer Concealment, but is that specific or just restating general RAI?
Further, although fog rules themself only reference potential Concealment, if you look at Perception Tiers you see the Hidden Condition (synonymous with Full Concealment, which doesn't exist distinct from Hidden Condition) explicitly mentions "deep fog bank" as eligible for Hidden. So fog CAN also apply Hidden / Full Concealment, but again the rules don't quantify what "deep" means. Does one side of Obscuring Mist to another (or thru it's thickest part) count as "deep"?
I raised this issue here, which so far hasn't attracted much attention because... not a character option ;-)
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42nz7?Fog-Smoke-Perception-Tiers-and-Good-Time s#1
That's an interesting point. At the moment, barring some clarification from Paizo, I'd say that (RAW) Obscuring Mist only provides concealment, not the Hidden Condition. Obscuring Mist in P1E explicitly mentioned in the spell text that being further than 5 feet from someone else gave Total Concealment (e.g. the Hidden Condition). P2E does not mention that. I mean, logically, you'd expect that areas deeper in the mist become increasingly more difficult to see. But Pathfinder doesn't run on real-world physics and logic.
Of course, that could be an error! I'd be interested to see if there's any clarification on this in the future.
And even if it turns out that OM was meant to create more than the concealed condition, Cat's Eye Elixer also reduces the Flat Check of hidden creatures to 5. It basically reduces "Total Concealment" to "Concealment" and "Concealment" to nothing. So, for me, it would largely depend on whether or not my fellow party members saw benefit in imposing differential penalties on themselves and their opponents in a way that benefited them.
Xenocrat wrote: Neither of these methods work, you can't metamagic a three action spell without quicken spell or a capstone that gives free metamagic. Whoops! You're right. Also, rereading Widen Spell, it specifically says it only applies to spells without a duration.
Thanks for the heads-up!
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It's not really a ridiculous build, but I've been working on a conjuration wizard with alchemist multiclassing that I'm really excited about. One of the tricks I've thought up (assuming I'm not reading the rules incorrectly!) is combining Obscuring Mist with Cat's Eye Elixers.
Cat's Eye Elixers, among other things, effectively negate concealment. Obscuring Mist, at least as far as I have been able to figure out, has been changed so that it only provides concealment, not total concealment. So...
1. Spend the morning preparing some of those elixers and hand them out to the party.
2. In a particularly tricky situation, or an important combat, drop Obscuring Mist (which has a range of 120 feet) in a tactially useful area. I believe that if you're willing to wait two turns, or are Hasted, you can use widen spell to fill a bigger area.
3. Party drinks their elixers.
Result: Everyone in the party effectively has Blur in regards to any enemies within the cloud or who are attacking from outside the cloud.
Haven't tested it yet, but it looks fun. It's hardly overpowering (80% hit chance is still pretty good), but I'm looking forward to being able to use it.
It also works with alchemical smoke bombs, but not as good (less area covered). And of course, if you have an alchemist in the party with the formula, you can do this much earlier than Level 6. Level 6 is the earliest you can get access to higher level formulas when multiclassing into alchemist.
[Edited to add some clarity.]
Actually, I'm going to slightly revise my earlier post. I still agree that a more focused spell list would be nice. But, having taking a closer look at the various class abilities than I did before, I don't think the class is quite as powerful as I initially thought. By extensions, I take back what I said earlier about it being "hard to imagine picking technomancers over witchwarpers." I think a case can be made that they're much more equal to one another than I thought. Almost all of those Paradigm Shifts either impose a 24 immunity on success (for offensive ones) or cost RP (for defensive ones). So it makes a little more sense to me to have a more expansive or mixed spell list, to compensate a bit for this, and the technomancer's strengths become a little more apparent.
All in all, a very interesting class!
(Note: I apologize if any of this sound weird. I'm at a bar and slightly tipsy.)
Honestly, first impressions are that it's spell list definitely needs more unique spells and less overlap with technomancers and mystics. I'm actually rather surprised that the Witchwarper class was made. It looks like the Starfinder equivalent of a Pathfinder witch--a heavily distilled version of a buff/debuff God Wizard. Except that the Witchwarper *looks* like it has far more utility spells relative to the witch. So far, Starfinder has felt like developers are working hard to keep one class from developing like a wizard*, particularly in the area of battlefield control, and the Witchwarper kind of throws this for a loop.
[*Note: I don't object to this! It's just something I've noticed, particularly in SFS play, where newer control spells typically aren't legal]
If I had any (again, initial) thoughts, it would be to drop a lot of the utility spells from the spell list. Things like Flight, Identify, Invisibility, Mirror Image, and Dispel Magic. That would go well with what I see as the biggest difference at the moment between technomancers and witchwarpers, which is that technomancers (thanks to magic hacks and vastly better skill lists) have more out-of-combat utility. That leaves the witchwarper as being a much more combat buff/debuff/control focus, and the technomancer being much more of a toolbox character. I think it'd be interesting to have a spellcasting class that really suffers in out-of-combat utility.
As it stands, unless you're playing an artillery wizard or really hate playing low-skill characters, it's hard to imagine picking a witchwarper over a technomancer. There are limits on the class (Cha as key skill, weakness in skills in general, none of the technomancers extra spells), and obviously, if you like technomancers, that's fine. But the Paradigm Shifts, plus a more comprehensive spell list, seem just a little too good to avoid the feeling that the witchwarper outshines the technomancer.
Making the Witchwarper more, well, "witch-like" (while perhaps avoiding making it overpowered, like the Pathfinder witch is) might fix this and give techomancers a more utility- and metamagic/spell manipulation feel to them.
This is all just first impressions, so who knows what I'll think when I give it a run. But I figured since someone brought up spell lists, I might as well add my commentary ^_~ My favorite builds are battlefield control and buff/debuff, so I'd probably play this class regardless, but I do think something needs to happen to the spell list to lose some of the overlap with the other classes.
Hopefully I'm reading this right, and there are tables in the Grand Ballroom that are available on Sunday. If not, ignore this!
Time: Sunday, 1:00-6:00pm
Table: One Table in Grand Ballroom
GM Name: David Carlson
System: Pathfinder Society
Scenario: #4-07 Severing Ties (For Levels 1-5)
Open Seats: 6
paizo.com/events/v5748mkg0n9j3
Thank you for making this possible!
Time: Saturday, 1:00-6:00pm
Table: One Table in Cascade 12
GM Name: David Carlson
System: Pathfinder Society
Scenario: #7-19 Labyrinth of Hungry Ghosts (For Levels 3-7)
Open Seats: 6
paizo.com/events/v5748mkg0n9hr
I'm fine with just about anything but Black Waters (which I've played and run multiple times).
I've posted the ones I've *played* below, since I've only played a few:
0-05 Mists of Mwangi
0-06 Black Waters
0-07 Among the Living
0-13 Prince of Augustana
0-20 King Xeros of Old Azlant
I'm fine with any Tier, as I can play a character or a pregen.
--David
|