maelstromm15's page

There were three uncommon Kobold snares in Grand Bazaar.

The recommendation I got (from AlastarOG, I believe) was a Red Dragon Instinct Barbarian/Flame Oracle combo. Tempting, but I'm not used to playing Barbarians, and I felt like it might be TOO on-the-nose for Age of Ashes, believe it or not.

I think there's a number of ways to get the fire damage rolling, actually!

Obviously there's proccing it with Produce Flame, or with the flaming rune, but there's a ton of other options:

As was already pointed out, Barbarians and Monks can both deal fire damage on their attacks.

Bespell Weapon at level 4 allows you to add fire damage after casting a fire spell.

Lavasoul Ifrits get a fire damage unarmed attack, AND they can grab a Wish Blade, allowing them to add fire damage to their sword, which is pretty dang perfect now that I think about it. Ifrits also get a number of other fire-based abilities they can pick up, and are a natural pick for this sort of build.

Kobolds can get a fire breath.

As previously mentioned, Charhide goblins can pick up Torch Goblin to add fire damage to all attacks.

An Elemental Heart dwarf can ignite everything around themselves once per day, and Spark Fist is available to certain ethnicities to deal fire damage on unarmed attacks.

Kitsune get Foxfire.

Sprites can get Sprite's Spark.

You could also take a primal spellcasting archetype to get access to Flame Wisp, adding fire damage to each strike (or just take Trick Magic Item and pick up some scrolls).

Sorry for rambling a bit, but the point I was trying to make is that its absolutely a viable build, you just need to find a way to ensure your combat loop is consistent.

Personally, I think if I were making this build, I'd take Ifrit heritage and Genie Weapon Familiarity for Wish Blade. Perhaps take Sentinel at 2 for medium armor (or at 4 after taking armor prof general feat at 3, for heavy armor). Everything after that is just gravy. Divine access can get you access to spells like True Strike and Fire Shield, which fit the play style quite well.

The biggest issue you'll run into is the concealment, but you're also concealed, so most enemies will miss you just as often as you miss them.

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

That's the thing: the vibe I've been getting has been "if it's not optimized, it's not worth your time or ours."

This isn't true. At least one of those responses you got was from gesalt, who is a great optimizer but gets tunnel vision around the point as well.

I'm playing a battle oracle right now and it absolutely rocks, despite half the forum calling it a drain. Your flame Oracle concept won't be as good with a sword as my battle Oracle, but you can get pretty close. Use an ancestry feat to get the sword at level 1 and armor proficiency through the general feat, sentinel, or champion. Bespell Weapon gives you a solid damage buff-- blast plus strike can actually be incredible damage. The major curse makes you extra dangerous in melee The main problem is your moderate curse concealment, which at least cuts both ways. (Also, note that oracles are one of the hardest classes to play against type with because the curses really really push you towards a very specific playstyle. But you also don't have to lean very hard into your curse.)

Wizard with a gun work fine. Reload is a little awkward with your action economy but you still get Bespell Weapon and native access to True Strike. True Strike is such an incredible spell on a weapon user, and it actually makes you a decent crit fisher, which is especially nice on a fatal weapon.

Just because your class needs to use their spells to be effective doesn't mean their sword is for show-- spell + strike is actually incredibly strong. You just approach using your weapon as secondary to using your spells, but the weapon is an excellent third action and source of at will damage.

The baseline of optimization in PF2 is really just:

-build your ability scores to the right weapons and armor (or vice versa)
-get your offensive stat to 18, or 16 if your playing somewhere it isn't your key stat.
-figure out what you want to do in combat and pick a class that favors it.

I've got a guide that might be helpful...

I'm playing in a game with a battle oracle that took Magus dedication. The first time she used the Zealous Strike+Spellstrike combo she dealt like 70 damage at level 4 lol, it was crazy. Her fast healing has saved us from TPKs twice.

In the same game I'm playing a Phoenix Sorcerer with Flame Oracle dedication. I'm not meant to be melee, but I've been forced into melee a couple times, and Incendiary Aura has done some real work. I could definitely see a melee flame oracle working if they have a reliable way to add fire damage to their attacks.

Is Hallowed Necromancer supposed to require both spellslots AND expert religion? Wouldn't that make it impossible to take at level 2?

There are ways to get expert religion at 2, but they either mean no spell slots at that level (rogue, investigator), or locked out of the archetype (pathfinder agent).

Is it potentially a mistake, or are there going to be things in the book that allow characters to get expert religion faster than level 3?

Aw3som3-117 wrote:

@HumbleGamer

I believe PossibleCabbage's point is that by the time the level 12 options unlock you should already be able to easily afford the earlier options like ghost touch.

I think I don't entirely get that part then.

I mean, talking about a champion with divine ally blade, if that champion were to always use ghost touch, shouldn't be more at ease by just getting the base perk and rather spending his/her golds for other runes?

Or maybe was about entirely dropping the divine ally weapon perk?

Guess I am missing the point.

You can save money with divine ally by buying a ghost touch rune and setting your divine ally to be a better rune instead.

Mathmuse wrote:

Specialization tactics work great in ordinary battles and fail on other occassions. Versatile tactics work okay all the time. Specialization failure is more likely to kill the party than versatile underperforming when the specialists work great.

That's only true if the party were all specialized to face the same threats. I feel like what he's saying is that a party where each character does one thing, as well as PF2 allows for, will beat a party of generalists.

For example which of these parties would you rather face in open combat:

Fighter, Champion, Cleric, Druid, Bard

-or-

Swashbuckler, Monk, Oracle, Witch, Alchemist

I feel like the first team just has more impact in most battles while only struggling with edge cases and intentional gotcha-type encounters.

I think that second party has way more in terms of possible synergy optimization they can get ahold of.

One possible example team:

The Blazing Saddles

Swashbuckler - Gymnast Wrestler, focused on disruption and frontlining to set up the rest of the party. Can use things like One for All and Antagonize to be more effective as a frontline.

Monk - Stoked Flame ki build, secondary frontline+dps, focused on fire damage with Stoked Flame and Elemental Fist.

Oracle - Flame Oracle, sets up allies via Incendiary Aura and Seal Fate, plus blasts and support spells.

Witch - Any non-divine witch, takes Elemental Betrayal to hex any creature affected by Incendiary Aura.

Alchemist - Bomber, provides allies with Backfire Mantles then splashes Alchemist Fire all over that Incendiary Aura to burn the hell out of the enemies.

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

The first group is absolutely stronger in outright brawl where the builds are made in a vacuum, but if built for synergies, the second group definitely has a chance.

Some days I feel like the only person who really doesn't rate skill feats as adding much to the game and therefore hopes Paizo doesn't spend much if any more pages on expanding them.

If my players would have been a bit more daring, I'd have yoinked them entirely from my games by now.

But on the other hand, a lot of people like them and want more, so it would be pretty selfish of me to rabble against their expansion.

I love skill feats - when they're flavorful/impactful enough to feel it.

Stuff like Battle Prayer? Love it. A flavorful ability that can actually be good at proccing weaknesses.

Bon Mot, Sacred Defense, Juggle, Consult the Spirits, Disturbing Knowledge, Evangelize, etc.

Anything that adds *things* you can do that are thematic to your character's background. I'm not a huge fan of the small passive stuff, but I definitely want more like the ones listed.

I've been constantly refreshing the faq page ever since the print order button came back. Super excited for the errata!

I am about to be jumping into a one shot playtest as my psychic Mob (Psycho 100) tomorrow.

Level 5 Emotional Distant Hand Psychic, with Anger Cathartic Magic.

Very excited to go into an esper rage.

RoyAlan wrote:

So you like david, because he doesn't defend himself or his work?

You can defend the quality of a work without threatening and belittling people. Chill.

Heck, I'm not even sure WHAT he's threatening me with at this point lol

He has screencaps - of my posts that are still there? It's not like I've edited or deleted anything.

I find it funny how he's attacking and harassing people constantly but doesn't see the irony in his accusations.

I really just wanted to leave things be and let him tire himself out with his rants, but the insults against David were uncalled for - he's been an active and helpful member of the 3pp community for a while now, and doesn't deserve the vitriol.

David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:

RoyAlan wrote:

oh no, that is not as fun, as cyber bullying a creator.
now all I have is a book - a book that PFS refuses to acknowledge or allow.

Get in line. Ponyfinder isn't any closer to approved, approaching 10 years. Fortunately, my players manage to enjoy it despite this unfortunate fact.

what? no posts telling this guy to get a pink onesie, and give himself a clop-job? where are the bullies now?

The post I'm replying to will certainly get deleted, but - for one, nobody has bullied or abused the author of Tome of Psionics. Critiquing the work is not bullying.

Second - I have never seen David be rude, dismissive, or downright abusive to...anyone, really - even if they reviewed his work poorly. The attempted insults in your post towards him are uncalled for by any stretch of the imagination.

Nefreet wrote:

For "practically guaranteed damage that can be repeated over and over", see:

• Spamming any other damaging Cantrips
• Striking with non-consumable Weapons

Or even getting creative during a torturous interrogation session using a Feather Token Ladder and a Steel Shield.

All of those methods have the same repetitive use potential, with the same critical fail potential, and while they may not deal 1 damage on a miss, they're going to be capable of way more damage on a hit.

None of those do damage on a failure. It's not anywhere near the same thing.

Every basic save cantrip does damage on a 'failure' (successful enemy save). It's exactly the same thing.

maelstromm15 wrote:

Perhaps it's been improved over the years, but what I read in the Tome of Psionics two years ago was a mess - a friend had purchased it hoping to use it in our games, he's a huge psionics fan - and did not fit in 2e in the slightest. Given that, I have no inclinations to see if the book *has* improved, it's not worth the money. My friend has thrown his old copy out.

All the tantrums thrown by the author are another reason he's never getting a dollar from me.

The Tome of Psionics has had a revision since then and there will be another. I have a copy and I love it. it is a solid Pathfinder 2E book, with its rules coming from the core rule book.

I don't care if the author had to defend himself from internet people. I've seen all the reviews too, and the negative reviews are specious at best. I'd say there are plenty of trolls throwing hate and irrationality. Especially, trolls who don't even bother to read. "Oh! focus points have me so confused" writes one, Am I the only the one who knows how to open the core rule book and go to the spells chapter and read the rules about focus? I don't think so. In Fact, I know so.

I have the book. Its a solid Pathfinder 2E book. I like it, a lot. Its a copper seller over at drive thru rpg, I've no idea what that means, but I am certain that a lot of other people have bought a copy and like it. There are positive reviews and I haven't written mine YET! Comments like yours have sealed the deal for me though.

With the qualifier that it's been more than a year since I read it:

The version I read attempted to shoehorn the focus system into a pseudo-power-point system. It didn't even work as written. There was a feat that was supposed to let you get more focus points, but it didn't say you could take it more than once, so you were forever stuck at 2 points. The feat had some qualifier about "if it gets you above 3" but didn't actually say that it *could* get you above 3 points, since RAW you cap out at 3, unambiguously. It also specified that you still only restore 1 point when you refocus, and I don't remember it having any feats like the wellspring feats other casters get, so they could never restore more than 1 point. It kneecapped the class in a fundamental way, because it could only use its premiere feature once per combat.

Then the "Secondary Score" thing. It was unnecessary, and something that no class in pf2 gets. It allows you to have an 18 in two separate stats at level 1, which is explicitly not a thing under the pathfinder 2e rules, and one of those score options was Con! That's totally ridiculous. And would be completely broken if they could actually use their class feature. Which they couldn't.

Plus it brought back archaic systems like armor check penalties. Ugh.

You keep framing it as the reviewers being confused or lazy, but the whole book was written by someone who didn't understand the core system. And, again, perhaps these issues have been fixed. But that doesn't fix the fact that my friend was sold a broken, unusable product in multiple ways, and when people try to point it out they get nothing in return but abuse, rather than understanding and discussion.

I'm sure there's people out there that might like the book, but it's certainly not worth the price to me.

I look at some of the spells in the secrets of magic and I see hints of the tome of psionics. I like the Blame power from the Tome of psionics, and I am pleased to see "shift blame" on the occult list.

Hey, I am really surprised that anyone at Paizo knows anything about the oneiroi. I hope they know about Morpheus; no not from the Matrix movies, and not so much the Sandman books by Neil Gaiman. Yet, here I see a spell "oneiric mire" which reads a bit like the Shadow sink power from the Apport art.

and there's more hints, but I think to mention some of those would be really reaching, really stretching to make a connection that isn't there.
as mentioned in the original post;

If the Tome of Psionics did inspire, the author should be thankful for the recognition, such as it is.
If the those ideas were arrived at independently, the author should be flattered as great minds do think alike.

The problem with thinking Tome of Psionics inspired anything in Secrets of Magic is thinking that Tome of Psionics is original itself. It's not hard to arrive at similar locations when they use similar inspiration, and it has nothing to do with 'great minds'.

Perhaps it's been improved over the years, but what I read in the Tome of Psionics two years ago was a mess - a friend had purchased it hoping to use it in our games, he's a huge psionics fan - and did not fit in 2e in the slightest. Given that, I have no inclinations to see if the book *has* improved, it's not worth the money. My friend has thrown his old copy out.

All the tantrums thrown by the author are another reason he's never getting a dollar from me.

I'm thinking they don't want players spamming an unlimited resource like a cantrip for guaranteed damage vs. bombs, which are a limited resource.

Perpetual bombs exist, though.

maelstromm15 wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

So you're saying you increased the Weapon Die Size to a higher one from a different effect?

Good, then we're in agreement that it doesn't work.

Saying I said something I didn't say doesn't win you an argument lol

You are *replacing* the die, not increasing. It's pretty simple.

Well, it does give the same result as increasing it. So, if you then increase it again, it would give the exact benefit that is forbidden by the RAW about die size increases not stacking.

Basically, it would be circumventing an explicit RAW limit by playing on words.

I think what we're running into is a difference of understanding of the two-hand trait.

I consider a two-handed staff as basically a separate "stance". It enables you to make Two-Handed Staff attacks. I don't see this as a die size increase any more than I see entering Dragon Stance and using d10 kicks a die size increase over the normal d6 Powerful Fist.

The base staff doesn't enter into my equation at all. Once you two-hand the staff, you're now wielding a two-hand staff, and it has a d8 die.

So you're saying you increased the Weapon Die Size to a higher one from a different effect?

Good, then we're in agreement that it doesn't work.

Saying I said something I didn't say doesn't win you an argument lol

You are *replacing* the die, not increasing. It's pretty simple.

Q: If: d4 > d6 > d8 > d10 > d12

And some feature changes you from a lower damage die to a higher one, what do you call that?

A: An Increase

It's a simple as that folks, just because the rule doesn't use identical wording to other features doesn't mean that's not an increase, they cannot stack.

They can, and do.

Two-hand changes the base die size, it is the same thing as equipping an entirely different weapon with a d8 die that shares the name Staff. Deadly simplicity then increases the new die to a d10.

Words matter.

maelstromm15 wrote:

Cordell Kintner wrote:

maelstromm15 wrote:

For comparison, a monk starts out with using a single class feat to get a d8 parry, reach, trip weapon. It then will count as cold iron and silver, and even adamantine later on. They can take two further class feats to add Forceful and Deadly d10. I definitely don't see how the magus staff is "too good to be true."

Monastic Weaponry does not gain the benefits of the Magic, Metal, or Adamantine Strikes class features, nor the Diamond Fists or Deadly Strikes Feats, as they all Modify Unarmed Attacks and are not something you "use" like Flurry of Blows. Please don't try to derail this thread on that topic either, as there are very long threads discussing that already.

Basically I'm saying that point is moot. Regardless, just because one class can get something powerful doesn't excuse the too good to be true rule.

I fundamentally disagree that deadly simplicity on two-hand staves is too good to be true. I doubt we'll agree on that part, regardless of any of the rest of it.

Did I say that? No. I said your argument is fundamentally flawed. I also abhor the take that things that modify your unarmed attacks do so to weapons just because you took a single feat, but I have thoroughly argued that in other threads.

There was nothing flawed with my argument, I simply pointed out that what the magus is capable of (with sinking a very significant amount of their class feats) is not outside of current available power levels. There's nothing too good to be true about it.

I abhor the take that a single feat potentially locks you out of a good portion of your class features, so there's that.

maelstromm15 wrote:

For comparison, a monk starts out with using a single class feat to get a d8 parry, reach, trip weapon. It then will count as cold iron and silver, and even adamantine later on. They can take two further class feats to add Forceful and Deadly d10. I definitely don't see how the magus staff is "too good to be true."

Monastic Weaponry does not gain the benefits of the Magic, Metal, or Adamantine Strikes class features, nor the Diamond Fists or Deadly Strikes Feats, as they all Modify Unarmed Attacks and are not something you "use" like Flurry of Blows. Please don't try to derail this thread on that topic either, as there are very long threads discussing that already.

Basically I'm saying that point is moot. Regardless, just because one class can get something powerful doesn't excuse the too good to be true rule.

I fundamentally disagree that deadly simplicity on two-hand staves is too good to be true. I doubt we'll agree on that part, regardless of any of the rest of it.

maelstromm15 wrote:

...there's no reason deadly simplicity wouldn't work.

Yes there is. The lack of rules stating timing for when the increase is made in a way that makes it apply explicitly after the change.

Deadly Simplicity doesn't state it applies after Two-Hand changes the damage die, so it doesn't - and that's backed up by the advice the book gives on ambiguous rules that if one interpretation seems too good to be true, it is.

That rule is cited a lot by people wanting to shut down discussion, but a d10 staff is not too good to be true, even if a Magus sinks two dedication feats, follow a specific god and be bound by their tenets, a class feat, and a subclass into it.

Deadly Simplicity doesn't state when it applies, it's a constant effect. If it has to apply at a specific time, then wouldn't just picking up a different staff already break this? If you agree that you can pick up a different staff after taking the feat and deadly simplicity applies to it, then that argument makes no sense to me.

EDIT:

For comparison, a monk starts out with using a single class feat to get a d8 parry, reach, trip weapon. It then will count as cold iron and silver, and even adamantine later on. They can take two further class feats to add Forceful and Deadly d10. I definitely don't see how the magus staff is "too good to be true."

beowulf99 wrote:

Okay, then how does a Striking rune interact with a two handed staff?

1d8+1d4 damage then?

It interacts exactly as the two-hand trait says it does.

Which is not the 1d8+1d4 you're asking about.

The reason why a two-hand trait affects all the dice from striking runes is the same reason deadly simplicity doesn't "stack" with the two-hand trait; what words the rules actually use.

Yep, the words do matter, and the two-hand trait *changes* the weapon die, while deadly simplicity *increases* the weapon die. Given the fact that the two-hand trait is explicitly NOT an increase, there's no reason deadly simplicity wouldn't work.

An Alchemist whose research is focused on becoming immortal or mastering resurrection (not mundane healing). A fringe Druid Order that views undeath as a part of life.

I'd like to see something in the vein of a Preservationist alchemist from 1e, reanimating dead preserves as summon spells.

Also always a fan of death-centric druids!

I can actually see why devs don't want Act Together to work with 2 action abilities; dragon breath with a chaser of cold of cold is extremely powerful for damage spiking, and is totally legal, and they straight up said that 2 action activities are balanced around the fact that you can only do 1 a turn. I prefer Mark's suggestion from the main thread of making Act Together a 1-3 action activity that gives you 1 action and your eidolon a number of actions equal to the amount of actions you spent.

As far as summoning font vs focus spell, I'd be happy with either, but I'd favor a focus spell. It's a little more balanced by the fact that it competes with evolution surge for your focus points, and makes those "recharge multiple focus points when you refocus" a lot more interesting. It also stops the nova potential of using ostentatious arrival to drop a mini fireball + a creature 5-7 times in a row on the big bad, or what have you. Either way, I really do not want to see a return of the "you can only have your eidolon or a summon monster out at once" rule from the 1e summoner; it wasn't very flavorful, and felt pointlessly restrictive.

Lastly, just my 2 cents, I actually don't want to see summoner subclasses. Choosing your eidolon type/casting tradition already fits that, and I'd rather not see, say, synthesis, locked behind a level 1 choice that makes it mutually exclusive with, say, a summon monster focus spell. If I wanted to play a partial caster that has a "martial mode", I'd play a barbarian and pretend my instinct is conjuring my eidolon battle armor that multiclasses sorcerer and have way better combat prowess without trading much on my spells. Atm, I would actually like synthesis if it allowed you to use your spellcasting and feats

That actually is what I meant by the multi-action activities bit - either you or your eidolon gets 1 action, and the other gets a variable amount. Mark used casting a 3 action Summon spell and moving your eidolon as an example, so I don't believe it's limited to the eidolon doing multi-action activities.

As for focus vs. font... I'm not really sure what I'd prefer. The focus spell has been working out really well for my table, but none of us are the type to try to exploit things, so the 'infinite out of combat spells' issue never really came up. If that can be solved with an 'in combat only' tag or something of the sort, I definitely think I'd prefer the focus spell.

I've been playtesting the Summoner with a couple of my players in one-shot society modules, and after a few rounds our table has made two changes that made a massive difference in the feel of the Summoner for us:

Changing Act Together to work with multi-action activities (same change suggested by Mark on another thread)

Giving them a Focus Spell summon tied to their Eidolon.

Obviously these don't address the issues with the Eidolon itself (customization-wise), but just these two things have improved our Summoner experience massively. It prevents the issue of dead rounds for the Eidolon, and fixes the problem of being poor...well, summoners.

I've found myself actually casting much more often with the Act Together change, and giving them a (better scaling) focus spell for summons (currently Animate Dead for my Phantom Summoner) has allowed for more flexibility in tactics and spell selection.

For my table, I think these two things plus additions to Eidolon evolution feats/customization would make a perfect Summoner, as we love the base chassis of the class so far.