oholoko's page

Don't KS if you think you are getting a product. Don't KS thinking it is a preorder... In a preorder you are paying for a product. In kickstarter you are well... Kickstarting an idea with a reward...
Think like this one is we will release a product soon and we are already taking money for it. The other is, we have an idea and will give you something if you fund us now... One has a lot less legal obligations, and is quite a bit unregulated, and preorders are already bad IMO.

I was thinking about how the game is going, I am loving the direction but do anyone else feel like this year was a bit much? 4 new classes seems like a lot and while I am really really excited for the Thamaturge but 2 a year seems like enough already. The new books filled with lore seem cool.(I still can't get their pdf due to the prohibitive dollar price and trying to support my local book publishers so I mostly saw the classes only on nethys and the lore in spoilers from reddit).
Pf2 is doing wonders supporting classes with new archetypes already(luchador and etc). And classes do get one or two feats pretty often.
Before I came here to type I was thinking we need more class feats for existing classes... But now that I wrote I don't think so, we already have enough I think, class arquetypes maybe? Support existing arquetypes with a few more feats? What do you feel like it needs to be expanded now that we seem to have enough/nearly enough classes? Or do you feel like more classes are the way to go?
Sorry if the thread is a bit off I just wanted to talk about it I guess.

oholoko wrote:

I would rather they release more options instead of making handwraps not invested as they are kind of greater doubling rings for every unnarmed weapon you are using.
I would rather see more like the berserker cloak and keep the handwraps as they are.

Like a tattoo? Working exactly like the handwraps but engraved on the body.

Oh yeah a tattoo would be awesome. But I was thinking more on the lines of boxing gloves, mouthpieces.

Not I. Because my Animal Barbarian still needs to enhance his skills with item bonuses same as any weapon-wielder.

Note that doubling rings allow a character to save money, but the handwraps are required : there is zero alternative.

Armor is invested and is required. Also unnarmed attacks are an oddity in itself, can't be disarmed, some are always draw even in casual conversation.

I would rather they release more options instead of making handwraps not invested as they are kind of greater doubling rings for every unnarmed weapon you are using.
I would rather see more like the berserker cloak and keep the handwraps as they are.

Wow animal companion defenses shouldn't suffer so much...

The errata made it so that skill actions with the attack trait are no longer attack rolls.

But they are still attacks, that's literally what the trait means.

That's something that matters a lot, quite a few silly yet effective builds could tecnically pump dex and dump str but use a finesse weapon with agile. It obviously does not work as intended but it was a fun idea...

oholoko wrote:

Kyrone wrote:

vagrant-poet wrote:

Oh. I thought capacity just meant that reloading the gun didn't require a free hand, for x numbers of shots. Like capacity 5 means you don't need a free hand to reload the slide pistol means you reload between shots, but each time it doesn't require any hands that aren't holding the pistol, until you have shot 5 times.

How does it work exactly? If it's incompatible with any other type of reload, then capacity seems uninspiring combined with the gunslinger.

It's an interact action to change barrels that does not requires a free hand. You can reload normally a barrel but that one requires a free hand.

Reload a barrel or reload all barrels? Because if it's a barrel it will be quite hard to use...

One barrel.

Wow... That sounds harsh, I mean I heard slide pistol are capacity 5, after you shoot 5 times what can be done in 2-3 turns you will need to stow what you have in your other hand reload and shoot as normal. It's not that bad thank God the new class has a feature to switch your implement so it can have a free hand often enough :D

Any of the weapons that are combination have the capacity trait or repeating?

vagrant-poet wrote:

Oh. I thought capacity just meant that reloading the gun didn't require a free hand, for x numbers of shots. Like capacity 5 means you don't need a free hand to reload the slide pistol means you reload between shots, but each time it doesn't require any hands that aren't holding the pistol, until you have shot 5 times.

How does it work exactly? If it's incompatible with any other type of reload, then capacity seems uninspiring combined with the gunslinger.

It's an interact action to change barrels that does not requires a free hand. You can reload normally a barrel but that one requires a free hand.

Reload a barrel or reload all barrels? Because if it's a barrel it will be quite hard to use...

oholoko wrote:

The rule to cast spells in different slots is heightening them...

Care to cite a source for that? I've only seen internal rules for that regarding specific prepared casters, but not as a general rule.

oholoko wrote:

...there's no rule for casting lower level spells on higher slots without heightening.

This is true enough, though it may well be the case because the developers thought it went without saying.

Well by raw it's a hard no currently by Rai it seems closer to no than a yes. But if you take the quote from Jason it might work but he never explained how... Do you need to learn the spell at that level without heightening, do you need to prepare it at that level? Do you not... I would probably err on caution for now.

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

CR299:
Both prepared and spontaneous spellcasters can cast a spell at a higher spell level than that listed for the spell. This is called heightening the spell.

Thanks, but by itself, that doesn't disprove anything.

Rules generally elaborate after the opening sentence too. It's generally best practice not to quote things in a contextless vacuum.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=273

It shows that the way to cast spells on higher level slots is heightening.
Since it shows no other way I guess currently is no with a maybe if bullman says you can do it in a more clear fashion explaining how...

oholoko wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Tage wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Well if you want to be the best at [certain weapon type] you are probably a Fighter. At which point you are, for most of your career numerically better than any non-fighter with that weapon type and better than all other fighters who didn't pick that weapon type for levels 5-19.

If you pick another class then best at certain weapon wasn't actually the fundamental core of your character.

Right and I am a whopping +2 better than another player. That doesn't make me feel very special.

Every martial was +20 BAB. So exactly the same as you.

In the PF1 math, a +15 BAB class was one attack behind you and a +10 BAB class was 2 attacks behind you.

Both of the +15 and +10 BAB classes had spells that could make them far better than you.

You were no more the greatest swordsman in PF1 than you were in PF2. Your BAB and abilities as anything similar you faced.

The only thing that made you any better were casters. Martials in PF1 were easy to kill meat for a DM. If you squared off as a martial in PF1 against a caster at high level without your own casters backing you up, you would be all done.

There was no differentiation between +20 BAB martials. Every martials hit chance in a group was the same just like PF2.

There were a bigger difference if you had knowledge of the system. I think that's the point, if you knew more than another player and you were both aiming for the same thing the gap in pf1 was huge. In pf2... Not so much. Unless you are gimping yourself on purpose it's quite hard to make a useless character. The game tells you predefined builds that are at least decent and most things are baked in so you can't miss. And even if you miss them the gape is not as wide.

While in 3.5 for example you could start with 1 attack doing 1d8+4 while another character with multiattacks hits like 8 times all the secondary with only a -2 penalty and does 1d6+8 on the primary and

...

Haha same. To me it was mostly 3.5 that was even more broken. But to me the biggest difference is time. Pf1 takes just so long to do anything, pf2 I know the challenges for level X are Y and they are challenges for a roll. In pf1 some people could do X at level 5 while most could not do at level 20.

It just took so long for builds, to dm... To read old rules. And well the ability to invite a new player to a party of veterans and not go. "Well he will probably die in the first 10 seconda if I try to make a challenge for the rest."

And another thing do remember most people do not go on forums. When you say they are obvious they might not be as obvious to anyone that just picked the book. I've invited about 3-4 people to my table and about 3-4 of them came without even bothering to open the srd or even read the player's handbook haha.

Also just remembered save or dies were often a thing without 4 degrees of success, so many times you could put an enemy with a single save or die spell and see people collapse because they rolled a 10.

Also I am glad they broke the healing wand slurp method and just gave it to regular healers, cause it was annoying.

The Tage wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Well if you want to be the best at [certain weapon type] you are probably a Fighter. At which point you are, for most of your career numerically better than any non-fighter with that weapon type and better than all other fighters who didn't pick that weapon type for levels 5-19.

If you pick another class then best at certain weapon wasn't actually the fundamental core of your character.

Right and I am a whopping +2 better than another player. That doesn't make me feel very special.

Every martial was +20 BAB. So exactly the same as you.

In the PF1 math, a +15 BAB class was one attack behind you and a +10 BAB class was 2 attacks behind you.

Both of the +15 and +10 BAB classes had spells that could make them far better than you.

You were no more the greatest swordsman in PF1 than you were in PF2. Your BAB and abilities as anything similar you faced.

The only thing that made you any better were casters. Martials in PF1 were easy to kill meat for a DM. If you squared off as a martial in PF1 against a caster at high level without your own casters backing you up, you would be all done.

There was no differentiation between +20 BAB martials. Every martials hit chance in a group was the same just like PF2.

There were a bigger difference if you had knowledge of the system. I think that's the point, if you knew more than another player and you were both aiming for the same thing the gap in pf1 was huge. In pf2... Not so much. Unless you are gimping yourself on purpose it's quite hard to make a useless character. The game tells you predefined builds that are at least decent and most things are baked in so you can't miss. And even if you miss them the gape is not as wide.

While in 3.5 for example you could start with 1 attack doing 1d8+4 while another character with multiattacks hits like 8 times all the secondary with only a -2 penalty and does 1d6+8 on the primary and 1d4+4 on the secondary.

In pf2 if I want to hit a lot and grab a ranger in the start I hit 4 times with low penalty while the monk does the same with higher penalty but has a skill that both does more damage and makes his first hit more accurate. Or even if he is a barb that tends to hit only once can hit 3 times. The gap is quite narrow.

I guess the thing is pf2 is a system that is easier to master. And well easier overall if one wants to be better it's just they can't and in other systems it could be done easily.

David knott 242 wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I've read the book quite thoroughly and didn't see any such clarifications. There were a number of abilities that obliquely hinted that it was possible, but every time I brought it to the forums as evidence in favor of using lower level spell slots, it was shot down by disbelievers.

Frankly, if the disbelievers do not accept Jason's answer on this question, they are impossible to convince. In the context that his answer is given, there really is no way to interpret it other than that he meant to say yes, you can use a higher level slot to cast a spell that you know only at a lower level. There is nothing else that he could have been saying yes to.

Where was it ever said that you could cast a 1st level spell from a 4th level slot? All I've ever seen is that you have to heighten the 1st level spell to 4th to cast it.

I also felt the same in the answer you can cast a 1st level spell in a 4th level slot. As long as you heighten it. That was always in the rules. Just the act of casting a spell in a different slot is heightening it.

"When you heighten your spell, the spell’s level increases to match the higher level of the spell slot you’ve prepared it in or used to cast it. This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level."
It isn't that you can't cast it is if you do. You are heightening.

The rule to cast spells in different slots is heightening them, there's no rule for casting lower level spells on higher slots without heightening.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I see. Solipsism I must be remembering the 3.5 shenanigans.

Here is the PF1 spell I was talking about: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/euphoric-tranquility

Doesn't look like a combat spell until you use it in combat. Find out it has no save until attacked and basically if they miss the saves, they are at the mercy of the PCs. Loved this one when it sprung on me. Sounds so nice and peaceful.

And it guarantees at least one round of no actions by the enemy and possibly quite a few more if it has a weak or average will save. It sits there in a state of tranquility getting killed.

Why were you allowing content from books you hadn't read rather than curating a list of books for the group to use?

Quote:

You took them or your character was weak. If you're playing some weak, non-specialized PF1 character

Those characters might be weak compared to the theoretical maximum, but that doesn't mean they can't face CR-appropriate challenges. If your group isn't 100% out to power game and nothing else PF1 suddenly acquires a level of depth PF2 isn't designed to achieve.

Because PF1 lacked a consistent means to ban stuff you needed to curate a lot and do a bunch of extra work for the DM. Actually this statement is the biggest reason my group had to change from 3.5 to pf2.

If this page of AoN is to be believed you can to any spell.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=273

"A prepared spellcaster can heighten a spell by preparing it in a higher-level slot than its normal spell level, while a spontaneous spellcaster can heighten a spell by casting it using a higher-level spell slot, so long as they know the spell at that level (see Heightened Spontaneous Spells below). When you heighten your spell, the spell’s level increases to match the higher level of the spell slot you’ve prepared it in or used to cast it. This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level.

In addition, many spells have additional specific benefits when they are heightened, such as increased damage."

The heightened benefit is a bonus not the intended heightened effect.

gesalt wrote:

Psychic

1. Needs a 3rd slot. What it gets isn't worth enough to warrant that loss.

I think I'd rather see them keep the 2 slots but give them something that makes giving those up worth it. I like the idea of a caster where cantrips are the core of what you're using and spells are a backup option, sort of the reverse of all the current casters.

I do wonder if giving the cantrips +1 damage/level baseline would be enough or at least change unleash to do so. But I do find what they do already to be quite good. Maybe also treat amped cantrips as regular spells for effects that take spell slots into account.

oholoko wrote:

GGSigmar wrote:

One thing I forgot to mention is I also have mixed feelings about Thaumaturge having to use a single one-handed weapon, because he needs the other to hold the implement or free. I don't think 2H weapons would be a flavour home run in this case, but I hope one of the implements in the final version is a shield, so that the class can at least go sword and board. Seeing how weapon implement grants a kind of AoO, the shield could probably grant a Shield Block reaction.

I mean the amulet kind of grants you a better shield block. I would like an "raise implement" since the +2 is undead lacking from it.

Touche`

Also indeed not undead. But I would also love if you actually called a spirit/undead to give the AC.

One thing I forgot to mention is I also have mixed feelings about Thaumaturge having to use a single one-handed weapon, because he needs the other to hold the implement or free. I don't think 2H weapons would be a flavour home run in this case, but I hope one of the implements in the final version is a shield, so that the class can at least go sword and board. Seeing how weapon implement grants a kind of AoO, the shield could probably grant a Shield Block reaction.

I mean the amulet kind of grants you a better shield block. I would like an "raise implement" since the +2 is undead lacking from it.

Okay starting with the mandatory I loved both classes, the psychic seems playable out of the box outside of the unleash, most of the times you will only trigger it after quite a while and they all don't seem that interesting. The amps are insanely cool making for what I think is the best blaster in the game having pseudo infinite blasting spells as the buffed cantrips are quite strong.

The thamaturge can be a good ranged combatant and a capable melee one... But what he needs is well more abilities that work with magic, most of his class features dont trigger with magic items for a class that prizes itself on using trinkets. I would loved if trick magic item was an option outside of the current recall knowledge one. Something juryrigging magic items so that they can exploit opponent weaknesses.

When I have initially seen that the new classes are going to be the psychic and the thaumaturge I was like "psychic? meh! GO THAUMATURGE!".

Now after having read the playtest I feel the exact opposite. Psychic looks AMAZING! Never thought I am going to be so excited by another caster, but here we are. It is very unique, it is flavourfull, it oozes with options that are on point. It's design is incredible. Other than missing the perception increase to expert I feel like the class could be released in its current state and I would be fine with it!

Then we have the thaumaturge. I don't know, maybe I had unrealistic expectations to begin with, but I feel like I am unimpressed with it. It's weird, which I believe is a good thing in this case, but also makes me have mixed feelings about the class. It's weird to have a martial with a class boost not to STR or DEX. It's weird that the abilities are based on Charisma, especially using Charisma for recalling knowledge. It is weird that most of the features are equipment-flavoured but are actually not related to the actual equipment of the character. But yeah, we've already had this kind of features in the past. The basic class features feel like it's an occult ranger and the huge damage boost only offsets the lower STR/DEX the char will have because of the class ability boost. It's weird that the class flavour is "uses different kinds of equipment to create magical effects" but it doesn't get Trick Magic Item to begin with. Implements feel underwhelming to me. Again, I expected so much more but I was probably expecting too much. I am not saying that the class is bad, but it doesn't resonate with me, I guess.

Yeah I guess it would be better with two paths the recall knowledge and the trick item one. Recall knowledge giving a damage boost to strikes and trick giving to magic attacks

I agree with you on the silliness of wingless pixies, but the idea that low level 1e characters are more versatile than 2e characters is somewhat hard to take in. Between skill consolidation and feats (1) no longer belonging to unnecessary feat trees, and (2) being placed into isolating "buckets" so that investing in non-combat options doesn't totally screw over your combat capabilities, I'd argue that 2e characters are vastly more versatile than their predecessors.

PF1/3.5/3e to me devolved into the highest tower by the end. How much can i specialize my character so that i can get that extra little bonus, pf2 hard capped everything so you can get only as tall and then you need to go wide.

I think the biggest takeaway from this is that Paizo isn't likely to print an entirely new school of spells and that, by and large, the spells we have now are what we're going to have for this edition. I get that they aren't a WotC sized company but it does suck that we won't get large dumps of new spells the way we did in PF1.

We got 200 spells just a few days ago lol I think it was more spells than we had before SoM. But yeah outside of fixed spelllists from class arquetypes(elementalist showed us that) we will probably only get expansions to the 4 traditions. I mean that's good for me. I hate when a book comes out and only covers 2 classes for spells... Or when a spell has like 3 lines of classes beneath it to cover all classes.

Can I just say, thamaturge is bad at everything he does but can do so much. He is not as much damage as the rogue, his support is pretty bad compared to most casters, his trinkets aren't as good as the alchemist, his keyscore being Cha makes it so he can't hit as well as martials, his heal is bad, his reactions are worse than most... But he just has so many options. Like oh yeah I can cast bad spells of all traditions, I can get a super cantrip, I can attack pretty decently and disrupt pretty well.
It's just so much I am in love with every aspect of the class, it just encapsulates so much of the pf2 idea of not a tall tower but a wide one.

Technically by RaW, no. Specific overrides general but the student of the staff allows it only through one specific process (putting the rune in a spellbook, then onto the staff) and other than through that process, the rule of "no property runes" applies.

On the other hand, I'd houserule and allow it, because technically by RaW, Runic Impression is kinda broken anyways, and not in the buzzword way. In the "I can't give returning to my weapon, because as soon as I let go, it loses the rune" kinda way.

TLDR: Ask your GM.

Weirdly enough. You don't etch the runes, so there's a real gray area there. Because they can benefit from runes just not etch them by raw.

Invictus Fatum wrote:

Psychic casting in 1e was just OP in terms of regular casting. I just hope this version is unique but balanced.

What.

Mostly because they aren't affected by stuff that affects divine/arcane caster and can cast even when they are paralized.

I was unpleasantly surprised by the new classes. Where is the Inquisitor? I think they made an error not including it.

Well... I bet inquisitor will be in the next big book along with shifter and some class arquetypes. It just kind of not fits in an occult book and they already released the gods book so they probably want to wait a bit for the next divine one.

We will have our answers in about an hour!

Isn't it 4 days away?

Well kind of? It seems as expensive as a simple trait so i do think they value the monk trait as one of them.

oholoko wrote:

The more we talk the more i am convinced they aren't bad... But aren't great haha.

Half way there then, lol.

oholoko wrote:

I always saw them as worse than they are but they are quite situational, all of them have uses. But i still don't seem them as important enough to be mandatory yet.

In comparison to other Witch options:

Cackle is actually really good - once I have something worth sustaining. So not a 2nd level feat. Either Human Natural Ambition or level 4 at the earliest.

Cauldron is questionable. It lets you craft potions at level 1 instead of needing to get expert crafting and Magical Crafting (level 3 at least). But you still have to pay the costs for those items. The upgrades are really nice, but those don't come online until much later. So again either Natural Ambition or higher level when needed to qualify for the upgrade feats.

Counterspell: Amusing to counterspell Heal. Niche use at best though.

Reach Spell can be good in some party compositions. Personally I wouldn't give up having a useful focus spell for it though.

Widen Spell even less so.

Wortwitch is forgettable. Flavor option for Human Witch only.

Cantrip Expansion is usually not needed. For archetype Witch characters this is good. For full Witch characters, 5 (or 6 with a familiar feat) cantrips are usually sufficient.

Conceal Spell can be really useful in certain types of campaigns (societal intrigue). Really weak otherwise.

Enhanced Familiar depends on how powerful the familiar is allowed to be. Even so, additional ability slots become less important the more slots you already have. Once you have the abilities you need, the remaining slots are not so useful.

Familiar's Language can be mildly useful for certain campaigns and GMs. Useless otherwise.

Dedications feats are not usually powerful enough on their own. So paying the 4th level class feat slot is also needed. So waiting until 6th level before being able to use my focus pool for anything seems really...

Cackle,Cauldron,Reach spell, enhanced familiar are just a lot more powerful than basic Lesson to me. Cauldron is situational but less so than most of the spells from basic lessons. I can agree they are better than i thought but being better than what i thought don't make them that powerful.

oholoko wrote:

Blood ward is also sustained... You can instead use well shield or protection...

Both of those alternatives are also good options.

Blood Ward stacks with Shield. Status bonus vs Circumstance bonus. So why not both?

Protection costs a spell slot. And you have to learn or guess the correct alignment (hopefully they aren't true Neutral). Though to be fair you do have to learn or guess the correct creature trait for Blood Ward. Also, Protection is only available to Divine or Occult Witches.

And yeah, Lesson of Protection is typically taken by Divine or Primal Witches in order to get access to Mage Armor off-tradition. Blood Ward isn't powerful enough on its own to choose it.

The more we talk the more i am convinced they aren't bad... But aren't great haha.

oholoko wrote:

Treat wounds is a skill feat... Life boost takes too long to heal any meaningful amount(healing 8*level in 4 turns is just not good.) and is prone to making your ally die, due to not removing the wounded condition(hit fall down) stand up with 2-20 hp fall down with a single hit with wounded and a crit, stand up with 2-20 and then die to a critical...

Its just the worst form o healing IMO. Out of combat is decent but most times you can rely on medicine and skill feats that are much much cheaper than a class feat.

I think life boost should not be considered on its own, compared to a spike healing effect.

Let's consider the first round of combat:

- The witch casts Life boost on a character within 30 feet which has from 60 to 73 hp.
- Since it costs 1 action, the witch casts also electric arc or ray of frost ( or a similar offensive cantrip ).

The target of life boost would suffer damage during the rounds, eventually reaching 0 hp. The role of life boost is to delay the dying condition, and also to bring the target up once again ( not sure if this could lead to a double turn, but even so I wouldn't admit it ).

It's like using a shield block to prevent some damage.

Round after round, these 6 damage you prevented may grant you to survive one extra hit.

That's a fair point. But in my experience most boss enemies tend to take you down in one or two turns. 4 turns is just too much for that amount of healing when something like lay on hands heal in a burst. Even in that situation i would rather have the shield cantrip and a reaction spell to save my ally and keep something like blood ward or even needle of vengeance(That i do consider bad) for a focus spell.

Oh! Another thread complains about witch.

Leaving questions about the family aside once they are greater than a witch exclusive problem.

I keep the same position I have from all other threads about the wiches. The entire class need a re-work not just only patches. And I don't expect anything like that so soon or even out for PF2 (I expect when we reach PF3 we receive a better one). Probably what we might expect is a new book with more witches feats and patrons.

One of these days a player asked me. "Can I do a druid and call myself as witch?" Off course I allowed. But this come back to my how the class is so subpar. Is preferable for many player take a wizard/druid/cleric and use the witch's flavor concept over it than do a real witch class.

I always found the wizard the worst of the bunch. My biggest issue with the witch is that the class do not get the feat that gives damage when you cast a spell and then hit with a melee strike, and dangerous sorcery...

oholoko wrote:

Most times i play with free arquetype so normally i do get one from those. But even when i do not most spells and focus spells of the witch aren't that great.

I mean elemental betrayal and Cackle(that does not even come from lessons for some reason) are the only ones i find good. The rest aren't exactly something i would get often mostly for flavor i mean.

Life Boost is one of the best healing options in the game. Only Treat Wounds beats it hands down, and that only after getting Expert proficiency and picking up Continual Recovery (plus Battle Medicine in order to use it in combat at all). Life Boost slightly edges out Hymn of Healing because it doesn't have to be sustained, so using Life Boost during combat is actually useful. Goodberry usually does a bit more healing, but is too action intensive to be used in combat. Lay on Hands is better in combat because it is immediate, but it does less healing. And of course, spell slot healing costs spell slots - though it does do a ton more healing than any other of these options.

Treat wounds is a skill feat... Life boost takes too long to heal any meaningful amount(healing 8*level in 4 turns is just not good.) and is prone to making your ally die, due to not removing the wounded condition(hit fall down) stand up with 2-20 hp fall down with a single hit with wounded and a crit, stand up with 2-20 and then die to a critical...

Needle of Vengeance is practically guaranteed damage. The Will save when the spell is first cast chooses between 0, 1, 2, or 4 points of damage per spell level. Then every hostile action that the target takes against the specified target - whether it is a successful action or not - whether it is even a damaging hostile action or not - deals that amount of damage with no save. Ouch.

And Elemental Betrayal rounds out my top three picks for Basic Lesson hexes. It looks kinda similar to applying a damage weakness, but it is actually a bit different. So it also stacks with any damage weakness that the target already has.

Blood Ward does get honorable mention, but it is behind the others by a noticeable amount on my ratings. Lacking any Humanoid trait options to protect against makes it not useful in a lot of campaigns.

Well... You could instead sustain a better spell IMO (flaming sphere or spiritual weapon). Using an action per turn to sustain for a chance to deal damage when the bad guy attacks the target... When he can well simply exchange the target he is hitting.

Elemental betrayal is insanely good so i won't argue with that. It needs allies to be useful but damn good when allies work together.

Blood ward is also sustained... You can instead use well shield or protection...

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

I started running non combat familiar actions as 10 minutes, but the longer I've ran it, the longer I noticed that it's definately too powerful for a 1st level feat. Going forward, I'll probably say at my table, commands last a minute, so in exploration, they can accomplish a minor thing, or they can do a full tactic if their master uses theirs to command or ortherwise concentrate on directing the familiar. Familiars with accompanist or partner in crime can still provide their bonus since those abilities explicitly make they automatically provide their aid

Yeah, that has been my conclusion also after talking this out with a bunch of people here on these forums (including graystone ;-) I do still listen even if I disagree vehemently).

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

As far as witch dedication, the familiar 100% does not get the witch bonus abilities; the bonus abilities are very clearly a seperate class feature.

The extra familiar abilities are defined in the first paragraph of the Witch class feature named 'Familiar', so I don't see how this is 'very clearly' separate from the Witch's Familiar class feature.

If there was a separate archetype feat to give the full Witch Familiar ability progression, that would also clearly be a separate ability. But that archetype feat doesn't exist either.

Because the witch familiar is a familar for a witch. The familiar follows the default abilities of familiar defined here:

Basically unless it explicitly says it's an exception it is not. I do think they should define (DEFAULT FAMILIAR) to make it easier but there's a lot more things that need an errata first haha.

oholoko wrote:

I don't feel the same with basic Lesson mostly because i find reach spell more useful most of the times. Also one spell + focus spell is not that strong in my opnion.

Hmm... That's interesting.

What do you use your focus point for?

I ask because the focus spells is what I consider the compensation for the 6-HP, no armor, 3 spell slot chassis. Other 6-HP, no armor classes get 4 spell slots. Other 3 slot casters get 8-HP and at least light armor. Witch gets their choice of a good selection of powerful focus spells.

The opportunity of picking up an off-tradition spell slot spell is another nice bonus.

Most times i play with free arquetype so normally i do get one from those. But even when i do not most spells and focus spells of the witch aren't that great.

As I have mentioned before, when I play a character it is often a Witch character. It is my go-to class for spellcasting character concepts. I like the high number of trained skills. I like the flexibility of the spellcasting. I like the powerful focus spells. The combat power is a bit lacking as a tradeoff, and I can respect that. But there are already other threads for discussing that.

I also recognize that there are some mechanical problems with the Witch class that I really think should be fixed with official errata.

In order from most important to least:

Familiar actions when not in combat
For the love of the entire pantheon, please clarify the action economy of minion characters during exploration and downtime modes of play. I don't even care what the ruling is. If I don't like it personally, I will houserule it to be what I want for games that I run.

The problem is that the uncertainty is causing people to be wary of creating characters that have a familiar as part of their character's identity and power. We don't know what to expect when the time comes to actually play the character with other players. Are the abilities that I have planned on using actually going to work? Or is it just going to cause contention with the other players at the table? Am I going to feel that my familiar feat choices are dead feats that need retraining at best and maybe just scrap the character entirely (especially for Witch characters that can't just retrain a feat to drop having a familiar entirely)? Is some other player at the table going to feel jealous that I am effectively playing two characters while not in combat?

No ruling is going to make everyone happy. But we do need an official ruling on this.

Basic Lesson
I am not aware of any other class feat of any class at any level that is so single-choice as Witch level 2 taking Basic Lesson, and that includes the Alchemist's Powerful Alchemy feat that was given errata to make it a class feature instead of a feat. No other Witch class...

I don't feel the same with basic Lesson mostly because i find reach spell more useful most of the times. Also one spell + focus spell is not that strong in my opnion.

If it does not say the usual familiar is a regular one that has two abilities. Witch, wizard special familiars are the exception the regular familiar is 2 abilities.

Familiar out of combat... I am almost sure only eidolons can take actions during exploration. But that one does need a better clarification if not an expansion.

Is there anything wrong with, or stopping, a Magus from using a burst spell the regular way without spellstrike? Like a ranged fireball? Or a regular cone of cold?

From what they spoiled there's only single target options and a feat that gives you access to other spells. I wonder if the save becomes tied to how the strike goes.

Currently, I am in an abomination vault campaign playing as an eldritch trickster rouge, and I told my DM that if the Magus has basic, expert, and master spellcasting features that I would like to switch to that from the sorcerer dedication that I picked up from the eldritch trickster to the magus dedication as I think magus would synergize well with the class.

Though, when released my DM said I couldn't pick it up because it is "bounded" spellcasting.

So my question is can I actually pick it up?
I would think the answer is yes because when reading over the rules there isn't any wording that prevents me from doing it, as it seems bounded spellcasting is just another form of spellcasting just with the word "bonded" in it.

Any help on the matter would be appreciated

The magus is confirmed to lack basic expert and master spellcasting benefits in exchange for a wavelike approach...

Ahm... anyway, Truename.

I hope it involves a lot of mental stuff and some rituals haha.

wegrata wrote:

oholoko wrote:

wegrata wrote:

Yeah I look at only those 2 places as giving vulnerabilities meaning it's open space to build on.

Yeah I was more looking at something doing damage similar to phantasmal killer but giving a small vulnerability I'd say crit fail 0 rounds, crit success one minute, but doesn't double damage, otherwise 1 round. I'm just spitballing about what would be balanced and satisfying to use.

Vulnerability feels less powerful than bonuses to hit or negatives to ac, purely because it doesn't impact crit rate, but I maybe estimating that incorrectly.

I think the opposite it's a spot to tread really carefully. I mean maybe the spell level as vulnerability is fine for a turn but I don't know vulnerabilities swing a lot one can be from 0 to 10x that damage per round depending on your party.

The only scenario I've seen for that is usually alchemists bombs doing persistent damage, do you have any other examples of that happens in? Most of the vulnerabilities I've seen on enemies usually amount to an additional ability mod of damage.

A dex Monk or Flurry Ranger hitting an Omox with a cold iron weapon 4+ times in a round, resulting in ~28 extra damage each turn after calculating decaying to hit ratios. That's nothing to sneeze at, even if it has 5 short of 400 max HP.

A regular spell is about 1d10-2d6 per level. One giving a weakness will usually deal an extra 3 stances of damage at least(I am guessing weakness until end of next turn so that you can take advantage at least once).

Yeah I look at only those 2 places as giving vulnerabilities meaning it's open space to build on.

Yeah I was more looking at something doing damage similar to phantasmal killer but giving a small vulnerability I'd say crit fail 0 rounds, crit success one minute, but doesn't double damage, otherwise 1 round. I'm just spitballing about what would be balanced and satisfying to use.

Vulnerability feels less powerful than bonuses to hit or negatives to ac, purely because it doesn't impact crit rate, but I maybe estimating that incorrectly.

I think the opposite it's a spot to tread really carefully. I mean maybe the spell level as vulnerability is fine for a turn but I don't know vulnerabilities swing a lot one can be from 0 to 10x that damage per round depending on your party.

oholoko wrote:

wegrata wrote:

oholoko wrote:

wegrata wrote:

Maybe my level of system mastery isn't good enough to see that structural changes your referring to, could you describe where spells that target a single opponent's save and provide moderate damage with a debuff doesn't work? I can't see it from a balance perspective, it would be more spells like sudden bolt, that deal less damage and have a rider.

They work like I said you can make that character but it's an archetype that probably won't get much more damage. I doubt it will get much better than the sorcerer 2 extra per spell level depending on your bloodline. So I really doubt they will give much support to blasting since it already works and there's not much more that can be done to it I think.

The whole structural changes is because casters always hit at -1 to -3 due to how proficiency works(they don't benefit from item bonuses) this is the biggest problem with blasters they are quite dependent on the opponent weakest save to remain competent. While a martial casts sword all day without problem.

I don't want bigger blast spells like I've said a bunch of times, I want more varied blast spells that do less damage and debuffs targets. The attack roll problem, and it is a problem, is why I asked for additional single target blast spells that target various saves.

I don't want casters to be better than martials, what I want is blasting to be as useful as support in all fights.

Those are probably coming I mean. Something similar to phantasmal killer and things like hydraulic push are quite easy to come. Maybe a simple condition+damage. I doubt any harder conditions than sluggish 1, enfeabled 1 and similar ones but those I would like to see.

I'd like to see some additional on top of that, like cold or stone granting bludgeoning vulnerability and things like that. I guess what else I'd like to see is more types of debuff than various ways of giving a status or circumstance penalty.

Vulnerability is a bit harder. Currently the only ways to grant vulnerability is the rogue racket isn't it? So probably if a spell inflicts a vulnerability it will be a single turn only or probably not deal damage and give a small weakness for multiple turns. The witch also has a bit of 'vulnerability' option

oholoko wrote:

wegrata wrote:

Maybe my level of system mastery isn't good enough to see that structural changes your referring to, could you describe where spells that target a single opponent's save and provide moderate damage with a debuff doesn't work? I can't see it from a balance perspective, it would be more spells like sudden bolt, that deal less damage and have a rider.

They work like I said you can make that character but it's an archetype that probably won't get much more damage. I doubt it will get much better than the sorcerer 2 extra per spell level depending on your bloodline. So I really doubt they will give much support to blasting since it already works and there's not much more that can be done to it I think.

The whole structural changes is because casters always hit at -1 to -3 due to how proficiency works(they don't benefit from item bonuses) this is the biggest problem with blasters they are quite dependent on the opponent weakest save to remain competent. While a martial casts sword all day without problem.

I don't want bigger blast spells like I've said a bunch of times, I want more varied blast spells that do less damage and debuffs targets. The attack roll problem, and it is a problem, is why I asked for additional single target blast spells that target various saves.

I don't want casters to be better than martials, what I want is blasting to be as useful as support in all fights.

Those are probably coming I mean. Something similar to phantasmal killer and things like hydraulic push are quite easy to come. Maybe a simple condition+damage. I doubt any harder conditions than sluggish 1, enfeabled 1 and similar ones but those I would like to see.

Maybe my level of system mastery isn't good enough to see that structural changes your referring to, could you describe where spells that target a single opponent's save and provide moderate damage with a debuff doesn't work? I can't see it from a balance perspective, it would be more spells like sudden bolt, that deal less damage and have a rider.

They work like I said you can make that character but it's an archetype that probably won't get much more damage. I doubt it will get much better than the sorcerer 2 extra per spell level depending on your bloodline. So I really doubt they will give much support to blasting since it already works and there's not much more that can be done to it I think.

The whole structural changes is because casters always hit at -1 to -3 due to how proficiency works(they don't benefit from item bonuses) this is the biggest problem with blasters they are quite dependent on the opponent weakest save to remain competent. While a martial casts sword all day without problem.

The Raven Black wrote:

wegrata wrote:

Right which is why the proposed things allow casters to do both so someone doesn't have to chose between being a e team player and playing the character they want to play. That seems to be one of the disconnects. Just because a caster technically has access to spells that maybe more optimal, they're far enough outside the vision the player had they aren't going to be taken.

The other is pigeonholing casters into a support position. That shouldn't be the expected way to play them in challenging climatic battles.

How would the stronger blasting caster be any different from a martial then ?

Obviously, they cannot be flatly better, or even just more versatile, than the martials.

I don't understand the question. They'd be using magic to do damage rather than weapons. So energy damage, target saves, and have a debuff effect on damage vs a single target. Is this what you're asking about or are you looking at it more broadly as utility vs single target damage? This is aside form the difference in defences and thematics, which are important to a lot of people.

I'd it's the single target damage, that's way to broad a niche IMO yo protect.

I'd say during the course of a fight against strong enemies, a caster will do similar damage to a martial, since cantrips are behind weapons and the one or 2 slotted spells.

Note I'm not asking for strictly better, I'm asking for different than what exists so I can play the character I want to play, rather than the one the system forces me to.

Sorry but the way the system is structured without major changes the character you want to play is just well... Suboptimal. It works it deals damage but it will lag behind a martial and won't help as much as a supportive/utility guy. It's not like you can't do it I had a character that was a sorcerer healer with a few blasting spells. Sometimes you do get that demon where you use that nice 6th level searing with weakness and a crit... But most of the times that heroism will boost the damage a lot more(even the level 3).

HumbleGamer wrote:

I guess I am one of the few ones which is perfectly fine with the current caster situation, especially cause I come from a martial combatant perspective.

Being able to have a great variety of spells is way more interesting than being stuck with the same actions round after round.

My lvl 10 champion for example is tied to these actions

-strike ( the only strike attack my character has).
-step/stride ( movement)
- denoralize ( polymath bard)
- lay on hand/hymn of healing ( focus power). I also have basic and advanced passion domain spells ( no combat purposes).
- no maneuvers ( deity weapon is a glaive, so bored maneuvers for me)
- champion reaction ( reaction)
- guidance + shield ( bard cantrips).

Not that other characters are different ( stride + double slice/twin takedown/twin feint/flurry of blows would be equal to stride + strikex2).

Being able to play a spell caster would mean infinite possibilities, the more the character advances ( starting from the cantrips choices in terms of attacks).

In my experience at the table martials play through a power fantasy and casters just contribute. I see wide eyes and smiles on martials critting a couple times a session and casters with blank despondent faces after the third consecutive save from a monster against a spell. That's ultimately anecdotal and not good for an argument, though. The systems math isn't gonna change but I'm excited for all the items and special components (caster charm equivalents) that'll help out lvls 1-10. The second half of the game is fine bc weaker spells dont matter when you have so much to work with, but low lvl casters need a shot in the arm.

I find this so weird. In my tables martials play the power fantasy of hitting things with stick or hitting things with extra big stick. While caster play the fantasy of poof i ran away, poof now that guy likes us we don't have to fight, poof now there's a speed debuff on the enemy now he won't be able to run after us, poof now we can fly...

Themetricsystem wrote:

Hey look, another example of rules being mixed with flavor description that confused thing!

At this point, I wonder if there would be any value in a full-on revision of EVERYTHING in EVERY PF2 book being rewritten with ONLY the mechanical effects included. The whole "You can't act while stunned" statement is literally meaningless as it's immediately overwritten by the actual rules that define how it works.

This was how the playtest book was written, and people absolutely hated it.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't kind of situation.

Eldritch Archer provides precedent for a "no ties attached" caster archetype.

Right! Yeah i forgot he existed but yeah he provides a utility and a 'specific' way to cast the spells for sure.

I don't really see a major benefit to such a thing, in all honesty. You could just strip out flavor from a multiclass archetype, or Runescarred if the stat requirement is a bother. But even with flavor intact, you can boil down the multiclass caster archetypes to "Learned to perform really good", "Committed to serving divinity", "Committed to serving nature", "Learned things you shouldn't have", "Learned the magic was in you all along", "Struck a deal", or just "Studied magic", and many of those are fairly generic anyway.

Agreed you can and in my tables we do that a lot. I guess I just like when there's an "free" option without that extra stuff by default even when it's an bad arquetype overall.

On page space... Yeah can see that. How would you split so much to smaller things is also quite hard... And most times you are already served with other arquetypes.

To be an archer you can be anyone and take an archer archetype. To be able to use and have access to heavy weapons you can take Mauler.
But there's no "No ties attached" arquetypes for casters.
If I want to be an illusionist I need to be from Maganbya or be a multiclass arquetype guy. Should we get something like that? I just noticed it and now I really want those types of arquetypes. And they can be really simple, access to a few metamagics, spellcaster progression and a limited list by Scholl's instead of tradition(maybe limited so that there's no free buffet there) Maybe adding them to your regular list for a caster.