puksone's page

You don't need to be in Arcane cascade for Shroud, it actually makes you enter Cascade when you use it.

Ah you're right. That makes it way better.

I'm curious about peoples' take on Arcane Shroud. What are the best spells to trigger it with?

I feel like for example Stoneskin would be really nice to get out of it, but I'm having a tough time picking abjuration spells I'd be happy to prepare as a magus.

IMO arcane shroud is overrated. It looks great at first glance but in actual play, it might be useful but certainly not powerful. For example, you can get stoneskin (level 4) at level 14 for 1 action. Yeah great but it's dr 5. It's basically pointless at that level.

On top of that, you need to be in arcane cascade and spend basically 3 actions to benefit from it - not great for the action-hungry Magus.

There are not many great lvl 14 class feats but on lvl 10/12 like rapid recharge, conflux focus, expert spellcasting.

Frank the human fighter with amnesia. He has no idea how he ended up as an astral plane pirat.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Fighter is pretty high on the versatility between different builds, I think. A Fighter's role in the party is completely different depending on what weapon type they're bringing.

They are versatile in their niche but they have a hard time filling in the skill monkey role.

For myself, Investigator can easily skill monkey and healer [Forensic Medicine/medic]. Wizard archetype and a good pick of spells could let you fill in for your caster roles. Tank sits at the worst role IMO.

It's comparable to the rogue tank situation. You could build a skill monkey fighter like you could build a tank rogue.

You could even build a fighter to find traps.

For cold/fire a property rune would work as well, right?

Elemental Betrayal:

You call upon the elements to undermine your foe. When you Cast this Spell, choose air, earth, fire, or water. Each time the target takes damage from a spell or effect with the chosen trait, it takes an additional 2 damage of one damage type dealt by the spell or effect. If you chose fire or water, the target also takes this additional damage when taking fire or cold damage, respectively, from effects or spells without the chosen trait.

What actually triggers elemental betrayal? Would a strike buffed with elemental assault count as an effect with an elemental trait?

What's the highest dpr build you can come up with so far?

Captain Morgan wrote:

Claxon wrote:

I like you layout and the options you provide to select from.

However, PF2 is pretty easy to summarize for DPR. The fighter wins, because of higher attack bonus.

Giant Instinct Barbarian gets an honorable mention for highest single damage attack, but still falls behind because of lower attack bonus. It can however be helpful in dealing with DR.

At very high levels, the flurry ranger also gets an honorable mention because their ability to make 3+ attacks at -2 MAP.

Everybody else is behind. Not terribly so, but behind.

As I recall, the highest DPR build DMW could make was a giant instinct barbarian wielding two orc neck splitters. Though that was close to launch and new content or new strategies might have pushed past that by now.

It’s probably no longer correct, I think the highest damage build by now will be something boring like an overwhelming assault fighter using a Rhoka sword, or a certain strike fighter two handing a Rhoka sword.

Do you mean overwhelming blow? It's lvl 16.

Is there a way to use pick + light hammer with full prof at lvl 9?

Seems like a bad idea as a fighter. You need to focus on one weapon group.

That just essentially swaps double slice for twin takedown, not really getting ahead.

You can use double slice and twin takedown in the same round. It's oke if you have haste for moving. Or you can move, move and than use twin takedown.

For fencing slice you need 3 actions and you need to hit with both strikes.

Haven't seen it in play so I can't tell if it's better than gravity weapon + twin takedown.

Has anyone seen fencing slice in play? Is the bleed effect worth it?

Ranger dedication is not bad. You can grab twin takedown and gravity weapon.

Does the attack from improved knockdown still count as two attacks regarding MAP?

Little Holy Eldritch Archer

Halfling Fighter with Champion and Eldritch Archer dedication.

-Besides the Investigator, the Fighter works great in combination with the Eldritch Archer.

-To get a high damage focus spell (withering grasp) -> Champion.

-Halfling has a reroll feat for attack rolls. Perfect for the Eldritch Archer.

Stats: Dex 18/Cha 14

Ancestry feats:
1 - Halfling luck
9 - Guiding Luck

Class feats:
1 - Point Blank
2 - Champion Dedication
4 - Deity's Domain - > Withering grasp
6 - Desperate Prayer
8 - Eldritch Archer
10 - Basic Spellcasting

Withering grasp does 1d12 + 1d4 persistent damage.
Heightend: +1d12 + 1 persistent

After a fight you can refocus your focus spell. Spellcasting is super late with lvl 10, though.

Can I ready a strike instead of a stride? If the monster attacks me or moves, I strike without MAP.

New rules + crunch or is it more about soft skills?

I have another "best" gish: fighter + any caster dedication.

Is it really important if something has 3 or 2 stars? Pf2e is full of situational/low impact feats. The guide is pretty detailed. Personally I would highlight very good and trap feats. The build doesn't matter. It's common sense that you don't use double slice with a 2h weapon.
Other feats I would just give a medium rating.

puksone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

No useless just less effective. I notice a trend of people saying incap makes it useless but it actually just increase the result one step. so a crit fail is just a fail. Is it best against higher no but it's not entirely useless.

So, you need a crit fail from a boss for an effect (+ you need to hit him). That's so freaking useless.

Not useless when it happens at no action cost for doing something monks do all the time. If this was a video game, the feat would read "your flurry of blows has a ~50% chance of stunning a normal enemy and a 5% chance of stunning bosses". How is that useless?

Having less then a 5% chance to stun a boss isn't that great.

VS. normal enemies, sure it has some value.

No useless just less effective. I notice a trend of people saying incap makes it useless but it actually just increase the result one step. so a crit fail is just a fail. Is it best against higher no but it's not entirely useless.

So, you need a crit fail from a boss for an effect (+ you need to hit him). That's so freaking useless.

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

I think Monks look weaker by the tiers because the tiers don't cover their biggest strengths; sheer mobility and spectacular defensive proficiencies.

Monks can also have spectacular action economy. With flurry of blows and winding flow you can get four actions out of two, possibly denying the person you're hitting actions via stunning fist or the brawling group critical specialization. This is a much stronger strategy now than in previous versions of the game.

Stunning fist feels so weak with the incapacitation trait. When do you need a stun the most? Vs a high lvl enemy. When is stunning fist useless? When you fight a high lvl enemy.

puksone wrote:

Get fighter dedication for aoo and/or brutish shove.

Pick up brutal bully to add more damage to brutish shove.

So, I guess your player doesn't want to use intimidation?

why waste a feat getting fighter dedication for AoO when Barbs can get it normally from their class?

There may be other reasons to get fighter dedication but AoO shouldn't be one of them.

Because you can get it at lvl 4 with the dedication. Worth it in some cases, when you plan to get some fighter Feats anyway.

So at 6 you can get breath, giants stature, brutal bully or what ever...

Get fighter dedication for aoo and/or brutish shove.

Pick up brutal bully to add more damage to brutish shove.

So, I guess your player doesn't want to use intimidation?

Very risky for the wizard to go so close to an enemy. But jeah it can be good in some situations.

The flanking bonus is easy to get in general, so....

It really depends on the class bards or druids with animal companions have more options for their third action.

With a wizard it feels like pf1.

Damage min/max in pf2: taking not a shield.

Do they think too it's boring or just you?

Some people just want to use their greataxe. Let them. Get's the job done.

Why is Fighter the easiest martial?

I would say it depends more on the build. So ranger/Fighter archer is imo the easiest.

Tanking champion is very easy too.

We should be wary of this turning into a "Everyone hate on puksone" thread. That's not fun for anyone, and I feel like we are trending on that line.

That said, puksone, read the room dude.

It's fine for me. I know some people overreact when it comes to such topics.

People like paizo's direction, good for them. I personally don't like it and it annoys me. Still playing the game. The end. Everybody happy.

I have a few friends who got pretty riled up about the PC stuff, not because it was included in a paragraph in the rules so much, but because they believed that it was adversely affecting the stories Paizo was telling through their adventure paths.

Second Edition as a whole though is being pretty well received in the circles I frequent, which is impressive as nearly everyone here started with a "never gonna'" switch attitude.

The sjw attitude from paizo is really annoying. They should keep their views for them self.

My gaming group likes pf2e really a lot. One huge factor is,that we are bored by 5e. So, 2e had a good timing for us.

Hbitte wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Of course, we are speaking in a vacuum. Situation is more important in PF2 than it was in PF1. But it's important in my opinion to sell tactical movements, especially to beginners who may think it's not the role of their character to provide buff/debuff, or who may think that a +2 to hit is negligeable.

By the way, I use your charts of average DPR to assess some moves on my characters. So thanks for having made them ;)

It is not their role.

IT SHOULD NOT BE CASTER'S ROLE TO BE BUFFER OR DEBUFFER. Unless he wants to.

If the only way the caster can be efficient is as a support, it is undoubtedly weak and without any flexibility.

Disagree. As martials are largely incapable of mirroring a caster and vice versa. Therefore having roles to both is not explicitly a bad thing provided there he some variation within.

A martial cannot equal a caster in utility or buffing or debuffs or buffs or AOE damage capability. A martial can perform limited aspects of certain things on a smaller or more strict scale such as combat maneuvers for debuffs or limited feat tax AOE options but still cannot reach the equivalency of a caster. Given the above. What is their shortcomings? When compared. Single Target damage? Struggle vs strong single Target? Though you still can use a spell that has a failure effect and still contribute and damage options are still a thing as well

Biggest issues with casters are players trying to compare to 1e. And action economy interaction.

Biggest issue imo is that a lot of people don't enjoy playing wizard or sorc.

Can I transform the staff of divination only in a one-hand-weapon? Have seen people handling this differently.

citricking wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

puksone wrote:

I think using 3 actions for attacking is good. You have great options to make it better. Depends obviously on the class/build.

Demoralizing an opponent and doing 2 Strikes deals more damage than doing 3 Strikes. There's no point in using 3 actions to attack without feats to greatly reduce MAP.

No, it doesn't.

People need to stop lying to slander attacking three times. It is a reasonable option that is sometimes the best choice. Attacking three times does more damage than demoralizing and attacking twice, even if you were guaranteed success (in most situations, it can be better in certain situations). Now you might want to demoralize for other reasons, but I won't do more damage in most situations.

Also you can only demoralize a target once.

There are other people in a party that get benefits from demoralizing.

And other who can demoralize. I don't see the twf ranger with agile weapons in flanking position not attacking 3 times.

puksone wrote:

I think using 3 actions for attacking is good. You have great options to make it better. Depends obviously on the class/build.

Demoralizing an opponent and doing 2 Strikes deals more damage than doing 3 Strikes. There's no point in using 3 actions to attack without feats to greatly reduce MAP.

Jeah, that's why I was talking about options that makes it better.

Martialmasters wrote:

I fail to see that as an issue since triple attack is the best answer when you don't have to move. As for the Gish thing. I have the to witness a convincing Gish in 2e but I should have a thread in regards to that specifically.

I expect if we get any real gishes they will be out of the box type of things with their own mechanics to enforce the playstyle.

Since when is triple attack the best answer? What about demoralize, or raising a shield, using Battle Medicine, or or using many of the two-action martial feats? What about using a magic item, or commanding an animal companion, or sustaining a spell?

I think using 3 actions for attacking is good. You have great options to make it better. Depends obviously on the class/build.

Remorseless lash

When you succeed at a melee weapon Strike against a frightened foe, that foe can’t reduce their frightened condition below 1 until the beginning of your next turn.

Such a choice of DMG vs AC can only be answered by simulation against specific opponents, which is rarely done because calculating DPR odds is easy. I gave up simulating because nobody was interested in the results, it did not fit their comfort zone of belief (yes you can indeed drop a point of STR to get a point elsewhere) Even simulation is flawed because it depends on the AI you write (as anyone that has ever run any of the classic D&D videogames that used AI to fight knows!)

Even with the simulations there is too much focus on the average result - but this option is 1% more survivable than that option - ignoring that the individual table variance is +/-50%....

The only thing that really matters is will you survive the encounter, it does not matter if you can outdamage your enemy if they go first because they have initiative and crit your weak AC. Any smart dungeon boss is going to tell his minions - hit the big naked person first - it is the job of the GM to metagame to challenge player choices.

With NPCs not being built like PCs, they do not have to make such tradeoffs. They can have higher damage, attack and AC than you do just because the designer wanted it that way.

So it means very likely that your min/maxed design will face a situation that you are not optimized for, requiring your group to carry you off the battlefield.

Oke, what build are you talking about?

In pf2e there are not many things you can do to drop your ac for damage (besides rage).

It's not like you trade of your armor for strength.

Min/max isn't even a real thing in pf2e.

For one action? Yes, would be too good.

I mean, the feat is extremely good for 2 actions. It doesn't have flourish or press. It would be totally overpowered for one action.

I have never seen anyone ever saying dpr is everything and is the only important metric...but a lot of people arguing dpr isn't everything.

You don't get an ac malus from fear.

Fighter: free hand build with combat grab, shove, intimidating strike, remorseless lash, fearsome brute

Fighter: 2h/twf fearsome brute, improved knockdown, remorseless lash, barbarian dedication, brutal bully

bard: spamming buffs & maestro stuff

cleric/druide: wiz/sorc dedication + careful explorer if you s$&* your pants cause of traps

One issue I see is what others here have brought up. The old tactics do not work like they used to. A few examples to think about (and these are my opinions...) and these are really simplified, but hope I get my point across...

PF, 5th, ect... The melee combat specialists would rush the enemy and get their full attack in ASAP (the rule of hit first and put them on defensive if able). The problem is the new action economy seems to punish that tactic most of the time. You used 1, possibly 2 actions to close, and maybe get one attack in. Meanwhile the mob retaliate can either try for 3 attacks, 2 action specials + attack, and so on. That can instantly turn the tide if they get 2 good hits sometimes vs your 1. Especially at lower levels.

No, it was terrible in pf1 as a meele char to rush to your enemy and eat a full attack.

More interesting if you need aoe at all.

Narxiso wrote:

Fighter is good at shoving when (s)he doesn’t have to roll a 19 to get a success. Of course, it would not have been as dramatic if she focused on getting every advantage for maxing our athletics, but that would have required the player focusing on a different aspect of the game than the player wanted to. On the other hand, our sorcerer just uses a scroll to change and shove our opponent where it needed to be in order to do adequate damage.

This is the issue with all these threads. The martial can always build to be good at a particular thing, but they cannot be best at all the things at once. One thread it's a giant instinct barbarian with Whirlwind strike, the next its a free hand debuff fighter with a range of weapon crit effects. But neither character will do the other's roll well at all (AoE VS debuff). And many come online around level 13-14, when casters have already been filling the role for 10 levels. Casters allow the versatility of someone who can do it all, but with large restrictions based on preparedness and daily slot limits.

Depends on the martial. It's really not hard for a dmg focused fighter to get some control/debuff Feats. AoE is something else.

It seems that many people also forget that every debuff the fighter gets, the wizard or any other caster can as well. Spells are just easier to use and more efficient for them. Have we also forgotten that just like every other class, spell casters are not only limited to their class’ chassis: there are skill debuffs as well. Also, if we’re going to list every debuff that a martial can do, then I only think it’s fair to list out every damage type, utility, and buff that casters can do as well.

Atalius wrote:

nicholas storm wrote:

Pretty sure if you took a party with 1 martial, 1 rogue, 1 cleric, 1 wizard and replaced the wizard with another martial, party 2 would be superior.

I think you may be right, our party consists of a barbarian, a wild order druid/fighter MC, a ruffian rogue and a Bard and it works.

If that’s true then your party has not played with a range of enemy types, hazards, and otherwise. We have a sorcerer in our group, and if he was not around, we would not have been able to get through Book 2 of Age of Ashes without either kissing a lot of time or the death of multiple characters, mine included. There were traps, hazards, diseases, as well as multiple creatures that only he could handle, and there were creatures that negated nearly all my character’s damage and that none of our strength focused characters could handle, while the sorcerer just changed into a dinosaur and shoved it into a hazard that killed it.

Maybe not a good example...the fighter is awesome in shoving.

We don't have a sorc or wiz in the group and just do fine.
Pf2 really allows a lot of different group compositions.

Improved knockdown is freaking good. It's lvl 10 but still...

I hate the big weapon thing. It feels like a trashy anime.

I think the giant instinct is not particular strong vs bosses. The terrible ac combined with no accuracy bonus (like rangers or fighters have) isn't great.

Jeah, sorry meant one extra dice to the normal power attack dice.

So you just need to hit and get a free trip?? This is kind of extremely strong. Power attack on lvl 10 has just one weapon damage dice more.

Can I trip everything with this large, giant, colossal creatures?