rarebit's page

But the point is that just because of an eccentricity of the system you get this counter-narrative flaw where the later acting person gets a boost just because they get to do their "simultanious" action after the state has changed to them being adjancent to a target and it.

If you actually actually want to engage with the system and take the effect into account this could lead you to play in this weird unatural and not for any rational or in-story kind of reason.

It disincentivizes you from ever approaching non-adjacent enemies, especially un-engaged ones, making you favour ones which wont use stride anywaywhich all leads to disincentivizing melles attacks as whole.

You talk about "playing normally" and it being a hare-brained scheme to switch to a ranged weapon which is a "worse" option. But you're thinking too much in Plan A situations. Your bow is worse than your sword if everything else were equal; but it's not. If using your sword you have to risk ~20 damage to deal 20 damage, and with the bow you risk 0 damage to deal 10 damage, then the bow is better.

It is a hare brained scheme since in this case you are switching to ranged not because your skills with the weapon or because the range is more safe or tacticly viable. The enemy can also switch to range or just come next to you. Which is what you would want to bait them to do. No, the reason you would be switching here is only becausd a glitch in the action system.

- Many combats just don't start all that far away. Many combats start because someone openened the door to the next room.

Unless you start from a dialogue or stealth and backstab, you will need at least 1 action to close the distance.

Why should that be the "tactical option"?

Because players usually go and take turn immediately and they use the most apparant option, the weapon they have already drawn, the attack and combo they have build for.

Stride -> Attack -> Step seems like a good plan if you don't want to end your turn in melee range.

Then you give up two actions for movement and your opponent only needs to give up one.

All those decisions about wheather to risk it and go into the enemy frontline alone and take out their wizard or staying and protecting your own backline or even thinking about range penalties - now those are the kind of choices which come organically from the game itself and make the game more interesting. That is why I don't like muddling that with unintended consequences of the action economy

It's been discussed several times actually. The good news is, other people haven't been forced to play badly all this time and somehow been unable to notice. Quite a few people noticed, then adapted their playstyle.

So it sounds to me like everyone just agred that this is how things are and moved on. Even though it is a flaw of the system. In fact maybe because it is so ingrained in the 3 action turn that there is not much you can do as far as houseruling goes which could remove the problem.

Let's think about your case:

First round, initiative A, opponent A moves twice and makes one Strike. He's one first attack ahead.
First round, initiative B, opponent B makes 3 Strikes (easiest case). As second attack deals 55% of first attack on average and third attack 25%, he's 80% of a first attack ahead.
Second round, initiative A, opponent A makes 3 Strikes. He's one first attack ahead again.
And so on.

So, yes, winning initiative in this situation is not a big advantage, but it's not a disadvantage at all.

You get to match round for round. Yeah A got to have 1 action before B but B essensially got to take their second and third action before A.

You don't get to match action for action, so the 1 that A takes before B isn't nessesarily an advangtage

A at the end of each of their turns would have normally taken 3 more actions than B has. But in fact since 2 were wasted it is only 1 useful action that goes otward fighting B. B at the end of each turns would have taken the same number of actions as A, but in fact a whole 2 "useful" actions.

And keep in mind that those actions could be anything useful including defensive action. Also different combos which take multiple actions are more powerfull than separate actions.

It is all abstact and complex but dependant on each separate isntance. It is still an effect which shouldn't be there.

But wait, you can still ready an attack and use 1 action. That way you still attack first and lose only 1 action when the opponent loses at least 1. It is still more advantageous that approaching first.

I've tried searching both here on the forum and elsewhere and I couldn't find any discussion about this, though I think it is a pretty obvious problem.

Lets say and you and an opponent are using melee attacks and you're the one higher on the initiative. If you go and do what should be the tactical option which is to move in and attack first you would be in fact screwing yourself.

You are using one to three actions just walking to them. Which leaves you with less actions (or none at all). This means not only less attacks but other actions you can perform like raise shield.

There is a possibility that you could kill an enemy in one/two attacks, but you're not even guaranteed to hit so it is unlikely unless it is a very low level minion.

On the other the opponent is now adjacent to you and has all their actions on their turn. They don't need to waste them in movement so they can fully attack/do usefull things.

So for simplicity lets assume a one-on-one. Depending on the strides needed and the non attack action you have available, in most cases it would be more advantegous to just sit and let the other person approach. Especially if you use your ready an strike for when they are in range plus a defensive action or something.

It is better for both combatants to wait for the other to approach. So it like a game of chicke nwhere one side has to just take the hit and mess up their action economy. Or they can just make ranged attacks instead.

What really ends up happening in practice though is that when a primary melee attack dependand PCs get a high initiative roll, they will do the most obvious thing and go and attack ... and almost every get severly punished for it in the action economy. (In a real battle with multiple eneiems on both sides it might even get worse).

This looks like a pretty big flaw in the system - unless you commit to some galaxy-brain schemes you will be punished for higher initiative and melee users are discourtaged from approaching first. And what's bad is that this is not a niche case but is at the very basis of the system and apply for amost each fight.

IDK why I never seen more discussions about this. I was first made aware from Taking20's follow up video about the illusion of choice in PF2e https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_582tbKz4E0&t=1230s. As you this is very much a real situation here. (in the video he's discussing how disadvantegous it is for a character build for ranged attacks to switch to melee but the point pretty much still stands).

Now I can see people dismissing this because of the diminishing return of the multi attack penalty. But
1. But optimized character especially at higher levels are build around being able to take advantage of their second and third attack.
2. There are almost always actions other that attack you can use. If you ready an attack and the enemy approaches you, you're still ahead action wise and you still get to hit firt. In some situations you could be better delaying until after the enemy's turn. Hell if you move a step back you're forcing close ranged enemeies to waste a stride to match you.

Now this doesn't really apply if either you or the enemy switch to a ranged attack. But appart from having to use propably a worse character option, this is just more hair-brained scheming.

I expect that a lot of people wouldn't have given this a thought or just wouldn't be bothered by it much and would try and play normally. But to me that sounds that players are constantly forced to play suboptimally and not even know it. And that doesn't sound like good design to me.

Caster levels aren't requirements.

IF something explicitly says "caster must be x level" you can ignore that by adding 5 to the dc

Nah. I've read other threads and checked the rules on this. I'm pretty sure you can't waive away the Caster Level restriction by increasing the DC by 10.

ugh - This was supposed to be in the Advice section. I don't see a way to move it or to delete, or to contact the admins.

Can somebody move this this thread for me?

Hi,
My character is an Alchemist and at 6th level I took the Promethean Disciple Disciple (counts as Craft Construct, can use my Ranks in Alchemy for Caster Level, use Alchemy for all skill checks).

What are some Constructs I which could be good which could be made with Caster Level 6(and then for 7-8-9th levels)? Most of them require a lot higher CL.

And then Constructs tend to be weak for the level you can create them at. Do you know any which could be useful for an Alchemist?

I'm already building myself a Poppet(flying and with extra carrying capacity). I intend to use it to carry around stuff and act as an assistant but also use it in battle to carry and feed potions/infusions to the party.

Should I make it Tiny or Small? I ration that if it is Tiny it would be easier for it to dart around between enemies, but this doesn't seem to be reflected in the rules.

When I hit level 7 I'll probably make a Iron Cobra so it could poison enemies with the poison I make.

Is there a way to bump up my ranks in Alchemy? I know there are some books for making Golems which among other things raise your Caster Level. What if I use those what is the earliest level I could create a Golem - one which would be useful?

Have you looked into Questioner Investigator? It sacrifices Alchemy for Bard casting.

Honestly I don't see how that's any better. The bards don't have any better spells for the purpose. Did you have anything particular in mind?

So I'm starting a campaign that's set in a Gothic setting. The DM has said that the campaign would focus on social interactions and not so much on fights (though it is PathFinder so I reckon there would be a healthy dose of those). We're staring at 2nd level.

I had this idea for an character - a sort of detective of sorts who specializes in the occult and supernatural and can help people by finding and getting rid of apparitions, hauntings and things like that.

I also want him to have some kind of supernatural power that aid him.

(For examples from media think of Dirk Gently, Lorraine & ED Warren from The Conjuring films, Elise Rainier from Insidious, Frank Bannister from The Frighteners, Kyoichi Kagenuma from the Nightmare Detective and I think Harry Dresden fits here though I haven't read those books.)

What options do I have to build a character like that.

The Investigator should theoretically cover this ground but in reality by 2nd level there's not that much that helps me other than Inspiration. The Alchemy is good but has nothing to do with investigation let alone the kind I'm looking for. The Psychic Detective archetype should be closer but honestly they get too little spells and I can't find enough useful ones especially for the low level.

The Psychic should be a better version of the The Psychic Detective (The Psychic Disciplines spell selection limits you though).

The other option I'm thinking of is Spiritualist. Having a Phantom with you at all time is fun and opens alot of possibilities. But again not alot of the powers I'm looking for. It can help you in battle, give you some bonuses here and there and pass through walls but not alot of options for supernatural investigation.

It's kind of a bummer that any kind of useful Divination spells are all way higher level.

Can anybody help me? Any suggestions about class, spells and other possible options for my character?

Hi, I intend him to be a fighter and for now I've pegged him as a Dwarf though maybe Half-Orc would fit the concept better.

I want to focus on Intimidating as well as Combat maneuvers little bit.

Abilities (20 point buy; including racial bonuses and 1 upgrade):
Str: 16, Dex: 14, Con: 12, Int: 14, Wis: 10, Cha: 12

As for weapons I'm eyeing a Merciful +1 Dwarven Waraxe; +1 Large Shield; and +2 Armor (probably something heavy). Also a Longbow, Lucerne Hammer/ Dwarven Longaxe as backups. (I haven't thought about what weapons I would use as a Half-Orc, though)

The Weapon Focus/Training is going to go into Axes. (Again this is assuming a Dwarf as a race).

Here's the feats I'm thinking about
Weapon Focus
Dazzling Display
Disheartening Display
Intimidating Prowess
Killing Flourish (I'm not a Slayer, but I don't think the GM would mind)

And Also
Combat Expertise
Inproved

And the coming levels I intend to take Greater Improved Trip Power Attack and Felling Smash.

(The campaign is set to be short one - around 10 sessions & I don't know we'll continue after that.)

Alternatively I might take Enforcer with Stage Combatant isntead of Intimidating Prowess/Killing Flourish.

I like Stage Combatant alot because it goes well the history of the character. It also provides alot of interesting opportunities story-wise.

Enforser is also an interesting feat but theme-wise I imagine it being something else - you're trying to subdue and apprehend somebody, not cleaning a dungeon. (I could also try to get a mercyful weapon instead and skip this feat)

Anyway though, Enforcer/Stage Combatant is a powerfull combination, but the thing is it affects only 1 enemy, which means that it applies mainly to creatures that are slow to die. On the other hand if I can get a succesful Dazzling Display or something like killing florish to make (in most cases all the enemies in the encounter) shaken, then the only thing I need after that is an extra Dazzling Display and for all intents and purposes the encounter is over. (oh and skip om the extra Indimidate from Intimidating Prowess)

Other options:

Cornugon Smash - I don't know how much I need it if I can get Enforcer and besides I have to wait until I get Power Atack

Gory Finish - Another way of setting up Disheartening Display. Inferior alternative in case the DM doesn't let me use Killing Flourish

Dreadful Carnage - requires 11th level which my character would probably never reach. (also it requires Furious which means I have to use a two-handed weapon)

Hurtful - come to think of it, stacks very nicely with Enforced.

Something else I read this article about how you can use flour in the world of DnD and I like the idea of my character having something to throw in people's eyes. I don't know how the DM is going to handle this and if he's going to use the "Dirty Trick" maneuver(I doubt he's read any additional books). If decides to do so I might exchange Improved Trip for Improved Dirty Trick. DT is interesting because essentially you need to constantly invent "dirty tricks" to justify using it. And what's more it's not 1 thing, which means that you always figure out how to use it with every monster essentialy and there's no inoversal immunity (unlike tripping)

So does anyone have any suggestions regarding the intimidate track? Has someone tried a similiar build? Do you experience with Trip and the Dirty Trick maneuve? What weapons so you suggest for a Orc Fighter?

Any Architypes/Racial Traits/Items I could use?

Anything that could fit the Gladiator theme? (I don't like the Gladiator Archetype for the Fighter and don't care much about the Performance combat rules and would very probably never need to use them)

My party, besides myself are a Paladin, Bard/Rogue and a Rogue. Do you have any tactical suggestions on how I could synergise with them? How can I better set up the rogues for sneak attacks etc.

I might suggest some builds to the Rogues. We could get a nice synergy if someone got Shatter Defenses/Violent Display.

Hi,

I'm starting a new campaign with 6 level characters and I intend to have Intimidate build Fighter and was wadering about taking this feat:

Disheartening Display: "When you successfully use Dazzling Display against any shaken, frightened, or panicked opponents, their fear increases by one step. An already panicked creature demoralized by this feat cowers. Once affected by this feat, a creature cannot be affected by it again (by you or anyone else) for 24 hours."

(Disheartening Display is an ability that let's be do a demoralizing check against every enemy within 30 feet of me)

My question is - Since there is no duration mention I assume that enemies that upgrade from shaken to frightened or worse just remain like that.

After all Freightened just for a round or 2 doesn't make that much sense anyway. From the description of the condition if looks more like once you've become frightened you'll flee from the source of your fear for the duration of the encounter. Effectively removing the creature out the combat as long as I am still around.

Is this the right interretation?