shroudb's page

Just to give an example of how I "solved" deities in my homebrew setting:

there are two sets of deities there, the original 5 gods that made the world, but except for 1 the other 4 are currently stuck in the void. At their prime, I've divided the domains amongst those 5. Each of them represents a generally wide "field" like "magic and forces" or "life and death" and etc, so it wasn't hard to put the very specific domains under their huge umbrella.

for the "new" pantheon, it is a bit larger, with 9 gods. The difference is that the new gods do not directly manifest their will into the world. That leads to worship of them being more like modern religions though: not every place worships them exactly the same. So every one of those gods has multiple different branches (like as an example you would see in stuff like orthodoxy vs catholicism and etc).

This worldbuilding allows me to give my players a bit more freedom when it comes to domains and deity spells.

Basically, the player proposes a set of ~3 domains that "make sense" for the general principle of a god, and I tell him of a place where such a dogma would make sense.

Considering that the other classes that have a way to get the core mechanic of the class are getting a nerfed version of it, I think it would need to be more restrictive than a Hex Cantrip or permanent Familiar ability.

Magus Archetype can get Spellstrike at once per battle.
Rogue Archetype gets Sneak Attack with a non-scaling amount of damage.
Thaumaturge Archetype gets one Implement and only the first entry-level benefit for it.

Things like that.

So if gaining the Hex Cantrip via Witch Archetype, I would do something like make it a 'Focus 1' instead of a 'Focus Cantrip'.

That said, for Bard archetype, there is the option at lvl 8 for getting the equivalent "1 action class defining focus cantrip".

I wouldn't mind it being there for them Witch archetype either (and leaving the unique familiar abilities solely to the Witch as a defining feature).

ok, lets see...

Quote:

Formulas | Two common 1st-level alchemical poisons.

Field Benefit |
You can apply an injury poison you’re holding to a weapon or piece of ammunition you’re wielding as a single action, rather than as a 2-action activity. In addition, you flexibly mix acidic and poisonous alchemical compounds. Your infused poisons can affect creatures immune to poison. A creature takes acid damage instead of poison damage from your infused poisons if either the creature is immune to poison or that would be more detrimental to the creature (as determined by the GM). Typically, this benefit applies when the creature has an immunity, resistance, or weakness to one of the damage types.

Field Vials |
Your versatile vials have the poison trait and deal poison damage instead of having the acid trait and dealing acid damage (though your field benefit still applies). You can apply the contents of a versatile vial to a weapon or piece of ammunition as an injury poison. Add the versatile vial’s initial damage to the first successful Strike with that weapon or ammunition. The substance becomes inert at the end of your current turn.

Well, looks like your lying by selective quoting again.

The (your field benefit still applies) is talking about the poison to acid conversion.

Even if you toss your vials as bombs, you still get to convert them to acid when that would be more effective.

The text after that is what grants the vials the special ability to be used as an injury poison. That concept of using the VVs as an injury poison does not exist before that line of text.

You know that you are just repeating my words, prooving me right, right?

Yes, what I am saying is that the Poison to Acid Conversion still applies to a Poison that DOESN'T have a Usage Entry, proving that it is STILL an Alchemical Poison.

Since, you know, that Conversion ONLY applies to Alhemical Poisons.

But now we have a Versatile Vial, with no frequency, no onset, no Stages, and the book straight up tells us that it's STILL is an Alchemical Poison.
---

Which is the whole point of debate, that the Usage entry is NOT what makes something an Alchemical Poison, its Traits are.

---

Thank you for finally admitting you are wrong.

Quote:

An alchemical bomb combines volatile components that explode when the bomb hits a creature or object. Most alchemical bombs deal damage, though some produce other effects. Bombs have the bomb trait.

Quote:

Elixirs are alchemical liquids that are used by drinking them. They have the elixir trait. These potent concoctions grant the drinker some alchemical benefits.

Quote:

Alchemical poisons are potent toxins distilled or extracted from natural sources and made either stronger or easier to administer. Each poison's stat block includes the Price and features for a single dose. Poison doses are typically kept in a vial or some other type of safe and secure container.

Hmm... something is missing from this one.

Oh, there it is,

Quote:

Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits, which define how a creature can be exposed to that poison.

I hate to be so blunt, but I will respond to combat misinfo when I see it.

It's very, very clear that the single sentence in the general alch items is not definitional.

Meanwhile, each item section does include definitional language.

Try as you want, you're the only one spreading misinformation.

Again, the General Rule is very clear and you have gone out of your way to nver mention it once or even try to refute.

I'm still waiting why the sentence that SPECIFICALLY says "Poison Trait indicates Poison Category" doesn't apply.

---

Btw, for more evidence that you are flat out wrong, we can look at the Toxicologist entry:

Your versatile vials have the poison trait and deal poison damage instead of having the acid trait and dealing acid damage (though your field benefit still applies).

I wonder... Versatile Vials do not have a Usage Entry, and your Field Benefit only applies to "Infused Alchemical Poisons" why is it that it applies to *gasp* somethng that has the Infused, Alchemical, Poison, Traits but lacks the Usage entry!

Blashmemy!

p.s. I bolded the "still" word to indicate that it's not an alteration to a Rule.

shroudb wrote:

You do realize that at best your reading has 2 conflicting RaW texts, yes?

How you do handle the method of exposure text saying that all alch poisons have a method of exposure trait?

Even if you misread the RaW to say the poison trait defines the category, you now have a direct conflict with the other text.

What reason do you use to overrule the more specific text inside the actual alch poisons page, to instead have the general alch text trump it?

don't insert words into RAW: it never mentions anywhere in that passage that an alchemical poison is defined, or even indicated by the Usage entry.

It simply explains how to read the entries that follow, which ALL of them have Usage.

Which is a pretty simple explaination why it's there.

---

But the General rule, that future-proofs every item that they might print in any book thereafter is simple: Category is indicated by Trait.

For all we know, they might in a later book print a Poison that is contacted via Telepathy for all we know, or another crazy way that they might think, like, as an easy example "a poison that seeps off your skin" (which they actually did print)

so the General Rule of what is and isn't poison is meant to capture all things that might come out in the future, which is why it's there in the section that tells you how to find what category each item it is.

shroudb wrote:

The RAW is very clear on what DEFINES a category, and that is the item's TRAIT.

again:

Quote:

All alchemical items have the alchemical trait. Most also have the consumable trait, which means that the item is used up once activated. The bomb, elixir, mutagen, and poison traits indicate special categories of alchemical items, each of which is described on the following pages. Alchemical items without any of these traits are called alchemical tools and are described further on page 295.

If Poisons were NOT defined by their Trait, then there wouldn't be in the list that SPECIFICALLY calls them out as such.

---

You can't simply remove parts of teh RAW because you don't like poisons for some reason.
---

p.s. the item that i was talking about is Skunk bomb actually, which is both a Poison and a Bomb, as it has both traits.

You are correct, the RaW is clear, but you seem hell bent on reading words that do not exist.

Again, "indicate" is not "define"

And in the appropriate section on alchemical poisons, we do get a 100% reliable trait based way to ID alch poisons. It's the method of exposure traits.

indicate definition: to be a sign of; betoken; evidence; show

fr bruh?

---

You are the one who's hellbent of using a method of explosure, that details the items listed following that passage as something defining ALL Poisons, when the paragraph on Alchemical items SPECIFICALLY goes out of its way to say that TRAITS indicate the Category

---

we know you don't like poisons, but that doesn't allow you to change RaW.

---

Absolutely NOTHING is ambiguous of the sentence:
"All alchemical items have the alchemical trait. Most also have the consumable trait, which means that the item is used up once activated. The bomb, elixir, mutagen, and poison traits indicate special categories of alchemical items, each of which is described on the following pages. Alchemical items without any of these traits are called alchemical tools and are described further on page 295."

It even has clarifications on what items do NOT belong into the categories.

You are changing the meaning by quoting only half the paragraph.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3185 wrote:

Applying alchemical poisons uses Interact actions. A poison typically requires one hand to pour into food or scatter in the air. Applying a poison to a weapon or another item requires two hands, with one hand holding the weapon or item. The Usage entry for a poison indicates the number of hands needed for a typical means of application, but the GM might determine that using poisons in other ways functions differently.

This is clearly allowing a GM to enable a player to use an alch poison in an off-book manner, such as rigging an inhaled poison to pop it's cloud as a trap or something.

.

They very text you quote also directs the reader to the specific sections for each item category, and should not be treated as a complete definition.

Quote:

The bomb, elixir, mutagen, and poison traits indicate special categories of alchemical items, each of which is described on the following pages.

The RAW is very clear on what DEFINES a category, and that is the item's TRAIT.

again:

All alchemical items have the alchemical trait. Most also have the consumable trait, which means that the item is used up once activated. The bomb, elixir, mutagen, and poison traits indicate special categories of alchemical items, each of which is described on the following pages. Alchemical items without any of these traits are called alchemical tools and are described further on page 295.

If Poisons were NOT defined by their Trait, then there wouldn't be in the list that SPECIFICALLY calls them out as such.

---

You can't simply remove parts of teh RAW because you don't like poisons for some reason.

---

The lists were made for convenience, for those of us that use books, but the general rule was made and worded in a way that would be inclusive to items that would come out in future books.

That's why it's so simple.

Quoting the Usage method of a Poison, tht covers 99% of them, doesn't mean that the General rule that covers 100% of them doesn't apply for some reason.
---

p.s. the item that i was talking about is Skunk bomb actually, which is both a Poison and a Bomb, as it has both traits.

Poison trait does not define alchemical poisons.

Poison is different because it's not a ID-style trait, poison is also a damage/effect type.

Quote:

Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits, which define how a creature can be exposed to that poison.

Alch poisons as an item category are defined by a method of exposure trait, injury, contact, inhaled, and ingested.

Any item that deals w/ poison damage, or needs to allow a poison immune foe to ignore it, needs the poison tag. Therefore, it cannot be used as an ID trait like bomb, elixir, etc. Those traits exist as identifier (which means the only reason they can show up on an item is 100% clear).

.

I think the bomb shroudb is talking about is the Vexing Vapor, which I did completely forget about. It is a genuine exception to what I previously stated.

It is a bomb, that honestly may have gotten the inhaled trait as a dev error, but it does have it.
I have no idea how GMs is supposed to run the bomb RaI, because inhaled is a mechanical trait that creates a 2x2 cloud to expose creatures to an affliction. The bomb doesn't carry an affliction.

My best guess is that the cloud imposes the on-hit debuff to creatures inside, but that is so off the page and unwritten it's definitionally homebrew.

.

It sucks that's alchemy is in such a messy state at the moment, but we have to work with what we've got.

Sorry, you're wrong:

All alchemical items have the alchemical trait. Most also have the consumable trait, which means that the item is used up once activated. The bomb, elixir, mutagen, and poison traits indicate special categories of alchemical items, each of which is described on the following pages. Alchemical items without any of these traits are called alchemical tools and are described further on page 295.

What you are quoting is PART of the paragraph detailign specifically the Usage entry of Poisons. Elixir and Bomb poisons lack those, so it doesn't apply to them, but that doesn't make them any less of a Poison.

Furthermore, the Exposure method, which is from where you are quoting, does say that:

using poisons in other ways functions differently.

which means it's not all-inclusive.

---

As far as RAW is Concerned: having the Trait= Belongs to a Category.

It's stated very clearly afaik.

shroudb wrote:

Plus, we already have an item that's simultaneously a Bomb and a Poison.

I can muddle this even more: there are at least two elixirs with a Poison trait which I most definitely will still count as elixirs (with a poison trait) because they just give you poisonous qualities. Those are Viperous Elixir and Frogskin Tincture.

but it doesn't muddle thing.

as the RAW says, as long as the Trait exists, it's part of that category.

There's no problem for an item to belong to more than 1 category, it just gives access to more fields/archetypes to produce it.

Plus, we already have an item that's simultaneously a Bomb and a Poison.

For foods, I think they stuck with the original rule of "Tools are consumables that you don't drink" and that's why you see them both in Elixir section (liquid stuff like teas, coctails, and such) and non-drinkable stuff like puddings being Tools.

isn't the whole purspose of a Follower to have him follow you around while carrying around a split coconut so that you won't be needing horses in the first place though?

the main issue with gauntlet bow is that the gauntlet is not finesse. So either your melee hit would be behind your ranged hit or the other way around.

I don't think the Bodyguard is great atm:

The main issue I have is, from what I recall, you can't equip them with regular items. And while his shield scales with feats, it lags behind an ordinary sturdy shield.

So, realistically, if you want him just to block damage from you, you can every turn order him to move next to you and raise his shield, and then he'll use his reaction to shield block for you.

But for most itnents and purposes, all this chain of class feats is kinda worse than simply using a single general feat for shield block for yourself and simply spending the same 1 action to raise shield for yourself.

It has some benefits, don't get me wrong, like, it opens up the ability for you to use a twohander while there's a bodyguard next to you, or that you only spend 1 action as opposed to 1 action and 1 reaction, but the counterpoint is that it'll be an always-weaker shieldblock, since the hardness of their shield is behind a regular sturdy shield, and that they can die/get cc'ed out of the fight much more easily than you.

Other Companions seem a bit better, like the medic, I really like that one, since battle medicine is on a separate cooldown for each individual person, meaning that you can reliably get use out of him every fight without conflicting with your own abilities, and even his condition removal and action economy enhancers are great.

I haven't run the numbers on the berserker, but it seems iffy for him, since Companions are naturally more brittle than characters, and he relies on getting hit and lowering his defences to get the most out of his abilities.

---

Where the archetype really shines imo is in low count player games. When there's just 3-4 players as an example, you choosing a guardian, a champion, or a rogue, all of whom rely on other melee combatants to truly shine, is not always guaranteed. But with this archetype, there will always be an ally next to you to help with flank, opportunist, champion reactions, guardian bodyguard targets, and such.

That is the argument being made and it hinges on the idea that a mature companion has 1 action if not commanded while never gaining actions.

It's not the first, nor the last time that "someone" does a specific action (effect) without having an "action" (resource).

I'm not sure what's hard to parse here.

Take Four Winds as an example:

Mimicking the anemoi—monarchs of the four winds—you propel four creatures. Target up to four willing creatures within 30 feet of you. Each of those creatures can Stride up to half its Speed. If it has a fly Speed, it can instead Fly up to half its fly Speed.

Do you require that the four creatures have an Action, out of their turn, to Stride?

Where did this Stride come from if they cannot "spend an action" themselves?

Obviously it came from the effect of the Four Winds.

Why do you think that this is any different?

The specific effect of a Mature Companion gives them "do a Stride or a Strike"

It doesn't require for them to have actions (resources) to perform that (although it has other requirements).

Right.
1 action to make, 1 action to use.

To me the reading is pretty straightforward. "That spell" =/= "that slot". The description doesn't even mentioned spell slots, only if something is prepared or in the repertoire.

So, at least the way I've been running it since forever is that it's own separate thing

25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

obviously kineticist have low damage

they couldn't get decent damage per turn without playing with hazardous terrain or fall damage

even fire can only get 5d8 plus 15d6 per turn at level 20

with 20 from aura weakness 15 from fire junction

that is hardly impressive

You're selling him a bit short.

At level 20, fire can get:
- 20 from thermal nimbus + aura weakness in a friendly 30-feet emanation
- 6d6 + 5 (STR) + 10 (weakness) on a target 20 feet away as a free action (with furnace form that lasts 1 minute now)
- 15d8 (not d6, because you have fire junction) + 10 (weakness)
- Another free action thanks to kinetic pinnacle to get back your gate and your aura, so you can do the same the whole fight if you want.

So that's 15d8+10 with a reflex save (av 76,5), + 20 automatic damage to your opponents, + 6d6+15 at full MAP (av 36).

In comparison, a caster using falling stars deals 14d6+6d10, so average 82. If he's a sorcerer, he can add 9 to that for an average of 91. Still less than the kineticist.

He *could* use a 10th level slot, dealing 1d10+2d6 more, for a grand total of 103,5 but that's only once per day, maybe twice if he took the right feat. Then he's maybe on par with the kineticist (and that's not even a given since the 20 damage don't depend on a save) except on one target that gets

So how exactly does the kineticist in your example have low damage ? What are you comparing him with ?

Edit: To be clear, you could deal more damage with a sorcerer, but it requires planning and positioning. Archetyping into Oracle for Foretell harm would give you more damage, but then so can the kineticist if he's as serious about dealing damage as fire is. Using explosion of power would put him ahead by a fair margin but it requires some setup and isn't a given.

You could also argue that some DMs might not allow Furnace Form at the start of the fight, in which case you lose... 1d6 damage.

Even more with 1 round of setup with Ignite the Sun (another die on all impulses and an extra 7d6 (+weakness) per turn with a free action Sustain per turn.

I hope we can make a lightly armored (or even unarmored) PC who Taunts and then deftly avoids attacks, a la Spiderman.

Maybe with the Guardian archetype.

Yeah, that sounds more like a swashbuckler. Either Wit or Intimidate can taunt and/or ridicule enemies and nimbly avoid attacks/counterattack.

yellowpete wrote:

You probably shouldn't count Furnace Form if you're not gonna count Haste, they have the same upfront action investment and duration. Though Furnace Form damage would also increase quite a bit if you're getting hit back by the target for even more guaranteed weakness procs.

The whole calculation of adding just the damage values together is kind of misleading anyhow as these damages all have various different odds of applying (some happen always, some on anything but a crit success, some using a Basic save, some with an attack roll). They'd need their own multipliers.

But yeah, all in all I'd say Deriven gives a decent synopsis of the classes' general peaks and valleys there. One more thing to mention would be that you are bad at skills, which hurts unless the challenge in question just happens to be solvable with the Base Kinesis of your respective element(s).

I don't count furnace form because it slows down how fast you get into the fight.

You can be indefinately in furnace form, no reason to wait for combat to get into it.

It's a permanent buff since you can sustain it as a free action early on, and later on it's just 2 actions/minute to keep it up.

It's like spending actions in combat for the rogue to draw his weapons, no reason he hasn't his weapons out in combat.

You probably shouldn't count Furnace Form if you're not gonna count Haste, they have the same upfront action investment and duration. Though Furnace Form damage would also increase quite a bit if you're getting hit back by the target for even more guaranteed weakness procs.

The whole calculation of adding just the damage values together is kind of misleading anyhow as these damages all have various different odds of applying (some happen always, some on anything but a crit success, some using a Basic save, some with an attack roll). They'd need their own multipliers.

But yeah, all in all I'd say Deriven gives a decent synopsis of the classes' general peaks and valleys there. One more thing to mention would be that you are bad at skills, which hurts unless the challenge in question just happens to be solvable with the Base Kinesis of your respective element(s).

Furnace form can be kept up/recasted indefinitely.

A kineticist will not match the single target damage of a rogue, no.

You are comparing one of the best single target damage dealers of the game with a class designed around AoE.

But his own damage is not actually as bad as you make it out to be.

First of all, we should aknowledge that it's mostly ranged damage, 20-30ft of range vs melee makes a lot of difference, both in expected output (lower), but also in action economy (better).

Let's take the level you are comparing, 15:
A fire kineticist would be in fiery form, doing a 5d6+4+7(weakness) blast and a 8d8+7 flying flame and another 14 per round from Stance, and with a free movement every round due to free action sustain, it's very easy to always stay in range of your attacks.

so it's 16-41 per action for the blast and, multiplied by the amount of targets, 8-44 per action for the flying flame and 14 per round.

You are correct that in both cases, the limitation of "initial damage WHEN CAST" would bar them for benefiting from damage they deal after you've cast the spell.

But for Blessed Boundary in particular, Sorcerous Potency WOULD apply on the initial cast if you put it right on top of an enemy ("The shell deals 7d8 force damage to each creature who intersects with the shell when the sphere's created").

So:
Weapon of judgement: No
Blessed Boundary: If you catch some people on it when you cast it only.

Yes. I'm treating Taunt as a compulsion but thematically. Something that justifies an enemy to choose to deal with a harder opponent first, instead of those that are more logically have to deal first.

Isn't it the same as Frightened?

Do you think that all Frightned creatures should be Fleeing? Seeing as they are thematically "afraid"?

---

Your mistake here is putting much more weight on the effect that it is suppossed to represent:

Taunt does not make the enemy bloodlust and hellbent on killing the Taunter it makes him slightly aggravated, that's why it's "just" a -1, similarily to someone being midly afraig (Frightened 1) but not scared for his life (Fleeing).

Taunt debuff is similar to Frightened X.
For some reason you equate it to Controlled status effect which would be the one similar to Fleeing.

That's not my point. What I'm saying is that the GM tends to respect Taunt for both thematic and mechanical reasons.

With this in mind, is it really worth investing in feats that expect the GM to try to disrespect Taunt?

There's a high probability that feats like Proud Nail and Ring Their Bell will never be used because the GM can simply make the provoked creatures attack the guardian (what is the main intention of Taunt). Unless there are two guardians in the group, which would effectively make the creature negatively affected by both guardians, these feats would be the only thing preventing it from ignoring them and attacking other PCs, since it will suffer the effects of Taunt anyway.

So, with this in mind, is it really worth investing in feats that will never, or almost never, will have its requirements met?

The GM should respect it as much as a player would.

Imagine that you're fighting against an alchemist and his bodyguard, and the GM said to you: "The bodyguard is challenging you to focus on him instead of his boss, imposing a -1 to hit the alchemist"

How pressured would you feel to attack the bodyguard and not the alchemist?

Now, let's say you decide to ignore the bodyguard and he punishes you with a Stunned 2.

How pressured are you feeling now?

What if you had to spend an action to move to get to the bodyguard, while the alchemist is "right there"? Do you risk taking the punishment to not waste your action economy?

And etc.

Bottom line is, the thematics of the ability is not a mental domination but an issued challenge, and similarly to how a PC would choose to act differently depending on his debuffs, so do the monsters.

---

Ultimately, Taunt is not a magical compulsion that forces anyone to follow it.

The closest you can compare it would be a non mental Demoralize:

If you succeed at the Demoralize, the enemy is "afraid" (-1) but doesn't immediately Flee.

Similarly, if you Taunt, you "draw the attention" (-1) but don't immediately force enemy actions.

Bluemagetim wrote:

YuriP wrote:

shroudb wrote:

From the little I've seen, the main offensive capabilities of Guardians are against those who's ignore your Taunt.

So it seems counterproductive to try to build without it.

While I'm at it, if the GM (almost) never makes attacks that don't include the guardian, don't these punishing feats end up being a bit useless?

Because the punishment for attacking others without including the guardian is already quite high by default, and in roleplay terms, it probably means the enemy will hate the guardian a lot and will focus on it. Won't this mean that most of the punishing feats almost never have their requirements met?

Conceptually, it's a cool idea. But I can't really see it being used in practice except by GMs who attack randomly.

If the GM targets the guardian most of the time the party will do really well because more attacks will miss and weaker members will be able to get more aggressive. So win win.

That's not the point, the point is, if the GM is very likely to follow the Taunt, is it worth spending feats on something that will probably (almost) never be triggered?

It's like this: having a one-action “Power Attack” against provoked enemies that try to ignore you is cool, but if the GM always Taunts (which will probably be the most common), you'll, in practice, never use the feat.

I can only see these feats as “threats” to the GM, as if to say, “Look, I have feats on my sheet that will make me hit the enemy hard if you focus this enemy on me, so don't you dare!”

Since I don't think this is the case in healthy games, it ends up feeling like a waste of feats or just a weird to punish the GM NPC/Monster that doesn't want to focus on the guardian for some reason beyond the fact that it is already unfocused due to Taunt.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I'm excited to make a two-handed guardian that can vicious swing whoever ignores me. For those that got the PDF, did any of the bruiser-like

...

If the GM never ignores your taunt, and every single taunted enemy always attacks you, then it actually becomes really easy to mop up every fight because your allies can go bananas on the enemies.

What you're basically saying is "what if Taunt was a single action, non-save, 100% control the enemy ability".

Which the obvious answer is: it would be busted.

So, if the GM hands you such a busted ability, you thank him for it.

YuriP wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

So their Interpose Strike! Got changed as I saw, it is not more open on damage types but you lose your 2 + Level DR for lower DR of only 11 at level 20 but you get 12 hit points, was thsi change worth it? Discuss this because I am curious!

Is this "Interpose Strike" that you are talking about the Intercept Attack, or it's another thing?

Bingo and as far as I saw it is weaker then the old Interpose Strike, I forgot it had a different name but yeah it has less DR now at a max of 11 or 16 if level 20, which is less then 22, from the Playtest and i am not sure if this is a good thing seeing how it feels like the Champion still has a better defensive reaction, especially Justice.

Guardian has a lot more active defending going for him compared to the champion. So, overall, he protects better, even if this 1 ability is weaker than the champion's 1 ability.

I don't think it's fair to compare a single ability of one class with a single ability of another class, without considering the whole kit of either class, and try to extrapolate from that about general effectiveness on a role.

From the little I've seen, the main offensive capabilities of Guardians are against those who's ignore your Taunt.

So it seems counterproductive to try to build without it.

Persistent Damage wrote:

You are taking damage from an ongoing effect, such as from being lit on fire. This appears as “X persistent [type] damage,” where “X” is the amount of damage dealt and “[type]” is the damage type. Like normal damage, it can be doubled or halved based on the results of an attack roll or saving throw. Instead of taking persistent damage immediately, you take it at the end of each of your turns as long as you have the condition, rolling any damage dice anew each time. After you take persistent damage, roll a DC 15 flat check to see if you recover from the persistent damage. If you succeed, the condition ends.

The claim that a condition and damage are mutually exclusive is a pure invention by people on this website with no basis in the rules. In fact, this is contradicted by text around damage that refers to persistent damage as damage, such as Overwhelming Energy:

The claim is not that it's not damage, but that it's damage from a Condition imposed by an effect.

The RAW is pretty clear that it is a Condition, no refuting that.

It has its own rules about doubling and halving, but at the foremost, it's a Condition.

Again:

If you're enlarged, your Wounding sword doesn't get +2 to its bleed.
If you have a status bonus to damage, you don't add it to both the primary damage and the persistent damage.

---

You are free to argue otherwise, but you are not supported by any rules yourself either. At least the reading that a Condition does not get the benefit is more supported, and is the vastly more widly used according to my experience. It's also how VTTs calculate it.

yellowpete wrote:

First and foremost, it applies to "the spell's damage". If your bonus is Y, and the spell's damage is X, and you somehow end up doing X+2Y total damage every time you cast or sustain, that does not seem consistent with text or intention to me. It would be a welcome buff to psychic, I suppose, double dipping on their unleash bonus using spells with multiple damage types.

'Paizo hasn't clarified it' doesn't personally sway me one way or the other, as that can have many plausible reasons other than 'Mostly everyone reads it as applying the bonus twice like we intended, so no action needed from us here'.

Ok, so without Channeler's Stance, what does the persistent damage belong to? Where is it generated from? Is it a separate instance of damage?

Persistent damage is applied by the condition imposed by the spell. You do not modify the condition, only the base damage of the spell.

Similarily to how if you are Enlarged and hit with a Wounding Longsword, the bleed isn't getting an extra +2 damage.

Similarily to how if you throw an alchemist fire with a status bonus to your damage, you don't apply it to both the initial and the persistent part of the damage, but only on the initial.

We can also see it that in the Burn it! feat that has a separate condition for the persistent damage to get a (slight) boost to damage and doesn't inherit the "base" bonus to damage that all your alchemical items benefit from.

more one-sided stuff

It is purely in good faith, because while your words may say that you acknowledge the strengths of the class, you keep hoping from one class to another to compare him:

Pick a SINGLE class/subclass and compare to the Druid.

At the moment you're saying you are "acknowledging the spellcasting" while you compare him to a barbarian.

Pick a SINGLE class, and I'll point out what the druid does better than said class.

He has extremely better spellcasting than a barbarian.
He's more defensive and a better martial than a cloistered.
He's much better defensively than a sorc and better in melee.
And etc.

The effect doesn't inherit the magic trait, so even that would be questionable, in spite of the description.

Note that the construct ability (not a feat) does inherit the construct trait.

Descriptions are important though. Oftentimes more important than the Traits.

And in most cases, items made out of a thing do not have the corresponding Trait:

A steel sword is made out of metal, even if it doesn't have the Metal Trait.

It's not like a lit torch is not emitting fire because the torch item doesn't have the Fire trait.

In this case, the ability in question directly says that it is straight up "a mass of magic".

It is exactly the same as saying that a metal sword is indeed made out of metal.

So, the ability itself tells us what it is, regardless if the trait is missing.

Ignoring what an effect directly tells you it is leads to chaos. By Trait definition, you can light a bonfire underwater using flint and steel, none of those have the "fire trait". Or that rust effects do not work on common steel armor and weapons because they lack the Metal trait.

Also, if we want to be so pedantic about traits:
The Magical Trait only applies to things "imbued with magic". It wouldn't apply to Stitched because it's not "something imbued with magic" it's something "made entirely out of magic".

The main problem I see stems from players trying to shoehorn druid in doing only 1 thing. Only forms, or only blasting, or only healing, and etc.

A damage comparison with a barbarian offers absolutely nothing in the context of balance for the battle forms as an example. Because I don't think anyone is suggesting battleforming on T1 and spend all your turns just striking being something "optimal" (regardless if your fantasy is a character that's shifts and strikes, you should probably wait for Shifter or try a fighter/druid for just doing that.).

You battleform after your initial barrage, or for utility, or for special reasons where you absolutely need heavy Strikes.

Druid, alongside bard, are imo the 2 strongest casters in the game. For different reasons, but druid relies on their flexibility to reach that spot. No one can match their flexibility. And they get that on top of being a 10th rank caster.

Sorcerer may be build for higher damage, Cleric has higher healing, wizard more spells, animist better gish potential, but druid combines most of the above bonuses without sacrificing much in output.

And that's what makes the class, when properly utilised, so strong.

For straight up just damage at high levels, a Fighter also has some tools if he just wants to swing:

Needle through the God's eyes will give you move+2 Strikes at full Fighter Map, followed by Certain Strike that does damage even on a miss followed by Desperate Finisher for a Brutal Finish.

This will give you, even without haste or anything:
1 30ft+ Leap
2 Strikes at full map
2 Strikes that do (some) damage even on a miss (and one of them extra damage on a hit)

Obviously, Reactive Strike is better than Desperate Finisher, but if you don't want to bother with positioning, reach, and all those to optimise for Reactive Strike, Desperate is just an extra attack.

Interesting, so essentially I need Str that's the only way to make it work.

An alternative way to Trip would be to take Acrobat dedication and Tumbling opportunist, and basically Trip using your Acrobatics, as part of a tumble through action, once per 10 minutes.

best you could do is grabbing Assurance athletics and use 3rd actions to try to trip mooks with it I guess.

but no way you could trip level appropriate foes with any semblance of regularity with a -1 or a +0.

Emphasis added for your convenience. I'd be happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you somehow missed this part of my post that you nonetheless directly responded to, but even so, you're spending an awful lot of time arguing on the letter of the discussion rather than the substance, so I'd ask you to spend a bit more time on the latter instead.

You literally posted my example of specifically saying "if you have 7th rank spells you use 5th rfank heals" and somehow still managed to try to twist my words to say that i said "if you have 10th rank heals and you use 5th rank spells".

I'm still not sure you understood my argument...

But to make it more simple for you:

When you have 10th rank spells, the free feats that you got on level 1 are indeed worth less.

But so do the extra spells. When you get Font at level 1, you get 4 free spells to add to your arsenal of 3 spells. More than a 100% increase in slots. In level 20 you have an extra 6 spells compared to your arsenal of around 20 usable spells. Around 30% more slots.

So yes, the Druid features become less obvious as you level up, but so does the Font as well.

As a high level Druid, you still have enough lower rank heals to both be impactful and not spend from your main thing. The practical difference is that you are healing around 20-30% less than a Cleric, NOT that you do not have enough slots for healing.
Similarily, the practical difference of Cleric is that he does 20-30% less damage than a Druid, NOT that he doesn't have enough slots for damage.

So, basically, across all levels, they are equal.

Hang on, why are we moving the goalposts here? The point of comparison was the Cleric's 10th-rank divine font, so a 5th-rank heal is going to be quite literally half the healing. That's not hyperbole, and even if I had made the claim that the Druid were using 10th-rank slots to heal, which I didn't, then that would just be a false claim, not hyperbole either.

But also, speaking of false claims, you seem to be insisting on the assumption that the Druid will never be using 9th-rank slots to heal: why is that? Even compared to just 7th- or 8th-rank slots, casting a 5th-rank heal is substantially less effective already, but compared to a 9th-rank slot, which you have three of, that's only slightly over half the healing.

I never moved any goalposts, you did.

I specifically said, in the post you quoted "if you have 7th rank spells, you use 5th rank heals".

You took that and said "If Cleric is using 10th rank heals and druid is rusing 5th rank Heals it's half healing".

Obviously, if you have 10th rank available, you aren't using 5th for in combat healing, you are using 7th and 8th.

And no, using a 5th rank when you have 7th rank avaialble, isn't "substantial less healing", not any more than using cleric instead of druid is "substantial less damage".

Karkol wrote:

A melee flurry ranger with the barbarian Archtype and Dragon Instinct feat (two feats required) striking with a falcata and light hammer whilst raging:

1 First action - Twin strike. d8 weapon (Fatal d12) +8 damage, plus d6 weapon +6 damage at MAP -2. All damage is spirit or force.

2 Second action - d6 weapon +6 damage at MAP -4. Spirit/force damage.

3 Third action - d6 weapon +6 damage at MAP -4. Spirit/force damage.

It's not as much damage as a greatsword, etc. But the -2/-4/-4 MAP means you hit & crit a lot more than three swings at 0/-5/-10.

If you really want to optimize the melee flurry ranger, using advanced weapons, the Tamral Chakram is a very good option. d6, agile, deadly. Add damage runes as soon as possible, sneak attack from rogue which adds a lot of other good feats and if allowed, exemplar for Shadow sheath. If you go for str, dex, con, wis, you can even use them for throwing if needed.

Falcata is a good weapon, but when you reach L18 with impossible flurry it loses out due to having to make 3 attacks with higher MAP.

Flurry melee ranger is a very high damage dealer if you can commit all your actions for attacks. Even hasted actions. So quite boring in combat. Find an opponent, hunt prey, take it out with an all out attack.

To lower the "burden" of hunt prey at later level, double prey is very useful. And always try to hunt prey before combat, where possible.

While dual wielding is indeed strong for damage, the OP asked for a great weapon user though.

shroudb wrote:

you missed my point:

my point is that you are NOT using high rank spells for

Oh no, I understood your point perfectly fine, I just don't think it makes any sense when stretched to this extent. Using a 5th-rank heal instead of a 10th-rank heal is literally half the healing: fine I guess if you have nothing better to do on your turn except top up an ally and maybe stop persistent bleed damage that hasn't yet hit them, not so great when an ally gets chunked and needs healing to get out of the danger zone, or when your party ate an AoE and needs to be brought back up a meaningful amount. I would generally not blast with spells 5 ranks below the maximum unless I'm trying to finish someone off with a pocket force barrage, and I don't think healing is a consistent enough exception to that principle. Having seen and played Clerics at high level, their heal font stays just as relevant as at early levels; having the best healing in the game on-tap is just that good.

Aparently not.

Especially if you need hyperboles to drive your point.

If you are having 10th rank Font as the Cleric, you are using 7th-8th rank Heals as the Druid, not 5th.

And yes, that's just 20% less healing, similar values as how cleric is less damage than a druid.

---
The math is pretty simple imo:
At easrly levels, the font is stronger because it's overall more spells compared to your slots. At later levels, it's weaker because it's less.

At early levels, the druid features are stronger because no one has enough resources to pick up all the goodies he gets for free. At later levels it's weaker because you have those resources to pick up some of them.

The each balance out across all levels of play.

---

At this point, it's obvious you are not arguing actual values, but feelings. And that's ok, it's your right not to like a class.

But that doesn't make it weak, especially since Druid is one of the strongest casters of the game.

I do still think that counterbalancing argument goes both ways at higher level: those high-rank spell slots you're spending to heal competently are spell slots you're not spending on other powerful spells, so having an extra reserve of maximally-strong heals is still a massive advantage. The Druid can get focus spells like tempest surge that help make them less reliant on spell slots for sure, but then the Cleric also gets excellent spells like fire ray that have at least equal scaling and thus stay equally relevant at higher levels.

Again, the argument in favor of the Druid's focus spells or feats isn't as strong as it used to be now that many casters have caught up in the remaster: moreover, the consistent issue here is that unlike the cleric's divine font, most of the Druid's strengths are entirely poachable through archetyping: anyone can access those order spells, but many classes simply choose not to, despite the Psychic multiclass being overpicked specifically due to their amps. For this reason, I suspect that the power of the Druid's focus spells is being somewhat overstated here, as they would be poached far more often if they were as strong as they were made out to be.

you missed my point:

my point is that you are NOT using high rank spells for Heals. If you are able to use 7th rank spells, you use 5th rank for heals.

You do a bit less healing than max, but still you do good enough. Similar to how cleric does good enough damage, but not as high as Primal. Similar to how domain spells are good enough, but not as good as druid order spells.

Which is why at higher level, Font is relatively weaker. Instead of doubling your slots, as it does early on, now it only gives like 10-20% more slots.

The poaching issue is something separate, that can point to not feeling "unique enough" but has no merit in "how strong it is". In fact, if they are features strong enough to poach, that only points out that they are actually good things to have as default.

Well, invisible to creatures you encounter at level 18+ who lack See Invisibility, Truesight, or a nonvisual sense for precise detection.

tbf, even with true sight and see invisibility, you'll often have the higher rank of the spell so you have the edge on the countercheck for them to see you.

Like, a Balor has a constant 6th rank True sight. Even on a critical success on a counteract, he won't be able to see through a 19th level Monk with Embrace active.

I didn't find anything that explicitly allowed it to bypass the need for the separate Magical Crafting feat where it mentioned that the normal Crafting rules for the most part applied as-is, which seemed... odd. It seemed suggested but not explicitly codified, to my reading.

Graft technician:

The very first sentence of the feat tells you you can create them, so you can.

It's a typical case of specific>generic, where generic tells you you need Magical crafter to craft magical items, and Graft Technician specifically telling you that with this feat you can craft Grafts.

A common problem I had with my Psychic when I played him was that the suppossed tradeoff bonus of Unleash, for all its massive penalties, was not just the damage bonus, but also the fact that you could use the specific Unleashed actions.

In practice, from level 1 to 16 that i've played him, i used said actions less than half a dozen of times due to action economy:

when you only get 2 rounds of damage, and it's only on those same 2 rounds that you can use the unleashed actions, you really do not have the action economy to even use them.

So, given that, what IF instead of the damage bonus, the Unleashed state gave you something like "your first cantrip of the round costs only 1 action"

Having a 1 action cantrip for 2 rounds, starting from round two, and then having the severe penalty of stupefied, imo wouldn't break anything, it would help with actually giving you enough action economy to use the Unleashed actions, or just do a cantrip and a spell on those rounds.

It would really feel like you are Unleashing everything you have in those 2 rounds, and you become winded and stupified afterewards as well.

The tattoo is mostly for non clerics divine casters, since they are the only ones benefitting from Sanctification.

That aside, I'd be fully ok with a non sanctified cleric retraining to it.

In some cases, I'd even recommend it:

Keeping in mind what Sanctification means, that you take active role in the war between Holy and Unholy, it 100% stands to reason that someone that had no interest in said war suddenly decides to get involved (your village getting destroyed by demons, friends getting caught by an Unholy agent, etc).

And I see no reason their deity, which is directly involved in said war, wouldn't grant them the power to fight in it.

so even of the tree is adjacent to a 100-foot long draon, it can still react to an attack on the far side of the creature it is adjacent to - basically regardless of size?

You don't need it to be adjacent to the dragon (assuming the dragon is the attacker), you need it to be adjacent to the one being hit.

But yeah, if you are a large minotaur, and you have the tree on your "back", it will block a blow from the "front".

the only thing that matters is if the tree is adjacent to the Ally it tries to protect.

Numbing tonic is X temporary hp per round, but it's 1 fight (1 minute duration)

Juggernaut is Y temporary hp per fight total, but can be multiple different fights (recharges every minute basically for either 10 minutes duration, or 1 hour duration).

You could use Implement of Destruction (6th) on your friend's weapon, making it deal an additional 4d6 persistent damage on a hit for a minute.

You can also cast Seal Fate to give to the target weakness to whatever type of damage your friend is doing.