To be fair I feel it has a wonderful symmetry too it. We had years of people denying their was martial caster balance problem in pathfinder 1e.
To be fair it's not like the alchemist has high defences, skill supremacy, unique and impactful effects going for it, it needs to be good at something.
So I have seen a lot of comments that amount to why play a sorcerer when you can play x - particularly for the Cleric (divine) and the Bard (occult).
Because those classes get powerful class features (composition cantrips and Channel energy etc) which the sorcerer doesn't.
Given composition cantrips are neet and Channel energy amounts 3-6 extra top level spells I can see where they are coming from.
Do you feel these criticism are fair?
Well s tier doesn't exist in this edition and you could argue that A doesn't either, so it comes down to most tier 3 - 5 for pathinder 2e so it comes down to how well you do at the one or two things your good at.
So tier List used to be all the rage in 3.5 and pathfinder.
Its pretty early in the life of edition so we don't know what splat book spells and Feats might change things in the future. But what classes would you say are particularly good at doing their job and which ones would you saily are particularly poor.
So far I would rate the fighter as great at its jobs.
The rogue, barbarians, ranger, bard and cleric as good at their job.
The wizard, Sorcerer and druid as adaquate at their job.
The alchemist as inadequate at its job.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Your maths is wrong for the level 20 martial non fighter who gets 20l+6a+6m+3i=35 so 50% chance to hit, the fighter gets 60% chance to hit. Also the level 20 analysis favors casters given how back ended their Proficiency increases are getting legendary at 19 is a real game changer.
It seems weird design if it was intentional to balance casters so they had a similar chance of missing with an diminished effect than martial have of hitting. Having the default result of spellcasting actions be mitigated failure was bound to make casters feel weak even if those miss effects are worth the actions and a resoures required to get them.
Mind you I can't argue that that addition is the firsts since 4e to have has fixed the caster supremacy issue which is a good thing.
Lol my maths was wrong, typical. Oh well least it was in the right direction.
So did the devs ever explain why full casters get their Proficiency boosts two levels later than martials (7,15) rather than (5, 13).
It seems a weird choice when casters already lag behind on chance to land their effect due to having no enhancement to dcs.
I do wonder if you look at appropriate enemies saves if caster were originally meant to get a boost to dcs from focus items but when they decided not to include them they did not update the enemy maths which is a pretty 4e style problem.
Mind you some of the issue may be from my 4e style homebrewed saves mechanic where the party roll spell attack vs will/reflex/Fort defence(enemy save bonus + 10) so I have to do less rolling. But that shouldn't change the maths by more than 5 percent. But the issue has been highlighting when I tell my players they miss on a 13 or 14.
To be fair looking at those statistics in another light they show against an appropriate boss a wizard has a 5% chance of getting their full spell effect vs a strong save, a 35% chance vs a weak save and a 15% chance on a medium save.
The wizards chances of a critical failure are the same as a fighters chance of a success whilst also burning limited resources.
The last one was my one and I noticed at least 2 more before.
So I believe in terms of player satisfactions about a 50-65 percent chance of success is meant to be the sweet spot. Low enough so there is a significant risk of failure but high enough that you aren't often getting round after round of demoralising failure (Flurry of misses).
When it comes to spells I imagine the the sweet spot would be on the higher end of that band because when you fail not only are you wasting your action but you are also wasting a finite resource which you need for all your best effects. So I do find it weird that these resource burning actions are less accurate 7 time out of 10.
Having thought about it most of the nature witch characters I can think of probably would be moddelable just fine by a druid.
Interestingly non evil witches in fictions tend to be really defined by place so you get swamp witches, sea witches, village witches/wise women. In terms of abilities that cross all witches the only things that come to mind are divination (flavoured by locations) curses,healing and potions/tinctures.
I’m not a huge fan of primal for the witch. Primal magic uses the vital essence, which is based around a connection to and or faith in something (nature in the case of primal magic). Witches aren’t wisdom casters, and aren’t based around a faith in or instinctual connection to nature, they learn through lessons from their patrons, and are int based. So based on the essences, Witch should use a magical tradition that has the mental essence, either arcane, occult, or pick one of them. Of those two lists, I think occult fits the flavor of witch the best.
But the nature witch is one of the most common tropes for witches in fiction.
So I would have thought at level 20 the max possible damage a martial could do is playing a reach lunging dueling fighter Multiclass paladin using a flickmace (preferably embiggened by an ally for that sweet 25ft reach) and making hay with combat reflexes (extra aop per turn) improved combat riposte (extra riposte per turn) and Boundless Reprisals (extra reaction per enemy turn) and the paladin defensive reaction.
Assumimg teleport are not ubiquitous melee enemies would have to go to a lot of trouble to avoid triggering aop if you have maxed reach even at level 20, so you should be getting 1 to several extra attacks without penalty per turn.
So has anyone yet got to level 20 and does this play out or is it just theory crafting?
Nice a perfect passive aggressive apology I like the everything before the but trope.
So obviously objects making saves are basically just balance mechanics rather than a reality mechanic. So don't tell your players that your pillar is making a reflex save and just narrate the scene depending on how much damaged the pillar takes from blackened to broken. Its a bit meta but almost always best in a system like pathfinder 2.0 to derive your fiction from the outcome rather than mechanics that lead to them. The miss that kills an enemy should be given more attention than the crit that doesn't.
Mainly the actual shadow skill technique, the idea you can talk yourself strong, psyche yourself up is very much the heart of the mythic berserkers.
So an action to rage/ chant martial arts language doesn't need any real adaption. Its the how to get a martial artist causing big explosions, without massive amounts of adaption the options are the 20th level stomp feat and the dragon breath feat both of which thematically could be used for kurudan martial arts.
Is it intentional that the Bottomless Pit hazard (level 9) suggests a method of escape that actually kills the player? (paizo input appreciated)
But then you get to make a in bruge reference and ask "are you an inanimate object"
So I was thinking what changes I would need to make to barbarian into a martial artist from shadow skills. So there main stick hypnotising themselves with martial arts language to surpass their physical limits so so pretty comparable to rage and firing hadukons. So I was thinking some type of mix between dragon and animal totem to get the required effects. So which feat do you think animal totem would have to lose to justify giving them a dragons breath feat?
So I do feel giant barbarians damage increase should have scaled better than the dragons, at first level a +2 to damage vs - 1 to AC and Reflex is a just about even trade at level 20 it's an awful trade.
I think even a extra +2 at each each specialisation level would have done it, so +6, then +12, then +22 would have been better.
Or maybe just adding another damage type to barbarian resistance or more temporary hit points from rage so you can play out the easy to hit but hard to take down concept of the giant barbarian better.
So I play testing the a level 4 Swashbuckler in a roll20 game (late to the party) so I am really tempted to take Impaling Finish because it looks but I am wondering if it is awfully impractical.
How often does the positioning to make it work come up in natural play without literally shoving enemies into place ?
Also do diagonals work ?
So say you are x and have two enemies y adjacent
If you moved diagonal
would y y be eligible targets for this feat ?
Those were kits not feats totally different thing.
Because swashbuckler is an general fiction trope which people have seen i films, tv ,novels and comic books and the aldori dueilst is just an example of that trope based a small part of gonalorian.
Though I might get annoyed when we get to the point we have a musketeer(gunslinger) rather than a musketeer (swashbuckler) because Dumas is one of the fathers of the swashbuckler genre and I want to fire my pistol once and do fancy fencing.
So I was looking at the swashbuckler class and noticed it had a raging athlete equivalent.
Does anyone else feel it's a bit sad that these classes have a feat that looks like it would be brilliant for the exploration pilar of the game (a buff to climbing, swimming and jumping) but can only be used in combat.
It defiantly more brutal I had my first party tpk in the plaguestone game, I went in as a level fighter hit a bad guy twice (double slice) doing about 15hp and then the boss who was 3 to 4 levels higher than the partycrit me (on a 14 or 15) which put me down to 5 hp and got a free action shove which pushed me in a trap which knocked me out.
The rest of the party flailed in effectively against his AC as he took 1 out per turn. Unfortunately we didnt have a healer because the gm told me afterwards he didn't have that many hit points and if I hit with another double slice I could have taken him out. It kind of killed the game but that roll20 for you.
So by ready to use I assume it means if you have an action or reaction available to to attack/block/maneuver with it you can immediately do so and a one handed large sword wielded in one hand would meet that criteria, as you could choose to strike and make attacks of opportunity with it without having to spend any actions to ready it.
So I was looking at some of the more common attack patterns for this class and I was wondering would most people risk getting the -5 penalty to their finisher or go for the more likely hit with their higher damage attack and do more movement and demoralizing and bluffing with their extra action.
So Tumble, Finisher, Demoralize/step or Strike, Tumble, Finisher?
I suppose at level 6 and onward's the feat that lowers the MAP penalties and wielding a short-sword (agile) does reduce the penalty to -3 and assuming flat-footed that still leaves a good chance to hit a lot of foes.
This may be me being stupid but according to that definition of wielding requires you to be holding a weapon (in the correct number of hands) and be ready to attack with it so as far as I can see if you wielding a 1 handed large weapon in one hand and medium weapon in the other hand you would still be wielding a large weapon for the purpose of the rage boost and clumsy. If you attacked with the medium weapon you would still be wielding the large weapon and still clumsy so why wouldn't the rage bonus apply ?
Basically the condition for the rage bonus isn't making an attack action with a large weapon its wielding one which the provided definition showed are different things (being ready to attack =/ attacking).
I see what he is saying, unless there is a specific ingame defenition for wielding (is their?) then you don't need to be attacking with a weapon to wield it and its the wielding of the weapon rather than the attacking that increases the rage bonus and then the rage bonus applies as standard to all melee attacks.
So you should be able to hold your mighty large one handed flick ace and be punching someone in the face at same time getting the bigger rage bonus on the punch (halved because of agile of course).
Ps playing devil's advocate here the only reason to rule it this way is to avoid punishing giant barbarians that want to grapple and thrash though I suppose you could count a person as a large weapon for the purpose of that feat.
So the errata changed the bulk of an adventurers kit to 1 and also ruled that backpacks help you ignore 2 bulk for the purposes of encumbrance.
The adventurers kit comes with a backpack so I just wanted to check this was correct.
So if you have an adventurers kit (bulk 1), a healers kit (bulk 1) a climbing kit Bulk 1 and a Repair Kit Bulk 1 and place them all in the backpack included in the adventurers kits backpack (hitting the 4 bulk max for a backpack) it will only count 2 bulk of that towards encumbrance?
Hi so I feel the main reason the alchemist is underwhelming is that alchemical items seem pretty weak, obviously as these are items that everyone can buy so some limits should be in place.
I was thinking for an alchemist if you had a feature let's call it empowered alchemy that halved the number of items you could produce but doubled the damage and healing they did and say removed or halved the penalty from elixirs and mutagens that might make the alchemist feel more effective.
What do you think?