siegfriedliner's page

Funnily again maybe because of my experience with the warlord I am expecting decent weapon and armor proficiency because the bard can already do the lead from the back thing and I would want my Commander to lead from the front.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

4e had the Warden, Fighter, Paladin, Battlemind, and Swordmage, all of whom filled that same role, more or less, and all of whom did it in distinctly different ways. I don't think it's going to be a problem.

I disagree. For example in 4e the Fighter was a damage dealer, and as such less of a tank than the Paladin.

But in PF2 case, there's no real place to position the Guardian. The Champion is very close to the bare minimum in terms of defense: Legendary armor (hard to be under that as that would mean have as much AC than any other martial), Master weapon (hard to be under that without not being a martial), a strong reaction that is easy to grab (you can remove the reaction but then Guardian + Champion Dedication would become too good), and nothing else. I don't see much space to fit the Guardian.

So I'm puzzled. I don't say it's impossible, but as of now I have hard time seeing what they'll do with the Guardian that doesn't end up as being just another Champion (or a superior Champion).

In 4e the fighter was a tank it punished enemies that attacked your allies and kept them clustered around the fighter with opportunity attacks which also set ended their movement on a success.

The fact that defended their allies through doing damage didn't change the fact they were a tank. All tanks need a big cannon.

The paladin was also a tank too but they were a lot less sticky and many argued less effective at protecting their allies.

It was the charm of 4e you could tank in many different ways. You could tank by being a blackwhole that suck in enemies around them and not letting go, by providing a penalty to hit allies, by punishing them for attacking allies or by mitigating enemy damage directly (in a similar vain to the champion reaction).

For a martial defender you could have reactions to punish enemies that move away from you, reactions to punish enemies that attack your allies, a stance to apply a penalty to enemies who attack your allies for enemies whilst being within your reach, a stance to make the terrain in your reach difficult terrain for your enemies etc.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Hold up. I just realized... we don't know for certain that the Commander is the PF2 Warlord. What if it's the Martial Summoner instead?

Or heck - what if it's both? Your main character doesn't have much in the way of ability to deal direct damage, but they do have an array of non-spell buffing abilities, and then you have a second eidolon-but-not character who actually does the face-smashing? We have been asking for a Martial Summoner, after all...

There's a blog that gives hints of what both classes will do. The Guardian is going to be a heavily armored, taunting tank, for example.

I hope the guardian will have an ability when they hammer/drum on their shield it's such a meme of historical drama I would love to see it can a move.

I came from 4e DnD and one of my favourite classes of all time was the Warlord.

Which was a battle field support martial that buffs it's allies and grants them attacks.

So I saw the announcement of the Commander for the Warcry play test and got very excited to finally see a paizo doing something that thematically at least looks similar.

Is anyone else super excited for the commander ? Has anyone played the old 4e warlord ? What are you hoping from the class.

siegfriedliner wrote:

It seems odd when an eidolon doesn't have a body any more (unmanifested) it could still be taking poison, especially given their is nothing you can do about out.

What makes you think it doesn't have a body?

Secrets of Magic pg. 58
"Home Plane: This is the eidolon's home plane, where it goes when unmanifested. This can help you determine the effects of abilities dependent on a creature's home plane, such as banishment."

This means that beast and plant eidolon go back to the Material Plane, which leads to some... interesting questions.

It's mainly down to the dragon eidolon description being the one that most stuck with me, as a dragon data packet who needs a summoner to effect reality. Though I suppose the construct eidolon is more explicit about it being a thought form construct rather than material one.

YuriP wrote:

Honestly I think that clear condition when your Eidolon unmanifests is TGTBT. This easily would end in "Oh! My Eidolon was debuffed. Let's unmanifest it to clear it without any checks".

That's why I consider that's all effects are ongoing no matter if the eidolon is in the field or not.

I run it so that conditions keep going, especially poison and disease. It has to keep rolling. Same with bleed. There is some inference that when unmanifested, it is on another plane.

Stuff that will be gone by the next time you manifest are gone.

Permanent or longer duration conditions stay.

It seems odd when an eidolon doesn't have a body any more (unmanifested) it could still be taking poison, especially given their is nothing you can do about out.

I probably would agree durations should continue (both buffs and debuffs) but I wouldn't apply effects that seem to require a body a plant eidolon for example unmanifested is just a bunch of amorphous primal energy and not a dimensional jumper.

Captain Morgan wrote:

The biggest problem with animal companions, IMO, is expectations. They are not player characters, or even cornerstone class features. They are feats. Feats which can flank with you for no actions and soak enemy hits that could put stronger PCs down. If you don't like their accuracy, use their support benefit instead.

A ranger with an animal companion can't be that much better than a ranger who spent their feats on something else. If you want your pet to be the star of the show, be a summoner instead.

My biggest gripe is how much the support benefits vary. None of them are useless, but some are general debuffs or DPR enhancers and others are niche and will only shine in certain parties. You either neither to reflavor or be really meta about your party composition instead of organically choosing a species.

It's a lot of feats though for not a cornerstone class ability. If it were one or two feats, sure, shouldn't be too powerful.

It's AC base feat, mature AC, then nimble or savage AC, then specialization. Then toss in a feat like get heal animal and side by side. You basically spent five feats for a nearly useless AC at high level. A five feat investment sure seems like you really invested a lot to build around an AC as a cornerstone feature of your character.

Once I found this out with my druid, I asked the DM to retrain out of my AC feats because it was too much of a pain to use at high level. Just a liability keeping it alive and clean of conditions. At high level so many monsters can apply multiple conditions passively or you get hit by waves of spells. It's just not worth the bookkeeping and resources to keep it alive and clean of negative effects for three dice of damage maybe once a round if the AC can actually get to the monster or punch through its DR.

You can retrain at later levels and it will always at least provide a flanking buddy and pool of disposable hit points.

So eidolons don't interact with the "death and dying rules" because the moment they reach 0hps they unmanifest and the summoner has to deal with death and dying rules.

So as an eidolon never gains the dying or wounded conditions doomed doesn't do anything. As for what happens when a eidolon is reduced to 0 hps by a death effect that is a more interesting question because it doesn't have such a clear answer.

So there are a couple of questions about eidolons that weren't really answered last time I looked and I wanted to check if we had heard something since.

1st Can eidolon use mundane items (healers tools, thieves tools etc)
2nd What happens to afflictions on the eidolon when they are unmanifested (poison, disease etc).
3rd What happens when an eidolon is reduced to 0 hps by a death effect (does the specific rule that an eidolon unmanifest when reaching 0hps trump the general rule that creatures die when reduced to 0 hps by a death effect)

I mostly take the view that there is room in tabletop roleplaying for the dark themes and sanding the edges of everything leads to everything becoming duller.

But that's mainly a stance I take for people complaining about darker themes in media, massmarket censorship where material doesn't get published because it could offend because most subjects with any weight can offend someone.

I believe that their are some roleplaying games that can reach the level of art, I have seen one or two streamed call of chuthulu games that were genuinely chilling and I have had moments in games I have played that transcended the game and the mechanic and became something more.

Most of the most memorable scenes I have roleplayed or seen were people (pc) standing up in the face of unspeakable darkness and horror and so I have to believe there is a space for such in roleplaying games.

So Golarian and our Earth are already linked The Ossirian Gods are the Acient Gods of Egypt and Golarian and Earth both unfortunately share a troublwd history with Baba Yaga.

If I was going for an alt history to bring the two worlds into closer alignment I would make a run off of reign of winter where baba Yaga is the Empress of Winter as using Earth as a rallying point for her conquest of Golarian.

Which caused Golarian to send heroes to earth to disrupt the Mad Witches march of conquest.

I was mulling over how I would build batman in pathfinder 2e and a funny thought occurred to me.

If you look at what batman is foremost respected for (or at least my impression) it's his detective skill (perception) and iron will (will).

So when making batman who you want to have an iron will and great detective skills and fast reflexes you would pick wisdom as one of his highest stats. Everything wisdom does in the game all of wisdoms skill (except perhaps religion) are vital for your batman.

But inherently when I think of batman the character I don't think of him as an incredibly wise individual, he makes reckless descions and puts others in danger fairly frequently and to a great extent he lets his trauma have far to much dominance of his life

I find amusing the interplay between wisdom as a game mechanic and wisdom as a concept. Though in truth all it really shows is the obvious fact that vague somewhat philosophical concept do not map onto rigid game mechanics. A fact that anyone remotely sensible ,(ie not me) wouldn't need to have spend 30 minutes of his life thinking about.

But are their any functional mechanics that don't quite map to the concept that vaguely inspired that have amused you recently.

So 7 + 5 + 1 (lifting belt) +2 hefty hauler + 3 anthaul =18

Become huge 18*4 =72

You also get to treat 2 bulk items as light so

72*20= 1440 bulk

So enlarge is the best weight lifting spell by a country mile.

See relevant rules

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=256

I still have the suspicion that she might arise from the shadows to take on Aroden's mantle of God of Humanity.

Please chill, people.

The fact that they may or may not have intended all along for Wounded to work the way it's is presented in the Remaster is entirely irrelevant. Unless you're super invested in doing an I-told-you-so dance.

What matters is that these are the Remastered rules. There is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the text of "increase your dying level by 1 (plus your wounded value)". That is just how recovery checks work now, officially. I'm confident the devs know about these discussions, and they'll issue an errata if there actually was a mistake.

You may choose to play them in a different fashion, and I wouldn't judge anyone for doing that given most people don't play in the way the Remaster assumes right now.

But please chill.

I agree though there is a little ambiguity still when it comes to taking damage.

But it's clear the intent was to make pathfinder 2e more lethal which hasn't gone down tremendously well with about half the players I play with.

It's a definite pain point one that makes me less inclined to move on to the remaster.

What I find annoying is that for failing a death save in the player core they have it clearly and neatly spelled out that you add your wounded to your dying when failing a death save but for the taking damage rule they didn't just repeat the same clear formating again. It would have been so simple to just say when you take damage and 1+wounded or 2+wounded. But instead they say add a second paragraph with a reminder to add wounded without tying it directly to take damage section.

I suppode more player deaths mean more opportunity to build new characters good and more tpks that potentially can kill a campaign bad.

Definitely a mixed bag,I hadn't really thought of pathfinder 2e as a highly lethal game up until this point. But this ruling can change that I suppose that makes pathfinder 2e better suited to meatgrinder dungeon crawls and less suited to stories focusing on a few characters over several years because of you overinvest in your plot on emphemeral characters who are likely to vanish like the morning dew in a light breeze you only have yourself to blame.

There's my enthusiasm for the remaster gone, I haven't seen anything so far that looks any better and alot of things thatlook worse.

I have played a no weapon caster it was a bard who inspired and intimidated when he was not casting spells and the only time he felt weak was versus golems and people immune to mind effecting though that was just a failure in my build.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

Yeah 20 fights per rest is sort of excessive in my opinion. Most I've ever done is 12. Sort of impressed I have to admit.

But yep, we have different approaches and that's fine!

(this experience is mostly with modules from published APs to be clear)

Main reason I imagine we can do this is I've had the same group for 30 years. So coordination is really, really strong from the moment we build the group.

But we still love playing these games after all this time. The imagination is the best game engine of all time.

It sound like you enjoy strategy and seem to be making the wizard work for you.

I still hope we get some positive wizard changes that make your experience even better without breaking the balance of course.

I don't think the wizard is some unfixable mess. I just want a little more of the WIZARD back, just a bit. It's been such a great class for all these editions of this game. I feel like the wizard should have a little bit of a special place in any D&D based game. I know PF2 is really balanced, but I'd prefer the wizard near the top of the PF2 game tier. The wizard is legendary in D&D across all editions.

I know these are old, old names never to be used in PF. But Bigby, Mordenkainen, Elminster, The Blackstaff, The Simbul, Manshoon, so many legendary wizards in the history of D&D. PF2 wizard isn't giving me that legendary feel.

C'mon Buhlman, bring back some of the legendary feel of the wizard.

All this tells me is that Mark Seifter was completely right when he referred to wizard as a Green-Eyed Monster. This obsession that the Wizard must not be balanced because it isn't the best class in the game, and this demand to constantly be better than every other character option available, really just highlights this reality.

You think any dnd wizard can even approach the levels of Elminster or Mordenkainen? The literal mary sues of the dnd world who routinely shatter reality and have even come to our own...

The wizard is probably the worst of the casters at low levels they don't get any decent class features or focus spells and at low level spells and cantrip are by design awful (remember 1d4+4 is considered above benchmark damage for a cantrip at level 1).

So whats interesting is that we now have confirmed that 1 of the main reasons to change cantrips was to nerf the overpowered cantrips at level 1. The mind boggles.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

HUH yeah unexpected, we originally thought it was a replacement for Sudden Bolt.

I wonder if we'll just get some more spell attacks, or if they'll hit the Magus with an errata that makes it not rely on spell attacks.

One thing to keep in mind is that magi have extremely limited slots and are more reliant on their cantrips and focus spells. Ignition is a significant buff for the magus with how it boosts their basic routine compared to produce flame, while thunderstrike is much better for classes like the wizard, who are significantly more reliant on their slotted spells.

Giving too micro a look at a specific interaction can lead to missing a broader macro picture where each kind of class and character got buffs in the places they most needed it.

I see Magus mulitclassing into pychics for access to repeatable big damage spellstrikes is going to become even more of fixture of core.

Let me make a simple comparison.

Bard has unlimited wide AoE spells for 1 action.

I haven't noticed this what unlimited AoE do they for 1 action?

I don't love the wizard class I don't like prepared casters and for the most point I find the classes feat to be fairly dull.

But I don't get people casting it as a
a weak class, it has the most spells per day over every class and access to a great list of spells from 1- 10 at later levels a wizard could easily have multiple encounter defining spells per encounter.

It is a class the particularly struggles at low levels before spells get good (all of its class power is in spells rather than unique actions and focus powers) but that isn't a unique problem for wizards and from level 7 plus it's one of the strongest casters in the game.

So while the wizard may not have the prettiest exteriors or be that fun to drive but it's motor is solid prescion engineering and will get you where you need to go.

To summarise the wizards fundamentals are fine it could do with some glitz and a fancy paint job.

Wizards are functional and I am sure they will remain so though I worry that unless the schools do at least as much as the old schools of magic that generalists will be the default and that a lot of these schools won't see play.

I have found spontaneous casters to feel like a straight jacket when I've played them, particularly the psychic. Being locked into spells is one of the most feelsbadman things in the game for me, so I really truly do not understand the favoritism for spontaneous casters

I am also not a fan of having spells thrust upon you (sorcerers and psychics I am looking at you).

I am not a fan of prepared spell casting in pathfinder since 1e I have ended up keeping a similar spell liar each day so I didn't drive myself mad trying think about the perfect combination of spells. I do that for spontaneous too but at least that's once per level only.

Wizards were and are the most prepared spellcaster in the game, they are to put it bluntly the highest effort spellcaster to run and if you got your preparations wrong one of the most frustrating to play.

But people like that about them. Any change that would make them less teeth grindy for me would deprive wizard players of their fun.

So who agrees with me that spontaneous casting is easier, funner and possibly more powerful because of the amount of choice you have for each spell slot on the spur of moment.

Or who likes micromanaging a big list of spells each morning to find the ultimate combination ?

Ps this is a mostly tongue and cheek post inspired by the anamist and kinetesist getting me thinking about different styles of spell preparation.

I disagree with letting the Lores scale with wisdom. I get the instinct but consider when it comes to Lore knowledge checks and DCs that they are lower than the general skills effectively canceling out the lost int. Along with if you're that concerned consider due to the access to medium armor you simply don't need to invest in dex as much as other spellcasters do. This allows you to invest more into intelligence to empower those lores. Not to mention as you level these lores auto scale meaning you don't need to invest skill boosts into them.

I tried a session as a iruxi gish Animist so I had 8 in intelligence and didn't bother to use my lores that's obviously not a serious problem in the end of the days the lores are a very tiny part of the classes power budget but its still a shame to have dead weight.

Teridax wrote:

siegfriedliner wrote:

Second making them a 3 slot prepared caster who can sacrafice spell slots of equal level to cast apparition spells (like the Cleric could do for cure spells in 1e) would make the tracking a little easier rather than having two different sets of spell slots.

I 100% support this. Not only would this make the Animist's spellcasting dramatically easier to grok, I feel it would also significantly benefit the class's flexibility: using the same slots for prepared and spontaneous spellcasting would give the Animist more agency over how much of one or the other type of spellcasting they want to use in a day, and make the class's hybrid casting stand out even more by being able to override prepared spells with spontaneous spells as the situation demands. It would allow the Animist to prepare much more niche spells under the assurance that they could always use those slots for spontaneous spells if the niche spells don't work out for the day, and as a consequence of this I think it would also make the class much more accessible and forgiving to newer players, despite the class's other aspects that make it more complex. It would allow the Animist to opt into the Flexible Spellcaster archetype, and could potentially also lead to a high-level feat that could let you cast both an apparition spell and a prepared spell at the same time with low-level slots. It just feels like switching to this implementation would benefit the Animist in so many ways.

I think it would be broken.

They would be able to prepare 3 spells per day (so 1 more than the current version) and cast a Repertoire spell as much as 3 times a day (so 2 more times than the current until level 10 when it will be only 1 time more).

Is the current version of the class so underpowered ?

So before 10th level it would be more powerful than the current setup because you would have the free choice between prepared and spontaneous spells.

After 10th level you have less spells.

But I just think that not having two different separate spells pools would be better in terms of play experience.

I think making their unique versatile spellcasting work well is worth it even if it means power cuts in other areas.

siegfriedliner wrote:

First letting them you wisdom for thier granted lore skills will do a lot to see those skills used.

It is a slippery slope. I'd rather see the role of individual ability scores protected.

I am not to worried their are already wisdom knowledge skills (nature, religion) so this would just be in keeping with the instinctual Vs learned knowledge. Not to mention thaumaturge already went their and wisdom is a lot easier to justify than charisma.

So there are a couple of quality of life changes I think would make the anamist funner to play.

First letting them you wisdom for thier granted lore skills will do a lot to see those skills used.

Second making them a 3 slot prepared caster who can sacrafice spell slots of equal level to cast apparition spells (like the Cleric could do for cure spells in 1e) would make the tracking a little easier rather than having two different sets of spell slots.

I think adding the flourish trait to some of the vessel spells would also stop people stacking earth's bile in an unsightly fashion.

Pronate11 wrote:

Super Zero wrote:

But my question is, what does that even mean?

How do you "remove" a big chunk from a book that's already been published?

Scissors

It's a goofy thread, generally, since it's just not how publishing works.

I don't think we should jump on the OP too much for being unfamiliar with that, though. Do we need to continue this thread, given that seems to be resolved?

I have been following a playtest for another game and that experience has given me a great desire to praise paizo at every opportunity for taking risks and breaking moulds. So even if the kinetesist lack a tiny little bit of polish I will take thr opportunity to sing it's praises when they arise.

So what may not have been apparent from opening is I am in favour of monsters having exploitable weakness and resistances that means you can't use the same tactics on all monsters.

Ideally I would want most monsters to resist some damage types and be vulnerable to others and have a strong, weak and average saves.

For example oozes should be cool because they force martials to change up how they approach a fight, but because there are not enough monsters like oozes a lot of players don't have different weapons for different occasions. So oozes can feel mean in the same way that golems can feel mean in that they can be encounters were one or more party member can't contribute at all.

But if there were more monsters with weaknesses to specific physical and elemental damage types then everyone would diversify their approaches and a whole lot more of the diverse tools that exist in the game would see use.

I'm sure not the only one here, but I think the keneticist should go back to testing. Or rather back to the polishing table.

There are quite a few things that need to be addressed on how things work. This makes the current form seem a bit too rough for my liking.

I am new to pizo, so I am not sure this is the norm when it some to newly added classes.

No it's a good class and I and a lot of people are really happy with it. But if you had said that about the alchemist I would have agreed ;)

siegfriedliner wrote:

But if you went undead then given how many enemies do negative/void damage and only void damage being immune meant a lot of hilarious joke encounters where they can't hurt you and you can't hurt them (except by bludgeoning them to death).

Well, PCs can generally hurt the enemies because sword damage isn't negative, but yes. We did try FA undead. Then after a module or two we all realized it was a silly interaction, and converted negative damage and evil damage to spirit damage.

Blood lords, as mentioned, has issues. Mostly just "the PCs play thematic options and don't get to use a lot of their abilities" issues, but also "these enemies literally can't touch us" issues lol

(it's worth noting that you don't actually have to go undead - and the module sort of assumes you don't given the joke encounters mentioned above)

That's what happened in our game but I found it frustrating because its the worst of both worlds you get hit by both the positive and the negative damage so being undead is just worse than not be undead.

So there is a big post about the nature of wizards and how they are balanced around the expectation that wizards can always target every defence.

I don't want to go to much into either the logistics of that both in terms of spell lists or the knowledge to prepare the right spell for the right day.

But if save jan-ken-pon is meant to be what wizards are about then I find it really frustrating that their are a lot of monsters with very similar defences so you can't really play the game to your advantage and also their are a lot of enemies with immunities to the majority of the things their weak save protects against.

For example I recalled on a monster and the gm informed me that will was its weakest saves which seems really cool and useful information apart from the fact the monster was mindless and immune to all mind-effecting effects which are 90% of all will saves (and all of the will saves I had prepared), which was a little bit frustrating and a near complete waste of action.

So what do people think, do you as a wizard successfully target enemies weak saves most of the time and how often do you manage to find a weak save to target ?

The Raven Black wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

roquepo wrote:

Yeah, not being able to use one of the only weaknesses those creatures have seems rough.

Yeah it's not a spoiler to say that blood lords is set in Geb, an undead nation where positive damage is illegal.

There's also the issue of being encouraged in the player guide to play as evil PCs with undead thematics (undead bloodline sorcerer and evil champions are listed as good options for instance) in a country that is evil with lots and lots of undead.

Evil damage and negative damage bounce off most of the monsters. It's painful.

It is far from the first time that Player's Guide advice is more about fitting the theme than about mechanical optimisation.

Yes. Yes this is true lol

It certainly is amusingly terrible for optimization in Blood Lords, however. In that playing anything recommended is objectively the worst thing you could do from a mechanical perspective. Normally the Player's Guide just doesn't give good mechanical advice rather than dispensing actively harmful recommendations. Not that I'm complaining, it's just extremely funny.

Though the remaster does fix the "evil damage" issue via spirit damage, which I'm very grateful for!

But if you went undead then given how many enemies do negative/void damage and only void damage being immune meant a lot of hilarious joke encounters where they can't hurt you and you can't hurt them (except by bludgeoning them to death).

pixierose wrote:

I think the fighters power is a bit exaggerated. Most other martials get riders to damage of some kind that make their attacks hit harder, fighters lack that in exchange for the accuracy, an accuracy that is still affected by the dice rolls.

White room testing has its value but so does actual play, and from personal experience I've had combats or whole sessions where the fighters accuracy boost did not save it from bad rolls. This is a major outlier, but I do recall the time my level 5 fighter wiffed their entire turn and their friendly neighborhood paladin crit 3 times in a row.
The developers also feel as if fighters are qoeking as intended.

Are you really going to sit here and use an anecdote to excuse the disgusting mess that is an Improve Knockdown Fighter? Show me any single action in the game as efficient as a Fighter knocking a boss flat on their back while dealing damage.

Whirlwind Attack/swipe on 2 or more enemies, lava leap (raise shield , leap, area effect explosion), double slice (on enemies with resistance), synesthesia, level 6 slow etc

For out of combat healing from the moment you get continuous recovery you can at least I the games I play be full between encounters.

The focus spell definitely dilates the time this takes.

As to whether that affect balance that's very much going to be game dependant. Is the difference between healing up for ten minutes rather than an hour going to change anything is going to be entirely game dependant.

I uh, don't think you've taken a look at what the sustained Animist Focus Spells actually do because for 1-action they pack WAY more punch than any other previously published Focus Spells. Couple that with the fact that you're not spending any Slots to use it, still getting the benefit of the Stride Action you were almost certainly going to take regardless, and be able to cast actual Spells with your remaining two actions anyhow.

I'm hopeful that the kind of thing we are seeing with the Animist is more of a sign that we should expect SIGNIFICANT buffs to the CRB/APG Class Focus Spells more than anything else because, well, I actually don't have a problem with Focus Spells being good and strong, that's perfectly fine and good actually as it encourages PCs to play to their Class/Role niche. If the Remaster hits though and the existing Focus Spells we already have aren't significantly buffed to bring them in line with what the Animist has then, well, folks talking about power creep will have simply been proven correct.

Your correct I thought it was 1 action sustained wildshape Vs 2 action 1 minute wildshape which would be about a much of a muchness (versus an already good druid focus spells)

I missed the status bonus. Though I also missed that it doesn't scale beyond 5th level spells so it will pretty much useless beyond 10th level (unless their is a feat I am missing) and it really needs look over the wording regarding how it works.

I still don't think 3 actions of effect powerful but it is powerful.

Not more powerful than a martial and honestly I would ignore it entirely for my cantrip damage over a ten foot burst for 1 action spell and well that is good probably too good it only becomes brokem if your using three actions doing it and that would be the most unpleasantly boring way to play the game.

When your 1-action Sustain has more impact than being able to cast another different 3-action spell all while not having to spend any spell slots or additional Focus Points (which is functionally true for all of the sustained Focus Spells that people are actually talking about) then the point that "well if they sustain they cant use their limited existing actual spell slots for 3-action spells" is completely moot. The Animist gets MORE power out of taking Stride + Sustain for the 1 Focus Point they spent last round or the round before that or the round before that than pretty much any other caster gets for spending the whole turn NOT moving and casting a 3-action spell. That's the issue and why it isn't balanced, and yet, we STILL have people begging for a free action Sustain Feat for Animist, it's bonkers.

That's hyperbole, the 1 action cantrips are some of the strongest 1 actions abilities in the game but they don't compare with the best two action abilities in the game let alone 3.

For wildshape in particular your choosing between spending two actions on round 1 or 1 per round so in fights longer than 3 rounds it's not as action efficient. So with give an take I would rate it as fairly equivalent.

YuriP wrote:

This and some other things makes me think that the class probably will be nerfed in its final version.

To be fair the only real nerf I see being needed is to just not let you stack castings of same vessel spell because pretty much the only major problem I see is stacking earth bile castings. Give sages a way to access the other focus spells and it should work okay.

I really like earth's bile but I like it as a third action that you can use as well as spellcasting using three of them whilst almost certainly effective against creatures without fire or bludgeoning resistance seems pretty boring and tacky.

siegfriedliner wrote:

A throwers belt with the returning rune should work.

Thrower's Belt? What is this Thrower's Belt of which you speak?

https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2313

This and some other things makes me think that the class probably will be nerfed in its final version.

But we need to remember that druid's have a very solid chassis too (and even more solid after remaster).

The question is more why some caster get a considerably more solid chassis while others don't.

I would expect changes to the psychic focus amps in the remaster probably just allowing them to regain all their focus points in 10 minutes from level 1.

I think once you have used the impulse junction to improve the damage of an impulse it stays improved.

My take on the wording was that if you some how managed to get two two action impulses a turn you couldnt get the impulse junction twice.

A throwers belt with the returning rune should work.

Its unquestionably poorly worded the most balanced interpretation is that it doesn't interact with the immense ability at all.

1d+4, 2d+6 and ,3d+8 are enough to make better than power attack and to make it just about on par with gleaming blades version.

If they just wanted 1d, 2d and 3d they could have simple said the ability adds dice and it would have been much easier to understand.

I think 3d+32 (replacing emanace) with 4 weapon dice is almost certainly too good to be true.

keftiu wrote:

Given the choice between classes like the PF2 core Alchemist and Monk or classes like the Kineticist, I'm taking the latter every day of the week.

EDIT: To be less snide - I don't think a dev team growing the confidence to try new things as we hit the five year point in a complex game's lifespan is a sign of the end times. My hope is that the Remaster helps everyone else feel as cool as the new options have been for the last little while, because it's been clear not everybody's at par for a long time now.

Can you expound upon that?

Why would you take the Kineticist over the Alchemist or Monk?

I am not sure what their beef with monks are (though I suppose if you want to be a elemental monk kinetesist does it better)

But alchemist as a class is one with many problems it's overly complex, it's power is utterly situational and massively requires forknowledge of what your up against and your not the best at anything other than making items.

"Your ikon then returns to your hand."

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

For what it's worth if this thread hasn't heard yet, Unarmed support is confirmed for the final release, it was just held back from the playtest.

Meanwhile, I have to rather hard disagree on making signature weapons not the default. One of the things that draws me most to the class is the way the Exemplar is in part defined by a few iconic items which are symbols of their legend, which strikes me as a very mythological hero vibe.

Unarmed and Unarmoured should be fun and viable options. I'm skeptical of eschewing all the paraphernalia of legend, but on the other hand I very much wouldn't mind a weapon ikon that was more to the effect of 'whatever they happen to have on hand', a warrior folk hero who can defeat you with whatever weapon they pick up. Perhaps by keeping a talisman of some kind to hold the runes, but their Transcend ability causes them to destroy the weapon and the next time they shift their spark into their weapon ikon they have to harvest another tool, either from the fallen or from their environment (if necessary could cause it to fly to their hand depending on power budget).

... Lost my train of thought in the middle there...

The fact that they see the "anything you wield is an Ikon" as a level 20 ability really makes me question of they would ever allow that baseline.

I also cannot see how the unarmed and unarmored support could be done, while having the mechanics be so focused on items.

Gauntlets/handwraps probably think the incarnation of Hercules in god of war