siegfriedliner's page

Transpose is a tenth level summoner feat that lets you switch places with your eidolon (via teleportation) it's kind of cool.

I was thinking that for a necromancer having a similar feat to switch positions with their thralls would be very cool and would add some mobility to thralls they don't currently have.

One of the concerns people have is runes stacking together to do a massive amount of damage.

I was wondering if the solution could be that when you invoke two damage ruins instead of getting one each of effect you get a new composite effect based on both those runes.

In practice it would mean you would need a smaller number of starting runes to balance the number of combination effects but I recon it would be pretty cool to be able to combo your runes into different effect.

Damaging runes scale in line with blast spells (fireball, lightning bolt etc) at 2d6 those damages can be fair high and usually just above that of a strike and are balanced against being two actions and only once per turn.

Now from reading the feats and actions are designed with spamming runes in mind so you can have 2-3 going off per average per round with a little optimisation. So it appears that the runes have been designed to be used several times a turn like strikes but without the limitations of MAP and with damage on par or better than strikes which seems stranger.

What is even stranger is how throughly the designers have been conservative especially in the playtest before this in limiting the damage of at will spell like abilities for example the kineticists could only dream of having a damaging effect that scales at 2d6 each level where the runic smith can do it multiple times per turn and later include some area effects with considerably smoother action economy.

Which has me questioning why the change to a more adverenturous design choice.

Currently there is a little uncertainty on what the DC for save based dcs (trip, tumble through etc) for thralls.

My take is that like AC if people use these maneuverd they get an automatic success but not a critical success.

So you can reliably tumble through them but they still are difficult terrain

It's worth noting that currently the focus spells thralls that move have no ability to stand up from prone so they probably need immunity to prone, grabbed or at least the ability to crawl, standup, escape ( probably using your spell attack).

I really like the necromancer it's cool and looks like it would be fun to play.

The most powerful feature the necromancer seem to have besides spellcasting is above average focus/ grave spells which are pretty cool and utilise their thrall mechanic.

But power wise I suspect it might be a little weak especially when compared to the new oracle and animist who have similar defences, double the spell slots and also very powerful focus spells which are comparable in strength with the necromancers grave spells.

Half the spell slots for class that seem to have similarish chassis seems like a fairly punishing. I wonder if the class could afford to be three slot ?

When it comes to 20th level necromancer feats two stand tall, one of them knocks enemies prone and drops lots of your thralls where you want them and tanks by taking up space and having a tonne of hp the other let's your thrall do respectable damage and tank a little.

Both will benefits lots from the almost mandatory effortless concentration. Personally I feel living graveyard is way cooler but perfected thrall might be more powerful at that level because creating lots of thralls is quite easy.

What do you think ?

I had an interesting bit of time dilation happen in one game. We encountered some creatures who didn't speak common and combat hadn't happened yet so I saw I will cast true speech our GM then said they see you casting a spell roll for initiative.

So we rolled I came last they went before me attacking the rest of the party I was in the back and by the time it got to my turn I decided I wasn't going to cast true speech but use battle medicine on my damaged ally and raise a shield.

The combat went ahead and it was only afterwards that amusing thought came to mind the spellcasting that triggered the combat never happened.

Now in practice this is just an inevitable result of everything happening both sequentially and all at once. But it did allow my pc to say to one of hist party members who ribbed him for starting the fight "I don't know what your talking about I never cast that spell" and be technically correct the best kind of correct.

I tried my hand at gming recently to mixed results and ultimately gave up after a tpk. My mistake was for 9/10 of my encounters I would feel like I was doing nothing to them so I would escalate and eventually they would just lose. But I struggled to get the encounter I were looking for where they were really challenged and then overcame it. I can't imagine I will try again any time soon.

But during that time I played there was one item that came to really irritate me the humble phantom doorknob spellheart. It's an item that blinds on a critical hit and blind is one of more annoying conditions to monitor.

If I was to gm again I probably would ban it to save me the headache. This lead me to wander what other items, feats and archetype do other gms frequently ban and so I thought I would ask this question here.

In starfinder 1e the solar weapon was a freely scaling melee weapon that was on the lower range of melee damage which you could supplement with a crystal (that were still cheaper than equivalent weapons) to be roughly on par with the best melee weapons in the game.

So the solar weapon class feature gave you the benefits of free/cheaper melee weapon in 2e solar weapona coat the same to scale as any other weapon.But in practice it's a relatively weak melee weapon compared to other weapons.

It compares poorly to best melee weapon in starfinder 2e, the doshoko (flaming and normal), the pain glaive, the frostpike all do better damage than the solar weapon with better traits. So your class feature isn't giving you assess to a cheaper weapon it's just tying you to inferior weapon.

The class would be stronger if you removed solar weapon and changed any reference to it to melee weapons which isn't ideal. Now I know you could compare if to thief with sneak attack but that feature does add to damage whilst limiting your ability to use the best weapon, solar weapons don't.

What I find funny about the mythic proficiency is that inversely scales with level to a certain extent.

If you are level 2 and use rewrite fate to re-roll a saving throw with mythic proficiency and are only trained in the skill then you get an equivalent of a +8 to that save (& a reroll) if you are levl 15 and legendary in that save you get a +2. Now a +2 and a reroll is still really really good but a +8 plus a reroll is insane so rewrite fate at least is going to have less of a wow factor as you level.

I have just started to play test a melee focused soldier and am finding it very solid at level 1.

You can do a lot of damage (by starfinder standards) and have a nice reaction.

But looking at options for levelling up I noticed a lot of feats that require an area effect weapon and can't be used whilat wielding a two handed melee weapon and a lot of area attack + actions that clash with whirling Swipe.

I was wondering if whirling Swipe was a stance that gave melee weapons the burst 5 and unweildy trait would that be broken it would certainly add a lot more options for a melee soldier.

So when I think of the solider class in starfinder 2e I get an image in my head of Arnold Swartzenger in cheesy action movie smoking a cigar and making awful quips and mowing down a hoard of faceless minions with a machine gun.

Obviously if I wanted a build for my fantasy this I would go action hero and take the machine guns and spec into intimidate.

When I think of the envoy I think of Johnny silverhand scheduling a gig just outside the corpo office he wants to infiltrate.

For mystic I think jedi though no specific jedi and for witchwarper bizarrely mass effect adepts come to mind.

I don't really have a good idea in my head of what 2e solarian is meant to be and the operative will always be Molly Millions (neuromancer) and Thane (mass effect) in my head.

So what images do the starfinder class invoke in your heads ?

So the dance! Feat works when you supress a target with an attack. I assume area-fire counts as it has the attack trait even though it's not an attack action ?

So I was looking at one of the playtest feedback and they mentioned having a couple of parties struggling with enemies with resistance at low level.

Now in mostly melee meta of pathfinder 2e a skeleton having resist 5 to a lot of things apart from bludgeoning is fine even a d6 weapon with a +4 bonus from strength is going to do some damage on average and you can always punch for your D4+strength to bypass the reduction.

Now for an entire ranged party overcoming that resistance will be much harder apart from the 3 or 4 weapons doing acid and sonic damage every other ranged weapon would have a skeletons resistance apply to it and even a relatively heavy weapon such as a vector cannon only does .5 damage on average past that resistance. So fights against low level enemies with resistance are going to go a crawling pace as parties struggle to do meaningful damage.

Now I am not sure if there is a meaningful solution apart from perhaps making sure starfinder monsters at level 1 have 2/3 resistance rather than 5.

I have heard a fair amount of complaints about the solider but from my perspective it seems a really robust class.

The solider is playing the role of a defender but it is playing it in a very different way from the champion whilst still being effective. Stacking penalties to hit allies might not be the most exciting way to defend allies but combined with overwatch it will be defective.

Defensively it's strong it has good saves and great ac.

Offensively it seems to be fairly strong as well it's two action combo of area effect strike and strike for 2 actions without map aren't bad especially using a d10 weapon. You can from level 6 have a combo of move shoot area effect weapon and strike twice (0 and -5 map) and that should do decent damage).

Not to mention they can deal with swarms and a large number of weak enemies quite well.

So in real life melee weapons are very much secondary weapons.Rushing at a person with a drawn gun with a knife or sword is mostly going to be a bad idea.

This plays true for most scifi setting with even more powerful ranged weapons.When settings want melee weapons to pay a big part in their setting they usually have to give some excuse to justify sword play.

For example dune has it's shields that disable damaged weapons, star wars has it's jedi who are lightning fast (so they can get up in ranged enemies faces quickly) and can deflect bullets.

Cyberpunk settings usually have active camo to stealth into range and speed enhancements to get in the thick of things in an instant and hacking to disable smartguns so the low tech solution can work.

So in the heavily ranged meta of starfinder 2e I was expecting the premier melee class the solarian to have face impressive mobility enhancement, ranged defences, or some time type of kinetic energy shielding as standard.

Currently the best adapted class to melee in starfinder 2e is the operative it has a lot of stealth synergy and mobility enhacers so you can play your cyberpunk ghost blade with them.

No other class gets these features natively but can get them with the right gear so again fairly cyberpunk. So going off the example of the operative the way primary melee weapon users are meant to operate is the path of the ninja.

Is there another way to be an effective melee combatant in the new ranged meta and how have you seen melee combat play out ?

I really don't like the defy Gravity feature for the aolarian.

There are two main reasons for this the first is I feel flight or somewhere sort of air walk should be an option available in the class feats for a soliarian as a problem that solarians are going to have to deal with fairly frequently in the new meta. So limiting it to one of three subclasses seems like a mistake.

The other reason is that it cuts you off from using cycle actions whilst your flying as if you lose gravity attunement you fall.This seems like a bit of a new player trap where players forget about cycle and end up getting into trouble.

So even when I get this feature because I would want to be able to continue use my cycle feats whilsr flying i would look for an alternative to this feature (flying shirren and jetpacks) possibly really limiting the value this feature offers.

Given that solarians are the designated melee class in the new ranges meta I feel they need more mobility for gap closing.

Currently they get a few options for mobility via feat and solar shots.

I feel the class could benefit from a speed enhancement (like the monk) and access to flight that wasn't gated behind one subclass.i also find it weird they don't get a sudden change expy which feels like it would be a bit of a no brainer.

Given that solarians are the designated melee class in the new ranges meta I feel they need more mobility for gap closing.

Currently they get a few options for mobility via feat and solar shots.

I feel the class could benefit from a speed enhancement (like the monk) and access to flight that wasn't gated behind one subclass.i also find it weird they don't get a sudden change expy which feels like it would be a bit of a no brainer.

So I was looking at the wording of the flaming module and noticed it was worded in this way

"The weapon deals an additional 1d6 fire damage on a successful Strike, plus 1d10 persistent fire damage on a critical hit."

Which would mean I believe it wouldn't apply to to autofires damage (not a strike) unless the enemy critically failed save at which point it applies effects as if you had critically hit.

Which seems a little inconsistent. Am I misreading the rules ?

So the last time I played a shashbucker I played it for about 3 levels and I loved the the thematics of it.

But what made me decide to basically give up on the class was when our gm put us in a whole dungeon full of ghosts which lasted several weak and nearly all of my class features where entirely useless no cofident strike, finisher, no grapples, trips (which were my bread and butter).

Even my tumbling routine felt stupid given I could just walk through them.

So I was wondering has the new version improved on this I'm any way or is the class/ subclass just as frustrating to play against incoporal enemies?

There is a post about how Fighters falling off in power at higher levels and me being the fighter fan that I am my first thought was that fighter high level feats must be some of the most powerful feats in the game at least mechanically speaking.

In terms of pure mechanical strength I would rate feats that improve your action economy as the best in the game and the fighter has probably the most of these in the game,

Boundless reprisals
Weapon supremacy
Improved riposte
Paragon stance
Master of many styles
Tactical reflexes
Quick shield block
Dueling dance

So I was wondering what other class had as good a feat setup as the fighter at high level and are there any feats that are more powerful than action economy ones I mentioned ?

So there a few people poking fun at the guardian that commander gets some feats that allow them to defend their allies better than then (the feat that lets you swap positions with an ally and take their hit, tactics that allow allies to raise shields, or get out of dodge (move).

But thinking about it even if you ignore the playtests classes there are lots of awesome defender feats that can move mountains to protect you allies.

So here is my tier list of these feats

S class

Disruptive Stance: the best way to protect your allies against enemy spell casters.

Boundless Reprisals - attacks of opportunity can stop enmeies moving toward your allies and disrupt spells (see above). More is better.

Champions reaction - good mitigation and disruption of enemies just great

A class:

The feat that gives you another champion reaction

The feat that was previously called combat reflexes

The feat that gives you attack of opportunity reactive strike

B tier

Shield warden - good mitigation

Counter performance - there are a lot of nasty visual and audible effects and this can be substantial protection against those

So what do you think I have missed from S,A,B tier and what would you put lower?

I have recently played some martials at high level and they legit felt massively powerful which is a great change from earlier edition.

But I had a look at the martial builds I had seen in play that did all the damage and here are some comanalities.

Group Damage:

If you want to do a lot of damage to a fairly sized group of enemies as a martial and aren't a weapon inventor then your best bet is reach (ideally supplemented by level 4 enlarge) and whirlwind attack and reach (enlarge) and combat reflexes, boundless reprisals, disruptive stance.

Both of these can do your melee damage with appropriately scaled reach in a 25ft radius around your huge form. I once caught 10 enemies in a whirlwind attack as giant barbarian and did 1000ish damage.

But the attack of opportunity build can also do great damage and stop anyone casting spells near you (all praise the masterful disruptive stance). At high levels it's once of the most impressive control builds in the game against some bosses who rely on spells and concentration effects it can entirely defang them.

I remember one boss who was in my fighters reach who tried to cast a spell was disrupted, tried to cast another spell was disrupted and entirely wasted their turn.

So that is how to do the most damage total as maritial against multiple enemies.

As for single target damage, there are few more good options.

Reaction builds are still great you can knockdown an enemy hitting and damaging them and debuffing them for your next swing and get an nice full map strike odd turn. You can achieve a similar effect with opportune backstab on a rogue.

But unlike for multiple enemies there are a few more good options, multi attack builds can do great damage against enemies without resistance, the king of these builds are the duel weapon flurry ranger who can fairly reliably make six attacks at the very late levels at a -2 penalty and the two weapon fighter who does slightly few attacks but at better accuracy. The only downsides to this setup is you ideally really need to ensure all your property runes are adding d6 of damage and triggering vulnerabilities to be reach your peak effectiveness.

But if you are like me and really like big numbers and lots of attack rolls to mitigate my poor luck with dice this is the build for you.

So what's the most damage you have done with a martial and whilst moatly discount one big bit builds because of my appalling luck with dice have anyone found much success with one of those ?.

So before core the rogue mobility feat stated it applied when you took the stride action and it was contentious if abilities like tumble through that said that you Stride would apply it because arguably youwl weren't taking the stride action.

But in core now mobility just says when you stride (not calling out the action) so any action that calls out you striding should apply it's effects I believe ?

I was thinking that combining intercept foe and intercept strike would be fairly good for the classes ability to tank.

So if you spend an action to intercept a foe and they still hit you could choose to take the damage instead. It would make the guardian a more mobile defender which is good because both the champion and this variant of guardian struggle with skirmishing enemies.

It would give the guardian a real advantage over championa by allowing the to defend allies that are more than 15ft away.

I like the master tactics in vacuum they are cool effects and powerful what I don't like about them is they represent sudden and dramatic change in the classes power and play style at 15t level and practice they will probably lead to the other tactics picked up before 15th level seeing a lot less use as they compete for action economy.

I mention this in particular for the master level tactics as neither then expert or legendary tactics entirely replace precious tactics. They add options to deal with problems and once per turn or once per day abilities.

I am not sure if there is a good solution to this. Maybe usage limitations (once a minute perhaps) for master tactics would solve the issue. But I don't know if it would be too much of a nerf.

So this is a little bit of a nit pick but I found the similarity in naming between intercept strike and intercept foes a little bit confusing especially when determining which supplemental feats effects applied to each of them.

Does disarming intercept apply to only intercept strike or both intercept strike and intercept foe caused me a little confusion.

I am mildly dyslexic and I prefer rigidee rules text rather than descriptive text so this may be a just me problem. Did anyone else find it confusing?

I really liked tank classes in 4e and most of them had multiple ways of "tanking" because the guardian at least thematically falls into the model of a tank I think it is worth exploring how classes "tank" in other games to provide context to their mechanic in this one.

Now perhaps the simplest way to encourage enemies to attack you is just be next to them, in most editions of DnD most enemies could attack more often and do more damage to creatures adjacent to them. So when presented a choice between attacking an adjacent target or a far away one they would usually pick the one in their face.

Pathfinder 2e can quite often works like this, most gm unless they have a reason to do otherwise will have enemies targets creatures who are adjacent to them rather than move.

This was actually more true in older editions where every creature had an attack of opportunity as potentially being hit moving towards another enemy was a solid reason not to move. So a heavy armour fighter in 2e can tank by moving adjacent to an enemy who isn't adjacent to another of your allies and force an enemy to waste actions or take a hit to attack someone else.

A guardian can do this too and perhaps better, if they move adjacent to an enemy than hampering swing the enemy is forced to no only move but to try and shove them out of reach (not easy to do with a reach weapon) to attack another target.

The next way the guardian could tank was through damage mitigation using usually a reaction to reduce the damage an enemy was doing to an ally, the champion can do this with all of their main reactions and so can the guardian with its main reaction, it can mitigate the damage to allies in fact better than than the champion but at the price that it takes all that damage to itself entirely bypassing its heightened defences.

This can lead to a weird situation where an enemy want to target the guardian but isn't confident it can get past his defences so targets an ally to hit the guardian. Luckily will the guardians lack of offensives chops there is less reason to want to prioritise taking the guardian down so the situation shouldn't come up that often. A Guardian who want to live is going to need to learn fairly quickly not to attempt to intercept all the the attacks.

This brings us on to punishment, if an enemy attacks your allies you can attack them back, in 2e this is so far only achieved by a paladin with their retributive strike. But there are few better ways to demotivate enemies from attacking another ally than by both punishing them for attacking an ally and mitigating their damage so its quite likely they ended up taking more damage out of the exchange than the ally they are attacking did.

Next we have mathematical adjustments this is where our taunt feature comes in, where you apply circumstance penalties to an enemy attacking an ally. I 4e the fighter could apply a -2 penalty to attacking an ally by targeting an enemy with a melee attack. This could prevent enemies attacking an ally all by itself but for the fighter it was a key part of their punishment mechanic because they needed enemies marked to directly punish (attack) them for attacking an ally. Taunt definitely works to provide mathematical adjustment to discourage enemies attacking your ally but again it does so by mitigating your own defences (in a similar vain to intercept attack) making you more vulnerable. Which means that without a really solid amount of combat healing (which unlike the champion the guardian doesn't get natively) it will be very difficult to keep the guardian conscious.

The final method of provoking enemies to attack you is doing a substantial amount of damage to encourage enemies to want to take you out of the encounter. Most martials can do this though I personally rate in 2e the barbarians as the best in house for this type of tanking, they have lots of hit points and do a lot of damage so I often in play see them targeted with much greater zeal than other classes in fact they also get a little bit of mathematical adjustment with their rage penalty and potential clumsy penalty making them really tempting targets.

So from this my main takeaways is that all classes can tank so hey don't be afraid to get in your enemies face if allies are in danger and that actually the champion is really very good tank with options to tank pretty much every way one can tank. The guardian is a good tank class but it is the most vulnerable tanking class I have seen in any edition and depending on how its played its very risk heavy class features could get it knocked out of the combat to early to really be a fully effective.

PS I forgot slowing and confusing enemies and healing are also very good ways to protect your allies too #castercando.

If you look at the core class features of the guardian intercept strike and taunt they are not going to be useful at least half the time.

Intercept attack is only really useful when you have more hit points than your ally and taunt mitigates your high defences and could easily get your character killed.

Wheras if you compare lay on hands (allways useful when an enemies hurt) and all the champion reactions (always helpful when they trigger) or even attack of opportunity (a free attack is almost always useful).

This means that guardians are likely going to require more experience to play well than a champion and will likely provide poorer results for new players than champions filling a similar niche.

Usually when you look at party building you usually want a party that covers a wide number of bases as possible.

But for the commander to be most effective you want a party of mostly ranged weapon users or mostly melee weapon users.

This seems unfortunate to me, perhaps for the master tactics it would be better if their were optional for complex tactics like one melee ally charging and the another making a ranged attack or cantrip as covering fire. Or some other arengement of tactics that get some squad mate to do one action and another to do something else in response.

I would like to see more of the tactics apply to the commander themselves for a more lead from the front feel, stuff like pincer maneuver you can stride to an adjacent enemy and another ally can also stride to flank that enemy as a reaction.

Or expose vulnerability two actions: strike an enemy if you hit a squad mate can strike that enemy the enemy as a reaction the enemy is flat footed to is attack and will take extra damage equal to your intelligence modifier on a hit.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

So I am not convinced by the tenth level animist feature that gives you a bunch more sustained spells at level 10.

I would rather the class had a consistent patter throughout. Its not a real problem but its a bit annoying.

As far as I can tell kinetesist's don't have anything that works on golems expect hoping they have the right element. As everything they do counts as magic ?

I suppose this wouldn't be a major problem expect I am planning to be part of a all kinetesist party and I was wondering what to do if we encounter a golem ?

So someone mentioned divine booms on another post and i didn't know that was a thing so I looked them up on nethys and they seem fun but also intentionally not balanced. Which made think how many people actually use them.

So in the name of curiosity and using a deeply empirical scientific method. I thought I would ask you on the paizo forums have you received (in game) a divine boon or have as a representative of the gods (GM) handed one out ?

So my reading of the rules on multiple Apex items is you can get the stat increase only once but you can also get the nice secondary bonuses of apex items more than once.

So at high levels of might be worth spending the gold to to get the sweet defensive feature of the Gorgon armbands alongside my belt of giant strength ?

So apart from the extreme spell slot scarcity of the first couple of levels one of the most frustrating times for a caster are levels 5 and 6 where your proficiency is a rank below your martial bodies and enemies saves and defences feel like they to have scaled assuming your getting that +2.

Those 2/4 levels always felt unecessary to me casters were nefed heavily from the last edition and those 3rd level spells are no where near the step change they were in pathfinder. It created in my mind an unnecessary pain point in the life and prolongs some of the frustrations of earlier levels.

So what do you think it achieves and why did the developers put it in.

So I noticed the pyro kinetesist has a capstone big area effect fireball that kills people it reduces to 0hps (turns them to ash) and has a really cool rider effect.

What I wanted to confirm is that all undead and constructs are immune to this impulse in its entirety (including the fire damage) because it has the death trait ?

Fire specialisation is fairly common thematically, your Zukos and Firestarters are a fairly common fantasy sci-fi trope. I have seen a few fire specialised casters whilst playing the game.

But traditionally in DND over fire specialists run in to trouble with a fairly large contingent of monsters who resist or are immune to fire. So if you only do fire you can end fairly useless in such encounters. Now these encounters are likely to be fairly uncommon but sometimes you can have whole dungeons full of fire elementals or devils etc. Which would be fairly frustrating to play through.

Now for most casters this isn't to much of a worry as their are only so many fire spells and there is no real benefit other than thematics for specialising that far.

But I am a little worried about kinetesist as they are rewarded for specialising (going of the playtest) could easily end up capable of only doing fire damage. So I wonder to people think that being very weak against fire monsters is part of the fantasy of the pyrokinetic ? Or are you hoping that the class gives the kinetesist some way to bypass resistance and immunity ? Or do you think that fire kinetesist should just pick up another element not to get stuck in those situations ?

So this is a tale of two games both pretty high level.

I'm the first game we encountered a a number of force blades doing their best poe impression and we used Disintegrate fairly wastefully to destroy the force blades.

In the second game with a second GM in a completely different ap there was hazard that sprung a force barrier up and could easily be disarmed from beyond that force barrier.

So first I threw a hammer at a monster behind this barrier not being told it exists. He tells me that my hammer bounces of the invisible barrier. I go great I have see invisibility so I would have seem the barrier.

Then he goes no this force barrier is not a wall of force so it's not necessarily invisible like that. So I go then I can see the force barrier because it's not invisible. He goes no it could be translucent. Now a translucent wall is by definition visible. But he is the GM so we moved on.

My ally tried to Disintegrate the invisible transclucent wall of force and the GM said that doesn't work you can't just can't solve hazards with the right spell. And I was like that is exactly how Disintegrate works it's says so quite plainly in the spell that it destroys force constructs.

In the end it's the gms game so we moved on, but it annoyed me because part of what I really value in good GM's is that they feel like a fair arbiter of the rules and he doesn't.

But besides venting a little frustration I just wanted to double check I was right about Disintegrate as long as the force effect isn't bigger than 10ft or specifically says that Disintegrate doesn't work on it then Disintegrate is your going to spell for taking down force effects ?