Here's why I think that balance requires that things that auto-heighten need to go to level 10:
1) Hit points keep increasing after level 17.
2) Major striking runes are level 19.
The FAQ says to add the text in three places, in the paragraphs for Miraculous Spell, Primal Hierophant, and Archwizard's Spellcraft. That means it applies to only those spell slots. That is the official ruling.
How can I be sure of that? 1) Any alternate interpretation requires reading just a sentence fragment and ignoring the rest and is thus clearly inferior. 2) Using my interpretation, there is nothing wrong or incomplete with the wording as-is.
The Raven Black wrote:
I think a big reason that BM isn't just Fast Treat Wounds is so that if you did one of them recently, that doesn't stop you from using the other. It makes it much safer to Treat Wounds in a place where you might get attacked, and you don't have to wait another ten minutes (or hour) after finishing treating wounds before continuing in the dungeon just so you can use BM.
EDIT: I also use the same DC as Treat Wounds and use the same success table too, including critical.
You are making a wrong read of the rule, all these feats effects a actual action roll, and not are new actions, thus they follow their rules as normal. Battle medicine is a new action who only use the DC and some things of treat wounds as refer, but you not roll treat wounds.
Now you're just making up rules out of nothing. "New Action" as you are using it is not mentioned anywhere in the CRB.
Using Bardo's interpretation, these are just some of the feats for which you ignore critical successes and failures when making their associated checks: alchemical crafting, ancestral paragon, bargain hunter, battle cry, cloud jump, combat climber, continual recovery, courtly graces, experienced smuggler, experienced tracker, foil senses, group coercion, group impression, hobnobber, impressive performance, intimating glare, intimidating prowess, magical crafting. That can't possibly be RAI.
Hobnobber CRB 262 wrote:
You are skilled at learning information through conversation. The Gather Information exploration activity takes you half as long as normal (typically reducing the time to 1 hour). If you’re a master in Diplomacy and you Gather Information at the normal speed, when you attempt to do so and roll a critical failure, you get a failure instead. There is still no guarantee that a rumor you learn with Gather Information is accurate.
The master version of Hobnobber does less than nothing if the trained version already eliminates the criticals, so that is clearly not how it works.
The correct way to interpret these feats (and thus Battle Medicine) is that if the feat tells you to make a check and that check has results for criticals, then the feat also counts as having results for criticals.
Things my primal sorcerer can summon:
Character Level 5:
giant bat - flies and has echolocation. The primal list doesn't get See Invis, but with the bat it will be easy to target a Faerie Fire or Glitterdust.
crocodile - can function underwater, where my fire spells don't work.
Character Level 7:
(other things) - fly, tremorsense, knockdown, acid cone
leshy - has hands and speaks common
Character Level 9:
I'm not seeing one supreme animal that I should just summon all of the time - several of the critters have niche uses.
The summoning gives me something to do when I can't get 2 targets in a fireball or electric arc, but there isn't a single "boss" opponent who would be a good target for Slow.
Since primal evolution gives me an extra spell slot that can only be used for summoning, summoning can be less powerful than other spells of the same level, but still good for me.
I suspect the wizard's extra spell slots help more in campaigns with shorter adventuring days, like PFS or Kingmaker.
Even in PF1, I built my casters differently for APs so that they could do many battles/day even at low levels. I had an arcanist-occultist (who could summon monsters using just their power pool in addition to having spells) and a shaman with slumber hex.
I rate that as a perk of being a caster, rather than a flaw: I like being able to choose powers that just work without having to roll (except maybe damage). In PF2, PF1, and various D&D versions, I make casters who never have to roll to hit.
Watching the martials in PFS, I'm not seeing that PCs that get flurries of small attacks are more popular than the ones who get fewer, bigger attacks.
True Strike is a first-level spell. What else are you going to do with that first-level spell slot?
No. Instead, Basic Wizard Spellcasting indicates that they gain two free spells whenever they gain a spell slot of a new level (so, they get up to 16 free spells of levels 1-8 if they get all spellcasting feats from the archetype).
Basic Wizard Spellcasting Link wrote:
... add two common spells of that level to your spellbook
Quick Recognition lets a PC recognize spells as a free action, but only if they are a master of the skill they are using. With Unified Theory, the PC can use it for all spells.
This is totally 100% tradition-dependent. Anyone who says otherwise has a serious lack of ... something. (Speculating on what that something is probably violates the forum rules.)
Cast a something-form spell and take the -2 penalty when you attack with your claws.
Summon a monster that talks and tell it to attack nonlethally.
1) They're afraid that people will prep a bunch of nonlethal spells and get angry when their party gets slaughtered by undead. However, spontaneous casters could more easily take both lethal and nonlethal spells - would that change the balance of power between prepared and spontaneous?
2) Players just aren't asking for it often enough. (In the SF COM playtest, one nonlethal spell was the ONLY thing I asked for. I didn't get it.) Likewise, the recent "What spells are we all hoping for in Secrets of Magic?" thread doesn't have anyone (except me just now) hoping for nonlethal damage.
less flexibility - fair
orders of magnitude - no
trap - baloney: How can a player not notice that they're using a skill every round?
no skill increase support - you're replying to my post where I described one of the ways to get skill increases.
Skilled Human Heritage gives an extra Expert skill at level 5. Multitalented(rogue) at level 9 + Skill Mastery at level 10 or 12 and be Master at 4 skills at level 13. Levels 2-8 are free to multiclass in whatever you want (or not).
I realize that this is just going to add "I shouldn't have to play a human" to the list of what's 'wrong' with swashbucklers, but it's just not true that "they absolutely can't diversify at all."
Things my rogue has done besides stab with magic shortsword:
All of those things can be done with one hand, so a rogue never needs to drop their primary magic melee weapon or waste actions to sheathe or unsheathe it.
Things my rogue is ready to do in combat but hasn't yet:
Sure, the PF2 skill system is incredibly coarse in general (a level 15 character without Athletics that can't swim or climb for s#@%)
In the playtest, everyone advanced automatically in every skill. (A few?) playtesters complained repeatedly that they wanted to be able to make a character from the desert who never learned to swim.
Casting Spells from a Wand CRB page 597 wrote:
Casting a spell from a wand requires ... activating the item with a Cast a Spell activity using the normal number of actions for the spell. ... use your spell attack roll and spell DC.
Since you're using the Cast a Spell activity, you can also use metamagic with a wand.
The Raven Black wrote:
Yes, a player who insists on using the worst possible flavor can ruin any game.
What are some good lore sources about the internal details of the Golarion monasteries that monks would be living in?
PF1 had archetypes for fighter, gunslinger, and bard which were all called buccaneer. There was also Occultist (arcanist archetype) and
Occultist (Occult class):.
I had one of each of these in PFS. My table tents said "Arcanist(Occultist)" and "Occult Occultist".
EDIT: I also had a buccaneer bard. That table tent just said "archer" with a couple of musical notes.
Default Golarion setting clearly has no problem with multiple things having the same name.
Wealth grows exponentially in PF2. No matter what you spend it on, your lower-level money depreciates rapidly.
My rogue uses potency crystals and necklaces of fireballs and they are totally worth it. Using consumables can be FUN!
Some people just aren't stingy misers like you. You owe Superbidi an apology.
The first-level magus feat combat assessment does just that.
Since you have to hit and usually get the knowledge after you've finished your turn, it's not the greatest. However, it still counts as Recall Knowledge while spellstriking.
Get a Gnome Flickmace. Then, if the foe doesn't have reach, you can use the spellstrike to step away and make them waste an action to move adjacent every round. If the enemy has Attack of Opportunity but not Reach, this also lets you avoid the AoO.
Oh, so a Warpriest with a deity with a 2H weapon is gimped because they can't use shield block, but a Cloistered with a deity giving bad domain is fine bcause they could chose another deity?
If not strictly better meant the same thing as gimped, then the answer might be yes. I'm just in this thread because the post I first responded to used "strictly better" improperly, so that all I had to disprove is the "strictly" part.
Strictly better - MTG Wiki:
Strictly better describes a card which is, in isolation from other effects, superior to another card in at least one respect, while being worse in zero respects.
Strictly better - game theory:
(a strategy) That leads to a better outcome no matter what the other player does.
Yes, a warpriest can eventually get both Electric Arc and a domain, but even after they do, they're still a class feat behind, so there's still some situation of the player's choice where the cloistered version is better. Slightly better defenses and a slightly better third-action attack using a tertiary attribute is just not "strictly" better at all.
Unless the campaign doesn't let me pick my deity, I don't see how anyone would think this was a serious point. Yes, if you build a cloistered cleric badly in just the right way, you might be better off with a warpriest, but that's a straw man argument if ever there was one.
From 1-6 and 11-14, Warpriest is strictly better than cloistered.
A cloistered cleric can start with both a domain and Electric Arc. Electric Arc ignores cover and has range, so AC is less important. With no need for a weapon, the cloistered cleric can wield both a shield and a staff or scrolls. I don't see how that's "strictly inferior".