| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A guard is spending time (actions) talking to an illusory creature.
Illusory Creatures cannot speak, but you have to spend your action to speak throught it. So you need Deception or Performance checks to imitate the voice, aka impersonate. Since its their boss they would get a bonus vs the deception.
There would be more checks if you mess up the behavior of the boss.Then since you are talking, you have to lie. Which means more checks to deceive the guards.
The guard is not spending actions interacting as this stuff occurs in Exploration, not Encounter mode.
It is at most, two checks. One as per the spell to imitate the creature, and one to lie.
Elements such as a secret handshake, etc. are generally part of the interaction that occurs during the scene and included in the Lie, and requiring an individual check for each will almost certainly weigh the odds such that it is statistically improbable that the PCs can succeed - which is against the design paradigms in PF2E, especially those for interactions in Encounter mode... therefore, the GM should not do that.
There's a reason they changed this stuff and added additional game modes, and a large part of that was to get away from GMs itemizing and multiplying the number of checks required to do things, since that is anti-player and results in "make checks until you inevitably roll poorly" scenarios.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need to make a Deception check for each of the the small details of a lie, just for the whole lie.
Impersonation should be one check, and a lie another.
A GM piling on a bunch of unnecessary checks wants the PCs to fail. Most players don't like that game of "gotcha!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A guard is spending time (actions) talking to an illusory creature.
Illusory Creatures cannot speak, but you have to spend your action to speak throught it. So you need Deception or Performance checks to imitate the voice, aka impersonate. Since its their boss they would get a bonus vs the deception.
There would be more checks if you mess up the behavior of the boss.Then since you are talking, you have to lie. Which means more checks to deceive the guards.
The guard is not spending actions interacting as this stuff occurs in Exploration, not Encounter mode.
It is at most, two checks. One as per the spell to imitate the creature, and one to lie.
Elements such as a secret handshake, etc. are generally part of the interaction that occurs during the scene and included in the Lie, and requiring an individual check for each will almost certainly weigh the odds such that it is statistically improbable that the PCs can succeed - which is against the design paradigms in PF2E, especially those for interactions in Encounter mode... therefore, the GM should not do that.
There's a reason they changed this stuff and added additional game modes, and a large part of that was to get away from GMs itemizing and multiplying the number of checks required to do things, since that is anti-player and results in "make checks until you inevitably roll poorly" scenarios.
......
The image can't speak, but you can use your actions to speak through the creature, with the spell disguising your voice as appropriate. You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM. This is especially likely if you're trying to imitate a specific person and engage with someone that person knows.
...
Any creature that touches the image or uses the Seek action to examine it can attempt to disbelieve your illusion. When a creature disbelieves the illusion, it recovers from half
If a GM wants to impose checks until the PCs inevitably roll poorly and fail at any particular thing they want to try, thats fairly trivial.
But thats not really good GMing in my opinion - if the PCs have a reasonable plan, the GM should be setting reasonable and obtainable opposition.
More reasably, they should be looking at the obstacles in front of the PCs, deciding which are narratively interesting or required, and then setting/modifying DCs only for those before having the PCs roll for that situation.
In this case, those are -
Rolling to impersonate the NPC as per the spell (with modification for difficulty, maybe Very Hard).
Rolling to convince the opposition of the lie (with modifiers, maybe less if they believe that youre someone with authority, but modified due to the stakes).
This is not a combat encounter.
If you continue to add more required checks, you're essentially making it progressively less likely in a statistical sense that overall success is plausible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also a new wizard feat in the APG that allows you to make an additional deception check as a reaction when someone succeeds to disbelieve your illusion. If you succeed, they fail to disbelieve it. It would help this kind of playstyle quite a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even so, the limitations needed to pull off the guardboss impersonation makes the usage unreliable. Two checks and the caster has to stay within earshot and hidden (so...three checks).
Even at 2 checks even with no bonuses on the NPCs side with the caster at maximum training in the requisite skills, that's around a 30% success rate. 16% if you factor in 'not being spotted while doing this'.
Add in only a +2 on the NPC's side and your base success drops to 20%, or 9% with Stealth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two checks and the caster has to stay within earshot and hidden (so...three checks).
I'm still not sure why you think this. Theres no indication that the caster can't be standing in the open for any of this - they arent talking, theyre talking through the illusion. Sustaining a spell isn't obvious.
Its simply not supported in the rules.
Illusions are interesting, When i play shadowrun, i use them allot and to great effectiveness.
The main difference is duration, without the ability of control the duration of an illusion it becomes difficult in my opinion to effectively use them in creative ways and useful ways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell says you are immitating using Deception.
Success You trick the creature into thinking you’re the person you’re disguised as. You might have to attempt a new check if your behavior changes.By RAW every time you change your behavior while immitating it requires a new check, and those check my be done in secret at any time even when not interacting depending on the GM.
Also Spells have visual effects when castingn there is no indication those effects end when you finish casting the spell when its concentration.. Its the only reason why the stealth metamagic are so useful.
"Change your behavior" reads as equivalent to changing how the illusion is acting in a broad sense. IE, the illusion stops being assertive and becomes submissive instead.
Stealth metamagic is so that you can cast in the open, while observed. Absolutely nowhere is it indicated that sustaining spells is obvious - or that spell effects have any visible traits beyond those implied (ie a wall of fire appears to be a wall of fire, an illusion appears to be the thing it is an illusion of).
Here's the thing - your reading of things makes these elements essentially unusable or extremely difficult to use. Mine does not.
I take that as support that my interpretation is more likely what is intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two checks and the caster has to stay within earshot and hidden (so...three checks).I'm still not sure why you think this. Theres no indication that the caster can't be standing in the open for any of this
Gasp, its almost like I ran the numbers with and without the stealth for that very reason!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gasp, its almost like I ran the numbers with and without the stealth for that very reason!Two checks and the caster has to stay within earshot and hidden (so...three checks).I'm still not sure why you think this. Theres no indication that the caster can't be standing in the open for any of this
...
And I appreciate that. Its actually super informative of how adding more checks dramatically kills success rates, taking them from reasonable for "good idea to bypass an encounter" to fairly irrelevant. Its why I didn't comment on that part of your post.
I'm honestly extremely interested in whether you guys have any GM guidance style information in the core rules to support that interpretation outside of a combat encounter.
Believe it or not, I'm interested in improving my interpretation of things by addressing challenges to it.
Also, the rule is "if its too good to be true its wrong".
The words "too good" occur once in my PDF of the core rulebook, under ambiguous rules.
"Too good to be true" does not apply in cases where the rules are not ambiguous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gasp, its almost like I ran the numbers with and without the stealth for that very reason!Two checks and the caster has to stay within earshot and hidden (so...three checks).I'm still not sure why you think this. Theres no indication that the caster can't be standing in the open for any of this...
And I appreciate that. Its actually super informative of how adding more checks dramatically kills success rates, taking them from reasonable for "good idea to bypass an encounter" to fairly irrelevant. Its why I didn't comment on that part of your post.
I'm honestly extremely interested in whether you guys have any GM guidance style information in the core rules to support that interpretation outside of a combat encounter.
Believe it or not, I'm interested in improving my interpretation of things by addressing challenges to it.
My evidence is that exploration mode uses exploration actions which are regular actions used in sets of 10. Combat mode can be entered at any point to use abilities. So in order to cast that illusion spell you had to enter combat mode. Those guards in order to see if its an illusion by seeking had to enter combat mode. The monk who wants to run up the wall has to enter combat mode. Etc.
The rules of abilites, spells, items, and things do not change under different mode unless they say so explicitly. Its why the Minion trait, familiars, and animal companions in exploration and downtime was and still is very debated as by RAW they are almost unusable. But by common sense IRL they should be very much possible.
Per page 496, there are no restrictions on the use of actions during exploration mode and the GM determines if those actions warrant a change in modes. Casting a spell and sustaining it dont require combat.
Page 493 provides guidance for bypassing encounters, including by clever use of magic or a savvy diplomatic exchange.
Thus, I think my example of resolution here is fully consistent with the rules and guidance provided in the core rulebook.
If your GM isn't supporting these strategies or tactics, I feel for you. The game clearly does, and expects them to be viable and accessible.
|
I have also played wizard and sorcerer at low levels. Never did it feel like I was shooting beebees. In fact, because I like dealing damage instead of debuffing/buffing, I was always on the attack landing comparable damage to the martial characters. And my cantrips always have an array of damage types to capitalize on weaknesses if they present themselves. At level one, up against a warg, a +1 boss, I killed it in one shot, something only achievable by a raging barbarian. At 4, I used grim tendrils the +3 boss greater barghest, dealing continuous damage that was vital in taking the beast down. Lightning bolt at 6, downed three enemies that would have at least downed my other party members had I not been there. And at every level, whether conserving slots or finding them the most useful at the moment, cantrips pulled through with damage: telekinetic projectile (at a -1 compared to martials before 5th level) against undead or with a physical weakness, Ray of Frost at a far range, electric arc against two targets, and daze against low will targets. And this is not to mention when I did AOE damage with burning hands. Even while I only did damage, my party members still thought I was an invaluable asset. ..Greater Barghest saves against a 4th wizard’s tendrils on a 3; average damage for a heightened tendrils there is 3.25 (+0.2 continuous).
For your 1-shot, the scenario i imagine is a critical (on a 20) on shocking grasp? Which will work if you get a good roll on 2d12 (~20% chance of 18 or better).
in both cases there are possibly/probably reasons my assumptions are wrong (?), but in general i think what happens when people roll 2-19 is more representative of how life will be for your class than what happens when you roll 20s and everyone else rolls 1s.
Edit: i have heard good things about 2e illusionists, and even on a direct damage basis i like 2e core Wizard over 1e core Wizard.
Did you read everything else I wrote? I included some bigger highlights while playing at low levels. Grim tendrils was useful despite being the greater barghest's best save, while the barbarian and rogue had difficulty even hitting and were being taken down quickly being in melee. When I targeted it's reflex save, I had results that were just as good.
At level one, aside from the fighter, everyone has the same attack bonus if they max out their primary stat. And I had a few options available to reduce my enemy's AC, just like the martials. In this case, because the warg moved adjacent to an ally and was demoralized, I moved into a flank. And I never said this situation was a one-shot.
Your assumptions are wrong. I specifically pointed out situations that have been called disadvantageous (not in the specific post I was quoting) for casters: those against higher level enemies. I mentioned, as well, that I was suitably contributing through my use of other evocation spells, which allowed me to keep pace with the martial characters, while we were all low level.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This illusion example is actually a really good example of how a wizard can really shine, certainly over a bard and even over a sorcerer.
The 4th level illusionist should have conceal spell and silent spell, as well as invisibility, illusory creature and ventriloquism as a second level spell. 2nd level ventriloquism is an absolute beast of an illusion spell. It lasts an hour and lets you change your voice without having to make any kind of check.
Most GMs should ask for a deception check if you are trying something elaborate, but having a generic creature of any type say something in common really shouldn't be a difficult deception, if the GM requires one at all. As an illusionist, you cast ventriloquism before you even enter the dungeon and you are covered for an hour, you have now spent 1 of your second level spells. Now if you need to cast any other spell you can throw your voice 60ft away while you do it so if you cast illusory creature, the target may figure it out, but have the completely wrong idea about where the spell came from, if you don't cast the spell silently to begin with. If you get warning the creatures are there, you can go with invisibility instead of illusory creature to attempt to avert a combat, and if you fail, you still have 2 second level spells left, + you bonded item.
This is all at 4th level. A bard is pretty much done for the day if they try to follow this and they will have to MC to wizard and be pretty high level before they pick up silent spell.
It is awesome to hear there is an illusionist reaction feat as well in the APG.
PF2 has done the illusionist very, very well as a wizard type.
Spell selection within the arcane list, goes a long way to giving the wizard identity.
|
If Beastmaster let's anyone do it, then they get the advantages of an amazing animal companion. I will gladly take that option as a wizard over a familiar unless familiar's are greatly improved.So, I find all this discussion of animal companions a little bizarre.
I like my Animal Companion a bunch. But, for it to be worthwhile, I need to invest a bunch of class feats into it. Specifically, Druid feats at 4th, 8th, and 14th levels. Otherwise it's nowhere near able to contribute to a combat encounter. And having the Animal Companion itself is a choice at 1st level. People are also talking about Tempest Surge, which leads me to believe that they started as a Storm Druid (for the extra focus point), and got into the Animal Order with Order Explorer at 2nd level.
Okay, so we've got a druid that, by taking class feats at 2nd, 4th, 8th, and 14th levels, has this "class feature" called an Animal Companion. Guess what? With the release of the APG in a couple of days, *any character* can do this by picking up the Beastmaster archetype.
My Ranger/Wizard dual class character has both a rat Familiar (that she usually keeps in her hair for the Cantrip expansion and ability to regain a Focus point) and an Owl companion that she can send out to attack my hunted prey, either to Support my attacks or inflict some additional Precision damage as well). We joke that it seems I'm started my own travelling zoo....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...TThis is also same conversation now. Casters were rebalanced for PF2 and many see that as nerf. I am happy with it myself. It is not new topic conversation though. Seen it come up various additions of the game.happy with it in that you primarily play wizard and you enjoy the new PF2 wizard, or happy with it in that you don’t play wizard?
I kind of feel like most of the “happy with new wizards” posts are from people that don’t actually play wizard (not intending to single you or anyone else out); and ‘the people who do play wizards in my group enjoy it’ posts kind of give off a “my wife doesn’t mind my snoring” vibe. Okay, if you say so.
I tried to play a wizard and sorcerer. I really gave it an effort as those are my favorite classes.
But it's real hard to keep feeling like you're doing something when you're being out-damaged by 2 to 3 times or more by the martials. I'm not sure what Paizo did with internal testing, but they really missed by boat on the low level sorcerer and wizard. I have no idea who enjoys playing a class that is shooting a beebee gun in a party full of martials using rocker launchers, at least at low level.
I can see at higher levels how this can shift with a unlucky save. My buddy used a finger of death on a big bad that critically failed hitting them for 140 points of damage with a 7th level spell slot. But that's a max possible of 3 per day compared to an average crit from the archer or rogue of 70+ as many times per day as they can swing.
It feels terrible for the supposed magical damage dealer wizard or sorcerer to shoot those beebees when they don't get lucky with a big spell of severely limited use.
Suffice it to say the wizard and sorcerer are unnecessary to a group and aren't missed when they are gone. Most of my group much prefers a bard or cleric. Both of those classes are severely missed when they aren't in a group. But if no one ever plays a wizard or
I used exactly the spells you listed besides lightning bolt and hit like a wet noodle.
I don't really rely on anecdotal evidence. I specifically tracked damage from a martial versus a caster using the spells you listed and the martials were doing 2 to 3 times the damage on average the caster was dealing with rare exception up to about lvl 10. In fact the only time the caster matched the martials was AoE opportunities with unlucky saves. This occurred much more at higher level and almost never at lower level.
Now I have no idea how well-designed for damage your martials are or which ones are in your group.
Group 1: Precision Archer and a Rogue with a dedicated Champion. Wizard quit around lvl 5 as they felt terrible comparatively.
Group 2: 2-hand Power Attacking fighter and Rogue. Undead bloodline Sorcerer quit at lvl 9. Got tiresome to be so far behind the fighter in damage and rogue.
A wizard joined at lvl 10. Wizard replaced rogue and monk replaced sorcerer. Fighter is doing about 3 times the damage of the wizard over the course of battles.
Group 3: Dragon Instinct Barbarian, Swashbuckler, and Precision Archer. Druid and Witch as casters. Druid is holding up damage and abilities quite well. Still not sure if Barbarian and Swashbuckler are premier damage dealers, but they are tracking quite well for hammering when they hit. I would say maritals are probably 1.5 to 2 times damage of the druid, but the druid overall has a more dramatic effect on overall combat with everything she can do as she is doing quite a bit of damage while being the primary healer for the group. When your primary healer is still doing a lot of damage, that's just nice.
Suffice it to say, I'd rather see some real numbers versus anecdote of at least four or five fights. My recorded numbers are showing martials as doing 2 to 3 times the damage of wizards and sorcerers designed for damage dealing at lower levels up to say about 10. After 10 there seems to be a rather large shift, especially in fights with multiple lower level targets getting hit by big damage AoE spells. Not sure if there is some kind of damage threshold that is passed or saves start to slant in the casters favor, but the shift has been dramatic.
Part of it seems to be that lvl 10 and up creatures have a lot of hit points, even the mooks. When you smash them with a high end AoE spell for a critical failure doing 10 to 12d6 with a few doubles, it really racks up the damage quickly.
As far as most fights, especially against single targets the martials are routinely outdamaging casters built for damage. This is not speculation on my part as I like to see real numbers. This is recorded fights where I carefully tracked the round by round damage. So far just as theory craft has reported, the fighter with his increased accuracy is the damage king by quite a margin. Though I do believe that particular group with the fighter has weak damage dealers with a monk (weakest martial damage dealer), wizard, and war priest with a bard to support them. I don't think that disrepancy would be as high if a rogue or barbarian were in the group and I think a druid would perform higher as an overall damage dealer with their combination of damage options. A monk and wizard are poor damage dealers for round to round consistent damage dealing, whereas the fighter is probably the most consistent high damage dealer in the game.
Because there is nothing in the Sustain a Spell action that indicates that. The only trait it has is "Concentrate", not Auditory or Visual or anything else. You should be able to Sustain a Spell in complete darkness, in a vacuum, with your mouth gagged and hands & feet bound and nobody would know.
So you acknowledge there is nothing you're aware of in the rules that indicates any character can determine a character is sustaining a spell?
Strike action also doesn't have any Auditory or Visual traits, does that mean my weapon strikes are silent and invisible?
"Taste Cold Iron!" The Angel cries, as it strikes with its weapon that glows with holy light.
1) Vrock would immediately use one of its attack to remove that threat. For sure.
2) That's at least 2 actions off a Wizard.3) Personally, I'd give Vrock an additional disbelief the first time Angel is shouting at it.
Also, GM call here but nothing limits illusory creatures to melee strikes. Illusory Archers are fully supported by RAW.
Not even gonna touch this one.
And I appreciate that. Its actually super informative of how adding more checks dramatically kills success rates, taking them from reasonable for "good idea to bypass an encounter" to fairly irrelevant.
You can't just willy nilly remove these checks though. I don't think there would be constant checks, but at least 2 would be included. And this is enough to make this approach extremely unreliable.
The "If its too good to be true..." rule applies in cases of unclarity or lack of ambiguity. These situations are neither.
It clearly applies here, because somehow you are making one 2nd level spell into a superpowered panacea for everything, ignoring the example of all the other 2nd level spells there.
I'm honestly extremely interested in whether you guys have any GM guidance style information in the core rules to support that interpretation outside of a combat encounter.
Again, look at the ambiguous rules. You are turning a level 2 spell into a panacea. Most other level 2 spells are utterly situational and restricted. See Obscuring Mist or Telekinetic Maneuver and compare it to your interpretation of the Illusory Creature. Compare what you're trying to do to Humanoid Form - you are basically replacing that spell if you allow all the shenanigans you are allowing.
No wonder you think Wizards are not as bad as other people think.
Spell selection within the arcane list, goes a long way to giving the wizard identity.
That both Sorcerers and soon Witches get access to. Not to mention that it's the list with fewest unique spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue that the Animal Companion is better on its own than two spells and then the Druid also gets Tempest Surge or Invoke Disaster on top of that.I was not under the impression that Animal Companions were terribly useful, especially considering their constant action drain. What sort of contribution are you considering here?They are the equivalent of a spell like illusory creature or some spell or skill that can do minor things.
This is specifically the comparison I was making in my head.
Looking at Animal Companions, there's nothing there I'd take over access to even an un-heightened Illusory Creature (and a lot of the rest, like scouting, can be supplemented by Divination and other Illusions).
Illusory Creature is just so versatile due to being able to have it look like whatever you want, being 100% expendable, its ability to trigger elemental and other weaknesses on demand, and its explicit synergy with Deception or Performance.
Sure it has its own limitations - but its versatility is beyond huge.
Animal companions are better than illusory creature. Not sure why you would want that over an animal companion.
1. Animal companion costs no spell slot.
2. Animal companion is more versatile because it can perform combat maneuvers and out of combat activities.
3. Doesn't cost an action to sustain.
4. Doesn't have a duration.
5. Is tangible and real and can affect the actual world.
Not sure why you would prefer an illusory creature. As someone who has used both, the animal companion is superior in nearly every circumstance.
Uhm. Is there some reason you need illusory creature to do what you just listed? Our high skill deception alchemist with his impersonation mutagen did you listed above just fine without using illusory creature. The scenario you outlined doesn't require using illusory creature. Though it is a cool way to use illusory creature, it does not change that an animal companion is far more versatile and combat-effective than an illusory creature.
A guard is spending time (actions) talking to an illusory creature.
Illusory Creatures cannot speak, but you have to spend your action to speak throught it. So you need Deception or Performance checks to imitate the voice, aka impersonate. Since its their boss they would get a bonus vs the deception.
There would be more checks if you mess up the behavior of the boss.Then since you are talking, you have to lie. Which means more checks to deceive the guards.
The guard is not spending actions interacting as this stuff occurs in Exploration, not Encounter mode.
It is at most, two checks. One as per the spell to imitate the creature, and one to lie.
Elements such as a secret handshake, etc. are generally part of the interaction that occurs during the scene and included in the Lie, and requiring an individual check for each will almost certainly weigh the odds such that it is statistically improbable that the PCs can succeed - which is against the design paradigms in PF2E, especially those for interactions in Encounter mode... therefore, the GM should not do that.
There's a reason they changed this stuff and added additional game modes, and a large part of that was to get away from GMs itemizing and multiplying the number of checks required to do things, since that is anti-player and results in "make checks until you inevitably roll poorly" scenarios.
It really doesn't matter. All the stuff Krispy is listing can be done by a bard or rogue using deception and doesn't require illusory creature at all. In fact, you could accomplish the same thing with intimidate.
In the exact same module series Krispy listed, my players dealt with the same encounters. The goblin alchemist handled investigations with his disguise mutagens and high Deception. The paladin with her high Intimidation backed off a ton of guards. The rogue easily stealthed by guards and bypassed hazards and scouted.
All Krispy did was use a spell for a cool looking effect because Krispy's group lacked the player's to accomplish the same tasks.
It does not change that the animal companion is superior in combat, doesn't require a sustain action to cause to exist, can take hits, and can affect the real world. It's more versatile than illusory creature.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Group 2: 2-hand Power Attacking fighter and Rogue. Undead bloodline Sorcerer quit at lvl 9. Got tiresome to be so far behind the fighter in damage and rogue.
A wizard joined at lvl 10. Wizard replaced rogue and monk replaced sorcerer. Fighter is doing about 3 times the damage of the wizard over the course of battles.
I can't comment on the others, but please don't use the example of the level 10 fighter with a level 12 damage boosting item as though it's in any way standard. It's basically an example of what shouldn't be happening.
"Taste Cold Iron!" The Angel cries, as it strikes with its weapon that glows with holy light.1) Vrock would immediately use one of its attack to remove that threat. For sure.
2) That's at least 2 actions off a Wizard.
3) Personally, I'd give Vrock an additional disbelief the first time Angel is shouting at it.
Also, GM call here but nothing limits illusory creatures to melee strikes. Illusory Archers are fully supported by RAW.Not even gonna touch this one.
And I appreciate that. Its actually super informative of how adding more checks dramatically kills success rates, taking them from reasonable for "good idea to bypass an encounter" to fairly irrelevant.You can't just willy nilly remove these checks though. I don't think there would be constant checks, but at least 2 would be included. And this is enough to make this approach extremely unreliable.
If you keep on adding things which are explicitly not in the rules to weaken them, no wonder you think they're weak. It's about the same as if I added a rule that says martial characters automatically hit themselves every time they critical fail.
In the first case, Illusory Creature specifies when creatures make a check to disbelieve, and you're simply adding other saves on because you think that's too good.
In the latter, you're asking for checks when they've already succeeded. Why don't you ask the rogue for a separate Stealth check for each enemy, or make the fighter make multiple Intimidate checks because the enemy isn't coerced enough?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no indication of what changed behavior is. It could be as different as suddenly turning aggressive or as subtle as having a slightly different tone.
It is up to the GM to decide.
Also, the rule is "if its too good to be true its wrong". That very same rule is why spells have very visible and audible manifestations in the first place.
For something like 6+ years in PF1 everyone believed you could just hide casting using a stealth check. Then Paizo said nope and added feats to hide spellcasting, and said Silent and Still metamagic hid those components.
I still let people hide casting with a Deception or Stealth check depending on how far away they are. I'm not making players waste feats on rare instances when skills can replace the item. If the player wants to take the feats to have more player control than GM fiat deciding when they can hide and not hide, more power to them.
This illusion example is actually a really good example of how a wizard can really shine, certainly over a bard and even over a sorcerer.
The 4th level illusionist should have conceal spell and silent spell, as well as invisibility, illusory creature and ventriloquism as a second level spell. 2nd level ventriloquism is an absolute beast of an illusion spell. It lasts an hour and lets you change your voice without having to make any kind of check.
Most GMs should ask for a deception check if you are trying something elaborate, but having a generic creature of any type say something in common really shouldn't be a difficult deception, if the GM requires one at all. As an illusionist, you cast ventriloquism before you even enter the dungeon and you are covered for an hour, you have now spent 1 of your second level spells. Now if you need to cast any other spell you can throw your voice 60ft away while you do it so if you cast illusory creature, the target may figure it out, but have the completely wrong idea about where the spell came from, if you don't cast the spell silently to begin with. If you get warning the creatures are there, you can go with invisibility instead of illusory creature to attempt to avert a combat, and if you fail, you still have 2 second level spells left, + you bonded item.
This is all at 4th level. A bard is pretty much done for the day if they try to follow this and they will have to MC to wizard and be pretty high level before they pick up silent spell.It is awesome to hear there is an illusionist reaction feat as well in the APG.
PF2 has done the illusionist very, very well as a wizard type.
I do like illusion spells in PF2.
Not sure why you think the bard is done for the day, but if that's what you want to think have at it. I play a bard and I'm never done for the day. My composition cantrips and focus features are always in high demand in the most dangerous situations party's face.
If this is the only encounter for the day, the bard will happily let the wizard spend his spell slots accomplishing this deception. The bard has no problems with the wizard occasional shining in a situation like this as he shines every battle with his endless composition cantrips buffing the group.
The spell power he brings and high Charisma based skill checks are just additional icing on a cake groups already love.
So the problem with illusions is the same as it's always been. They very in power tremendously depending on your GM.I think the rules regarding illusions in PF2 are clear enough that they should be functional unless you have a dysfunctional GM, in which case many other aspects of the game will also vary tremendously.
I do like that illusions start by being believed. There is no automatic disbelieve check - unless the GM thinks the illusion is totally out of place, and even then it costs an action.
There is still lots of rooms for interpretation. It would be good if we had a few of these examples worked through in a guide.
Did you read everything else I wrote? I included some bigger...
I have also played wizard and sorcerer at low levels. Never did it feel like I was shooting beebees. In fact, because I like dealing damage instead of debuffing/buffing, I was always on the attack landing comparable damage to the martial characters. And my cantrips always have an array of damage types to capitalize on weaknesses if they present themselves. At level one, up against a warg, a +1 boss, I killed it in one shot, something only achievable by a raging barbarian. At 4, I used grim tendrils the +3 boss greater barghest, dealing continuous damage that was vital in taking the beast down. Lightning bolt at 6, downed three enemies that would have at least downed my other party members had I not been there. And at every level, whether conserving slots or finding them the most useful at the moment, cantrips pulled through with damage: telekinetic projectile (at a -1 compared to martials before 5th level) against undead or with a physical weakness, Ray of Frost at a far range, electric arc against two targets, and daze against low will targets. And this is not to mention when I did AOE damage with burning hands. Even while I only did damage, my party members still thought I was an invaluable asset. ..Greater Barghest saves against a 4th wizard’s tendrils on a 3; average damage for a heightened tendrils there is 3.25 (+0.2 continuous).
For your 1-shot, the scenario i imagine is a critical (on a 20) on shocking grasp? Which will work if you get a good roll on 2d12 (~20% chance of 18 or better).
in both cases there are possibly/probably reasons my assumptions are wrong (?), but in general i think what happens when people roll 2-19 is more representative of how life will be for your class than what happens when you roll 20s and everyone else rolls 1s.
Edit: i have heard good things about 2e illusionists, and even on a direct damage basis i like 2e core Wizard over 1e core Wizard.
I would rather see numbers. The persistent damage on grim tendrils only occurs if you land the spell and is 1 point of persistent damage at the end of each round.
Let's just say I highly doubt that 1 point of damage did much unless the martials had already hammered it so hard that everyone was cheeering that your 1 point of persistent damage did that last point of damage to drop it. Which does not change the fact the 50 point Barghest likely took 2 to 3 times of its hit point damage from martials.
If that was the case, then you did indeed hit like a beebee gun. This is exactly why I started tracking hard numbers because feeling good for doing something small at the right time is not what makes the game click for me. If you feel good that way, great. Have at it. I don't like having other classes do 2 to 3 times the damage I do when I build a character specifically for dealing damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strike action also doesn't have any Auditory or Visual traits, does that mean my weapon strikes are silent and invisible?
False equivalence. Making a strike clearly has visible traits due to its nature. Sustaining a spell does not.
1) Vrock would immediately use one of its attack to remove that threat. For sure.
2) That's at least 2 actions off a Wizard.
3) Personally, I'd give Vrock an additional disbelief the first time Angel is shouting at it.
1 - If he has range. Even if he does, thats Slowed 1 for no save with a 2nd level slot - that is winning and well worth it.
2 - Sure. See above - winning.3 - Why? This isn't in the rules. The Vrock has to spend an action Seeking or interacting with any illusion to get to disbelieve it - there are no free checks anymore.
Also, GM call here but nothing limits illusory creatures to melee strikes. Illusory Archers are fully supported by RAW.Not even gonna touch this one.
Presumably because the spell could have easily said 'Melee Strikes', but instead just says Strikes - right? I mean, those are the facts.
It clearly applies here, because somehow you are making one 2nd level spell into a superpowered panacea for everything, ignoring the example of all the other 2nd level spells there.
You should really read the explicit rules for Illusions. A level 1 illusory object Wall of Stone is almost as good as the real thing if your opponents don't see you cast it and have no reason to doubt it. Even if they DO see you cast it, they still have to get within range to either Seek or use an action to interact! No free checks.
Illusions in general are extremely powerful by RAW this edition.
I can't comment on the others, but please don't use the example of the level 10 fighter with a level 12 damage boosting item as though it's in any way standard. It's basically an example of what shouldn't be happening.Group 2: 2-hand Power Attacking fighter and Rogue. Undead bloodline Sorcerer quit at lvl 9. Got tiresome to be so far behind the fighter in damage and rogue.
A wizard joined at lvl 10. Wizard replaced rogue and monk replaced sorcerer. Fighter is doing about 3 times the damage of the wizard over the course of battles.
Explain to me why this shouldn't be happening? It is my understanding that groups often have one character with an item ahead of the level based magic items. It is in fact expected and not surprising at all for a level 10 group to have one martial character with a lvl 12 magic item.
Do you have some kind of proof this is not the case?
Secondly, given how much power a martial gains from a single magic item, tell me the equivalent item for a caster? If a fighter with a greater striking weapon is doing 3 times the damage of an equivalent level wizard, what magic item allows the caster to close the gap?
I know the monk can close the gap by obtaining a similar magical item with similar striking and property runes, which is why I don't much worry about the monk. But how does a caster closer that gap?
In the first case, Illusory Creature specifies when creatures make a check to disbelieve,
Vrock Perception vs Spell DC when Angel starts shouting anime battle cries.
and you're simply adding other saves on because you think that's too good.Check #1 (Deception): "You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM. This is especially likely if you're trying to imitate a specific person and engage with someone that person knows."
Check #2 (Guards Perception vs Spell DC): "Boss" starts speaking. This is a separate check because it involves guards now more proactively interacting with their boss, receiving orders - caster needs to mimic the boss's voice pattern correctly.
In the latter, you're asking for checks when they've already succeeded. Why don't you ask the rogue for a separate Stealth check for each enemy,
Except all Guards will get their own Perception rolls vs Rogue Stealth DC? Or alternatively, Rogue will get one roll compared to all DCs. Although that's a really bad example, not at all comparable to current discussion. More applicable would be Rogue pushing forward from shadows on the edge of the camp to trying to sneak right behind the guards on watch.
or make the fighter make multiple Intimidate checks because the enemy isn't coerced enough?
Well if they tried to increase their requests made with coercion, yes, it would normally require a second check. Just because you rolled well once doesn't mean they are now forever your slaves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the first case, Illusory Creature specifies when creatures make a check to disbelieve,Vrock Perception vs Spell DC when Angel starts shouting anime battle cries.
and you're simply adding other saves on because you think that's too good.Check #1 (Deception): "You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM. This is especially likely if you're trying to imitate a specific person and engage with someone that person knows."Check #2 (Guards Perception vs Spell DC): "Boss" starts speaking. This is a separate check because it involves guards now more proactively interacting with their boss, receiving orders - caster needs to mimic the boss's voice pattern correctly.
No situation you've listed here allows for anyone to get a save vs. an Illusory Creature. They need to spend an action intentionally and directly interacting with the creature - that does not include talking to it, or hearing it.
It is a single check to impersonate that creature during exploration, unless you meaningfully change their behavior - not a different action, their overall behavior.
Its then a second check to lie.
That's it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the first case, Illusory Creature specifies when creatures make a check to disbelieve,Vrock Perception vs Spell DC when Angel starts shouting anime battle cries.
and you're simply adding other saves on because you think that's too good.Check #1 (Deception): "You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM. This is especially likely if you're trying to imitate a specific person and engage with someone that person knows."Check #2 (Guards Perception vs Spell DC): "Boss" starts speaking. This is a separate check because it involves guards now more proactively interacting with their boss, receiving orders - caster needs to mimic the boss's voice pattern correctly.
In the latter, you're asking for checks when they've already succeeded. Why don't you ask the rogue for a separate Stealth check for each enemy,Except all Guards will get their own Perception rolls vs Rogue Stealth DC? Or alternatively, Rogue will get one roll compared to all DCs. Although that's a really bad example, not at all comparable to current discussion. More applicable would be Rogue pushing forward from shadows on the edge of the camp to trying to sneak right behind the guards on watch.
or make the fighter make multiple Intimidate checks because the enemy isn't coerced enough?Well if they tried to increase their requests made with coercion, yes, it would normally require a second check. Just because you rolled well once doesn't mean they are now forever your slaves.
I wouldn't even worry about it Nemo. Anyone good at Deception can do the same thing against some guards. The spell adds a cool visual feature, but the entire sequence of actions can be done by anyone with good social skills. Not like guards are great at stopping this kind of thing. The illusory creature use is nothing special that can't be accomplished by another class using other means.
No use arguing over the use of an illusion spell that isn't superior at all to a normal Deception, Diplomacy, or Intimidate check by a high charisma class like a bard. Or a rogue using skills and stealth to draw off some guards. Or even a monk using their superior mobility to draw off some guards, then backtrack around with stealth.
The example is not something unique that only illusory creature can accomplish or only a wizard can do. It's another one of those examples a multitude of other classes can accomplish using other means that is supposed to highlight some unique element of a wizard that isn't really unique when other classes can do the same thing either using the exact same spell (my bard has illusory creature) or can be accomplished using skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Explain to me why this shouldn't be happening? It is my understanding that groups often have one character with an item ahead of the level based magic items. It is in fact expected and not surprising at all for a level 10 group to have one martial character with a lvl 12 magic item.Do you have some kind of proof this is not the case?
Secondly, given how much power a martial gains from a single magic item, tell me the equivalent item for a caster? If a fighter with a greater striking weapon is doing 3 times the damage of an equivalent level wizard, what magic item allows the caster to close the gap?
I know the monk can close the gap by obtaining a similar magical item with similar striking and property runes, which is why I don't much worry about the monk. But how does a caster closer that gap?
For the first, it's quite simple - look at the magic item tables. A level 12 magic weapon is worth 2000 gp. If you create a new level 10 character and take the lump sum option, you have 2300 gp. Though the lump sum option is strictly inferior to the permanent item option, it's pretty obvious that the numbers are quite slanted.
The first time a party should be obtaining a level 12 item is during the course of level 11, and - at least according to the magic item tables - the point at which every character should have one should be level 13.If you wanted a comparison, it'd be like getting a Major Staff of Fire or a Wand of Smoldering Fireballs while the martial is still playing with a +2 striking weapon, letting the caster drop more max-slot damage spells.
Is there a direct comparison that will send a caster soaring above what their level should be doing? Not as much, because they're heavily bound by the spell level they can cast. In the above two examples, it'll give them more sustained fire, but it won't increase it above what they can already cast.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
3 - Why? This isn't in the rules. The Vrock has to spend an action Seeking or interacting with any illusion to get to disbelieve it - there are no free checks anymore.
This isn't precisely true: "If the damage doesn't correspond to the image of the monster—for example, if an illusory Large dragon deals only 5 damage—the GM might allow the target to attempt a Perception check to disbelieve the spell as a free action."
However, by and large you are mostly correct.
In the first case, Illusory Creature specifies when creatures make a check to disbelieve,Vrock Perception vs Spell DC when Angel starts shouting anime battle cries.
Ok, and quote the exact line where it's free.
I'll wait.
Illusory Creature is very specific. There are two times in which you get a save:
* If the damage doesn't correspond to the image of the monster—for example, if an illusory Large dragon deals only 5 damage—the GM might allow the target to attempt a Perception check to disbelieve the spell as a free action.
* Any creature that touches the image or uses the Seek action to examine it can attempt to disbelieve your illusion.
No other times. Doesn't matter if it's standing there taunting the person for 5 minutes, if the person doesn't specifically study it (through Seek) or touch it, there is no disbelieve attempt made/.
and you're simply adding other saves on because you think that's too good.Check #1 (Deception): "You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM. This is especially likely if you're trying to imitate a specific person and engage with someone that person knows."Check #2 (Guards Perception vs Spell DC): "Boss" starts speaking. This is a separate check because it involves guards now more proactively interacting with their boss, receiving orders - caster needs to mimic the boss's voice pattern correctly.
And again, you fail to reference where they are specifically touching or Seeking on the illusion. Those are the only times they get to make a disbelieve check. If they're checking the boss for a secret handshake or whatever, then yes, that would qualify for the Perception check. Otherwise, no.
In the latter, you're asking for checks when they've already succeeded. Why don't you ask the rogue for a separate Stealth check for each enemy,Except all Guards will get their own Perception rolls vs Rogue Stealth DC? Or alternatively, Rogue will get one roll compared to all DCs. Although that's a really bad example, not at all comparable to current discussion. More applicable would be Rogue pushing forward from shadows on the edge of the camp to trying to sneak right behind the guards on watch.
I would refuse to play a Stealth character ever in your game, because it's functionally impossible to succeed.
Avoid Notice even specifically calls out that you only make one check, to avoid this exact circumstance. This is the equivalent of going "oh, you need to make a check to see if they see you, then roll for initiative and if they get higher than you they see you".
or make the fighter make multiple Intimidate checks because the enemy isn't coerced enough?Well if they tried to increase their requests made with coercion, yes, it would normally require a second check. Just because you rolled well once doesn't mean they are now forever your slaves.
No, the equivalent to this is "they reject your coercion because you haven't succeeded on enough checks to make me feel that they're sufficiently coerced".
If you really feel more than one check is necessary for a given situation, consider turning it into a skill challenge like those Victory Points rules shown in the GameMastery Guide, where the whole party participates and they collectively need to get X amount of successes before Y amount of failures.
Perhaps they could even come up with some interesting ways to surprise you.
For example, the party needs at least one of their members to get past a pair of guards and infiltrate a castle to meet a contact. The rogue reaches out to his contacts to increase criminal activity in the surrounding area, making a Society or Underworld Lore check, so that the town guards are spread thin, reducing the number of guards that the party needs to sneak past from 2 to 1. The wizard makes a Society check to learn that this particular guard is fond of entertainers. The bard distracts the guard with a Performance check. The ranger makes a Stealth check to sneak past the guard.
If everyone makes their checks they get as many as 4 victory points, or double that if they all made crit successes, of the 2 they needed to succeed and meet their contact.
No situation you've listed here allows for anyone to get a save vs. an Illusory Creature. They need to spend an action intentionally and directly interacting with the creature - that does not include talking to it, or hearing it.
It is a single check to impersonate that creature during exploration, unless you meaningfully change their behavior - not a different action, their overall behavior.
Its then a second check to lie.
That's it.
Illusory Creature uses Deception!
The guard doesn't believe that that is really his boss!The guard touches the illusion! (Grabs, attacks, etc)
The illusion collapses!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Bard has Illusory Creature and is both way better at Deception and Performance checks. Not to mention they can literally use Inspire Competence to give themselves a boost while performing nearby, Which makes them even better at it.
They're better at different things.
The wizard will have worse odds, but will have more spells even after doing this trick.The bard will have better odds, but it's going to cost them more resources.
(As a side note, I'd personally argue Inspire Competence can't be used here - since it'd interfere with the skill check to "maintain a disguise" - and the Bard can't even use it on themselves anyways since you're not your own ally.)