Upcoming Dark Archive (Remastered) with Subscription Question

[Trip.H]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

The only Alchemist worth playing in [is] Toxicologist and that's because it is cheesy.

Ha ha, be careful making a claim like that. I do think you are more right than wrong, but most folk don't know where you're coming from.

To get ahead of anyone jumping you for that:
I would agree with someone claiming that power-wise, Tox may be the worst of the worst in pf2 right now,
but it is also true that Toxicologist is the only Alchemist RF that genuinely has a reason to be selected.

Tox's immunity override mechanic is truly unique, and game-changing.

All other types of Alch would likely be better off as other classes who do the same thing, and perhaps archetype into Alch if they really want spontaneous items.
(and until Paizo fix / delete Firework Tech, I'll keep mentioning that even VVial recharge is not Alch-only)

Even a feature as potent as Chir's L13 heal-maxing is just not character-defining in the same way as Tox's.
Other exclusive features, like Bomber's "no AoE mode" for splash, or Chir's "use Craft as Med," are nice conveniences, but are not pivotal to the character's game plan.

Due to their immunity override, Toxicologists can count on their poisons always being a valid option; without it, they would need to rebuild the PC to invest in other game plans for the much-too-common psn immunity. A Fighter Archetyping into Poisoner will never be able to count on their poisons in the same way as a Tox can.

[Houngan]

Teridax wrote:

I recently have yes, and I actually have ScooterScoots to thank for pointing me to a very fun interaction with the Fury Cocktail, which grants imaginary weapon an item bonus to its attack rolls.

Sorry for the tangent question, does the item bonus to attack rolls from Fury Cocktail add to all 'Melee Spell Attack' rolls? Thank you in advance.

[Lightning Raven]

I know it's an unpopular opinion and that probably very few people will agree with me:

The fact is that PF2e spellcasters only have problems because they are playing with old hardware. By that I mean they are using vancian casting on a new system.

We can pretty much trace back most of caster issues to the same source. The Vancian System.

Number of spellslots being a problem? Vancian. Spells not feeling impactful because they have to compete with others in the same tier? Vancian. Bad early game because late game they get to be strong? You guessed it, Vancian.

I still like a ton of Spellcasters in this game and is not like the Vancian system is bad. I particularly know how to use it quite well. But I can acknowledge that it brings more problems to Casters than it solves. And I mean on a foundational design level.

Anyone can guess which casters are highly regarded while others are not? Animists. Bards. Druids. Sorcerers. Kineticists (yeah, I'm calling a spade a spade). All of them to some extent to another.

What do they all have in common? They have a ton of flavorful and interesting CLASS options baked into them. From feats to subclasses. Which are completely tangential to the Vancian Spellcasting System.

We will remain trapped in this cycle as long as the root of the issue isn't dealt with. To me, the Vancian system SHOULD remain in the future of PF2e. But as a class-specific thing. Why not the Wizard? Make them THE vancian caster and redesign the whole thing around that, Wizards as the root and the old schools of magic become subclasses (with different names and concepts to avoid meddling from WOTC).

Sorry for the wall of text, but I guess we get lost in the weeds dealing with the tall grass, but I would like to remind everyone to look at the roots, even if you don't agree with me at all.

[LoreMonger13]

Houngan wrote:

Teridax wrote:

I recently have yes, and I actually have ScooterScoots to thank for pointing me to a very fun interaction with the Fury Cocktail, which grants imaginary weapon an item bonus to its attack rolls.

Sorry for the tangent question, does the item bonus to attack rolls from Fury Cocktail add to all 'Melee Spell Attack' rolls? Thank you in advance.

Since the only specification is that they have to be "melee attack rolls" and not Strikes, weapon attacks, or unarmed attacks, I don't see why it wouldn't.

It's just like the Bard's Courageous Anthem adding +1 to attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves versus Fear (note, not specifically Will saves versus Fear, even though that would be typical). Those bonuses apply just as much to spell attacks and spell damage as they do weapons, unarmed attacks, or the often severely underserved Kineticist Impulses.

[ElementalofCuteness]

It's not just that but the way that I've seen Toxicologist played is a very hot topic. You generally poison every single weapon your Martials use and depending on how you read Toxicologist the poison immunity gets override with acid damage because it is possibly YOUR poison, which is the way I see Tox being used, an amazing first Strike with poisons on every Martial Weapon in the party...Is it cheesy, very...Is it intended, unsure because Paizo has yet to fix this issue.

It just another one of those things where you look back and question the Balance....

[glass]

Lightning Raven wrote:

The fact is that PF2e spellcasters only have problems because they are playing with old hardware. By that I mean they are using vancian casting on a new system.

Unlikely, given that the non-Vancian Psychic is pretty clearly less well regarded than the Vancian Cleric or Druid.

benwilsher18 wrote:

Spellstrike is an activity that includes casting a spell, so it does not meet the requirement of the new amp wording "if the next action you take is to cast a psi cantrip" as your next action is not to cast a psi cantrip, it is to Spellstrike. The rules are pretty clear on this.

You may be correct, but that quote is not persuasive and neither are any of the other arguments posted in the thread so far. Absent a stronger argument to the contrary, I have to agree with Angwa.

The quoted example refers specifically to a "Strike" and is analogous to the wording of Spellshapes which require Cast a Spell. However it is disanalogous to the text of the new Psi-Amp as quoted in this thread, which does not care which particular activity you use to cast a spell, only that you do in fact cast (small "c"). And you cannot appeal to its saying "action" rather than "activity" because casting Imaginary Weapon is already an activity even with Cast a Spell.

[kaid]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

It's not just that but the way that I've seen Toxicologist played is a very hot topic. You generally poison every single weapon your Martials use and depending on how you read Toxicologist the poison immunity gets override with acid damage because it is possibly YOUR poison, which is the way I see Tox being used, an amazing first Strike with poisons on every Martial Weapon in the party...Is it cheesy, very...Is it intended, unsure because Paizo has yet to fix this issue.

It just another one of those things where you look back and question the Balance....

That does not seem like it should be a question that tox poisons use their class ability vs poison immunity. It does not matter whose blade it is on the tox made that poison so the effect is their improved capability. A poison has no idea if it is on your weapon or somebody else's weapon.

[Teridax]

Houngan wrote:

Sorry for the tangent question, does the item bonus to attack rolls from Fury Cocktail add to all 'Melee Spell Attack' rolls? Thank you in advance.

No need to be sorry, I did a double take as well when I first checked the item! The Fury Cocktail grants an item bonus to melee attack rolls, which means it grants an item bonus to all melee attack rolls, whether they're weapon or spell attacks. As you might imagine, this is particularly juicy for spell attacks, which don't normally benefit from item bonuses.

[Trip.H]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Oh. Well, that is pretty much how to "optimally" play Toxicologist now, but that is an emergent result of Paizo's horrible balance.

If there was better payoff for spending combat actions to use poisons, such as [inhaled] poisons, then Tox players would have reason to spend less of their alch budget on poisoning ally blades.

But right now, trying to get the most bang for your buck as a Tox means spending as few combat actions as you can on poisons. In combat, you want to do other stuff, such as archetype actions.

And now that Bomber-brained Paizo made recharging VVials in the remaster, Tox players are incentivized to pause the party before every doorkick to slap some 10min poisons on ally blades.

If the table/GM doesn't get to a point of trusting the Tox player to be honest about their resource management, the emergent play style of Tox is super cancer/anti-fun right now, not gonna lie.

Don't forget that any Alch can do that though, Tox specifically just means those poisons will always invoke a foe save, be they ghost, golem, etc.

[Houngan]

Teridax wrote:

No need to be sorry, I did a double take as well when I first checked the item! The Fury Cocktail grants an item bonus to melee attack rolls, which means it grants an item bonus to all melee attack rolls, whether they're weapon or spell attacks. As you might imagine, this is particularly juicy for spell attacks, which don't normally benefit from item bonuses.

This is really cool, thank you Teridax (and LoreMonger13)!

[exequiel759]

glass wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

The fact is that PF2e spellcasters only have problems because they are playing with old hardware. By that I mean they are using vancian casting on a new system.

Unlikely, given that the non-Vancian Psychic is pretty clearly less well regarded than the Vancian Cleric or Druid.

I honestly would want to know why people don't consider spontaneous casters as vancian casters when they are pretty much the same thing. One has to store spells somewhere and prepare them and the other one just knows them. Both of them have a limited amount of spell uses per day, both use levels / ranks to determine a spell's power level, and most importantly, both borrow spells from the same spell lists.

Most, if not all the problems from the psychic (and arguably a ton of casters in the system as well) comes from the fact that its a vancian caster. The PF2e full caster progression eats away a ton of power budget from a class so that leaves little room for a caster to diferentiate itself from the rest. The psychic was the first of its kind in that it traded spell slots for supposedly more "unique-ness" and, much like the inventor that traded accuracy and became the first "half-martial" of the system, failed spectacularly at doing so. The necromancer truly seems like its going to be what the thaumaturge was for the inventor, but for the psychic instead.

[ScooterScoots]

Houngan wrote:

Teridax wrote:

I recently have yes, and I actually have ScooterScoots to thank for pointing me to a very fun interaction with the Fury Cocktail, which grants imaginary weapon an item bonus to its attack rolls.

Sorry for the tangent question, does the item bonus to attack rolls from Fury Cocktail add to all 'Melee Spell Attack' rolls? Thank you in advance.

It adds to all melee attack rolls, and melee spell attack rolls are included in that. It does debuff your AC, so it’s pretty risky to use, but there are some fun builds with manuvering spell and touch focus and tripkee long tongue and such.

They pretty much all borderline require a party with good healing and defensive reactions though, lmao.

[QuidEst]

It's Vancian casting because it's based on what Jack Vance wrote- casters preparing most of a spell in their head, and completing the spell to cast it. Without that prepared part, it's not "Vancian".

Now, in practical terms, I think plenty of people lump spontaneous tiered daily casting in with it because of the similarities.

[Houngan]

ScooterScoots wrote:

It adds to all melee attack rolls, and melee spell attack rolls are included in that. It does debuff your AC, so it’s pretty risky to use, but there are some fun builds with manuvering spell and touch focus and tripkee long tongue and such.

They pretty much all borderline require a party with good healing and defensive reactions though, lmao.

This is a great find, thank you, I plan on trying this when I get to play next.

[glass]

exequiel759 wrote:

glass wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

The fact is that PF2e spellcasters only have problems because they are playing with old hardware. By that I mean they are using vancian casting on a new system.

Unlikely, given that the non-Vancian Psychic is pretty clearly less well regarded than the Vancian Cleric or Druid.

I honestly would want to know why people don't consider spontaneous casters as vancian casters when they are pretty much the same thing.

Simply answered by pointing out that they are, definitionally, not "pretty much the same thing." They are different things. Opposite things, even. Conversely, I don't know why a handful of people want to broaden the definition of "vancian" to the point of uselessness.

Vancian casters memorise/prepare/slot individual instances of spells, and each specific instance is used to cast that spell (and only that spell). Spontaneous casters do not have to do that - their slots are fungible, and only assigned to individual spells at casting time (which admittedly makes "slot" a poor term in that case, as nothing is ever slotted into them).

exequiel759 wrote:

Most, if not all the problems from the psychic (and arguably a ton of casters in the system as well) comes from the fact that its a vancian caster.

Zero of the psychic's problems arise from its being vancian, because it isn't. Please stop trying to redefine words with a well-understood and useful meaning. Especially when you already have "daily".

[benwilsher18]

glass wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

The fact is that PF2e spellcasters only have problems because they are playing with old hardware. By that I mean they are using vancian casting on a new system.

Unlikely, given that the non-Vancian Psychic is pretty clearly less well regarded than the Vancian Cleric or Druid.

benwilsher18 wrote:

Spellstrike is an activity that includes casting a spell, so it does not meet the requirement of the new amp wording "if the next action you take is to cast a psi cantrip" as your next action is not to cast a psi cantrip, it is to Spellstrike. The rules are pretty clear on this.

You may be correct, but that quote is not persuasive and neither are any of the other arguments posted in the thread so far. Absent a stronger argument to the contrary, I have to agree with Angwa.

The quoted example refers specifically to a "Strike" and is analogous to the wording of Spellshapes which require Cast a Spell. However it is disanalogous to the text of the new Psi-Amp as quoted in this thread, which does not care which particular activity you use to cast a spell, only that you do in fact cast (small "c"). And you cannot appeal to its saying "action" rather than "activity" because casting Imaginary Weapon is already an activity even with Cast a Spell.

Is this persuasive then?

"If you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike to cast a psi cantrip,” an activity that includes a Strike casting a psi cantrip wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action casting a psi cantrip."

Cast a Spell is a special activity that is an exception to this, allowing it to be used with amps and spellshapes.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2734&Redirected=1

"Some rules will refer to the Cast a Spell activity, such as “if the next action you use is to Cast a Spell.” Any spell qualifies as a Cast a Spell activity, and any characteristics of the spell use those of the specific spell you’re casting."

[glass]

benwilsher18 wrote:

Is this persuasive then?

No. Because....

benwilsher18 wrote:

"If you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike to cast a psi cantrip,” an activity that includes a Strike casting a psi cantrip wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action casting a psi cantrip."

...this is the same failed argument again. Strike is a particular, defined activity. Replacing that with different text which does not represent a specific defined activity obviously changes the meaning. (And also because you shoot your own argument in the head later in the post.)

benwilsher18 wrote:

Cast a Spell is a special activity that is an exception to this, allowing it to be used with amps and spellshapes.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2734&Redirected=1

Linkified.

benwilsher18 wrote:

"Some rules will refer to the Cast a Spell activity, such as “if the next action you use is to Cast a Spell.” Any spell qualifies as a Cast a Spell activity, and any characteristics of the spell use those of the specific spell you’re casting."

That's a good find, but it really doesn't help your case. In fact, it rather does the opposite, for two reasons. The first is that it does not carve out the exception you claim. With no elaboration to the contrary, the implication is that "next action" being able to refer to the first action of a larger activity is standard.

Secondly it does carve out a different exception: If you cast a spell, that "qualifies as Cast a Spell" for the purpose of things which care about "your next action". By that metric, Spellstrike is Cast a Spell for Amps.

[Prince Maleus]

So aside from changes made to the Psychic and Thaumaturge, what other changes where made to the rest of Dark Archives content?

[JiCi]

Did the Mind Smith archetype get reprinted with extra feats and traits?

[graystone]

JiCi wrote:

Did the Mind Smith archetype get reprinted with extra feats and traits?

From a quick look it seems to have had nothing done to it.

[Squark]

JiCi wrote:

Did the Mind Smith archetype get reprinted with extra feats and traits?

Bear in mind anything cnew in the book means something else came out from the same section, so best to temper your expectations.

[JiCi]

Squark wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Did the Mind Smith archetype get reprinted with extra feats and traits?

Bear in mind anything cnew in the book means something else came out from the same section, so best to temper your expectations.

You'd think taht after working on the Solarian, they would look at the Mind Smith and say: "Yeah... it needs more love."

Mental Forge adds grapple, modular (B, P, S), nonlethal, shove, or trip... Someone thought it was enough when Disarm, Forceful, Backswing, Backstabber, Deadly, Sweep, and Twin were right there...

[TheTownsend]

Little update I noticed: I was curious about the Pacts Witch and Time Oracle, both of which were already Remastered in Divine Mysteries, and while The Unseen Broker seems to be the same, the Time Oracle has been re-remastered, now with a new Cursebound feat instead of PC2's Oracular Warning: Trance of Celerity. Basically you get a status bonus to speeds equal to five times your Cursebound value -- restores a bit of the premaster utility and technically available to all Oracles.
There's also a new Time mystery-specific 10th level Cursebound feat, On Borrowed Time: deal persistent mental damage that also causes the target to experience two rounds at a time for the purposes of conditions, afflictions, etc. Does not affect the persistent damage from this action, but does for other persistent damage. Bit of a mixed bag there, fear won't last as long, but if your party's good at stacking persistent effects…

Also they kept the same art for "Rumored Owlbear" and just made it "Rumored Bear" lol.

[LoreMonger13]

TheTownsend wrote:

Little update I noticed: I was curious about the Pacts Witch and Time Oracle, both of which were already Remastered in Divine Mysteries, and while The Unseen Broker seems to be the same, the Time Oracle has been re-remastered, now with a new Cursebound feat instead of PC2's Oracular Warning: Trance of Celerity. Basically you get a status bonus to speeds equal to five times your Cursebound value -- restores a bit of the premaster utility and technically available to all Oracles.

There's also a new Time mystery-specific 10th level Cursebound feat, On Borrowed Time: deal persistent mental damage that also causes the target to experience two rounds at a time for the purposes of conditions, afflictions, etc. Does not affect the persistent damage from this action, but does for other persistent damage. Bit of a mixed bag there, fear won't last as long, but if your party's good at stacking persistent effects…

Also they kept the same art for "Rumored Owlbear" and just made it "Rumored Bear" lol.

Not even a Platypus-Bear? A Skunk-Bear? A Gopher-Bear? Or an Armadillo-Bear?

Just a Bear??

...This place is WEIRD.

[JiCi]

We do have a feathered bear in Monster Core 2, so...

[Prince Maleus]

Looks like the Dark Archive Remastered pdf is now available in our library.

I just download it. I wasn't expecting it till tomorrow

[Squiggit]

glass wrote:

Unlikely, given that the non-Vancian Psychic is pretty clearly less well regarded than the Vancian Cleric or Druid.

They're all running on fundamentally the same basic mechanics, so this distinction isn't really important.

[exequiel759]

Yeah, as if the psychic was a completely different beast like kineticist.

[Mangaholic13]

*Screams in pain and agony that the Psychic is still a two-slot caster*

[Darrell Impey UK]

My library is showing as updated Jan 16th, similar to many others, but is still downloading the pre-remaster version on Feb 4th. Maybe a cookie clear is in order?

[Tridus]

Darrell Impey UK wrote:

My library is showing as updated Jan 16th, similar to many others, but is still downloading the pre-remaster version on Feb 4th. Maybe a cookie clear is in order?

Which library are you looking in? In the new store library, I'm seeing two different Dark Archives. There's the old one, and also a remaster one.

In the old "digital content" library I only have the old one.

[Darrell Impey UK]

Tridus wrote:

Which library are you looking in? In the new store library, I'm seeing two different Dark Archives. There's the old one, and also a remaster one.

In the old "digital content" library I only have the old one.

The new one, but I was expecting the old file to be updated rather than a new, separate one, so I'll dig deeper. Thank you.

[Grumpus]

Just downloaded the single file and they gave it an interesting filename: 03c1624d-78b5-4655-9407-0081d46f2bd5-PZO12012e

[Ravingdork]

How will we know which one is the correct one? The links are not clearly labeled and the PDFs look near identical.

[Xenocrat]

I don't have it, I only have the old one. My old one shows a mid January update, but it's still the old text. If I search "remastered" I get only the Guns and Gears and Treasure Vault results.

Ravingdork wrote:

How will we know which one is the correct one? The links are not clearly labeled and the PDFs look near identical.

Look at the Oscillating Wave psychic's granted spells. It should have Falling Stars instead of Meteor Swarm, and that triple fire beam spell whose name I can't remember instead of Heat Metal. Also don't have Fiery Body, got Volcanic Eruption instead.

[Grumpus]

Ravingdork wrote:

How will we know which one is the correct one? The links are not clearly labeled and the PDFs look near identical.

It says "Second Edition Remaster" in the upper right corner of the cover.

[Tridus]

Grumpus wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

How will we know which one is the correct one? The links are not clearly labeled and the PDFs look near identical.

It says "Second Edition Remaster" in the upper right corner of the cover.

Can confirm this is true. It's the easiest way to tell. Also the remaster PDF is massive at 241MB and took some time to open.

According to the library page, I got it January 29. Just searching "Dark Archive" brings up both versions. So if you don't have it yet you may need to contact Paizo.

[graystone]

Tridus wrote:

Also the remaster PDF is massive at 241MB and took some time to open.

I compressed it to 76 MB and it works a lot better. :)

[Darrell Impey UK]

Nope, nothing even after a cookie clear.

Ah well, customer services it is. :)

[Travis Kirkpatrick]

This question does not have to do with subscriptions but with today being street release and I know they do not have hardcover versions available but was looking at purchasing the PDF and wondering if anyone knows why the remastered PDF is not available in the store for purchase? Just the original version is.

Thanks.

[glass]

Squiggit wrote:

glass wrote:

Unlikely, given that the non-Vancian Psychic is pretty clearly less well regarded than the Vancian Cleric or Druid.

They're all running on fundamentally the same basic mechanics, so this distinction isn't really important.

The distinction between Vancian and non-Vancian casting is not "really important" to the question is whether Vancian casting is the root of casters' problems? I am lost for words.

[Darrell Impey UK]

Contacted Customer Service, and they have added it to my account in under 2 hours. :)

Thank you CS.

[graystone]

glass wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

glass wrote:

Unlikely, given that the non-Vancian Psychic is pretty clearly less well regarded than the Vancian Cleric or Druid.

They're all running on fundamentally the same basic mechanics, so this distinction isn't really important.

The distinction between Vancian and non-Vancian casting is not "really important" to the question is whether Vancian casting is the root of casters' problems? I am lost for words.

That's because no one complains about that. Take another set of classes, sorcerer and wizard, and you'll find that the one with the same kind of casting to the Psychic, the sorcerer, is more highly thought of because of the class features. To be honest, I've seen more people value a spontaneous casting than prepared overall.

As for the Psychic vs Cleric or Druid, it's more that the Psychic only has 2 slots per level vs a clerics/druids 3 slots plus clerics/druids can pick any on level spell on their list they have access to per day and they have better class features. Spontaneous vs prepared doesn't impact the Psychic issues much IMO.

[Ravingdork]

Grumpus wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

How will we know which one is the correct one? The links are not clearly labeled and the PDFs look near identical.

It says "Second Edition Remaster" in the upper right corner of the cover.

Odd. I could have sworn that wasn't there before. I wonder if it was added in after the fact.

[Easl]

graystone wrote:

Take another set of classes, sorcerer and wizard, and you'll find that the one with the same kind of casting to the Psychic, the sorcerer, is more highly thought of because of the class features. To be honest, I've seen more people value a spontaneous casting than prepared overall.

I sort of agree and sort of don't. Yes, the sorcerer's class features make it most people's preferred choice. However, that's in part because one of those class features vastly expands the flexibility of spontaneous casting. That feature is getting 1 signature spell per rank. This basically "counterfeits" the benefit of Vancian magic (i.e. breadth of spells to select from via spellbook) because it means the Sorc has not 4 max rank spells to select from, but 12 rank 9, 11 rank 8, 10 rank 7, etc... Without that feature expanding tbe breadth of spontaneous spell selection so much it basically wipes out the value of a spellbook, I think it would be quite a different ball game.

Spontaneous has a clear and obvious advantage over Prepared in the case where repetoire >= spells known for that rank. Who wouldn't pick "decide what you want to cast when you cast it" over "decide at the start of the day what you want to cast"? Prepared becomes a legit choice when spells known per rank >> repetoire - i.e., when the decision you make at the start of the day gives you more choices than "decide when you cast" gives you. In PF2E, at high levels, the former is the case and in fact repertoire can easily achieve >> spells known for the higher ranks.

[graystone]

Easl wrote:

However, that's in part because one of those class features vastly expands the flexibility of spontaneous casting.

I didn't mention signature spells as those are part and parcel with spontaneous casting.