I'm trying to build a melee dex animist. It's probably a terrible idea. I was trying to pair it with Monk dedication, but it turns out that's probably a worse idea.
Either way, I'm confused about the way the Kholo Jaws attack works. It says you have a Jaws Unarmed Attack that deals 1d6 Piercing Damage.
Does this Jaws attack have the same keywords as Fist? Or is it sacrificing Agile, Finesse, etc just for a damage die bump?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the most part, unarmed attacks (whether they come from an ancestry ability or something else) will need to list out all of the traits that they are supposed to have. There is no de-facto inheriting from the Fist attack.
So, for a different example. Razortooth Goblin lists having the Finesse trait. And Fang Sharpener does not (and will remove the Finesse trait from the existing unarmed attack from Razortooth Goblin).
What is a bit strange is when the unarmed attack doesn't list the Unarmed trait. That one does feel like it should be implied. Even without the trait, I don't think I would allow someone to disarm a Kohlo of their jaws attack.
But the Finesse trait gets no such treatment. If the unarmed attack doesn't list that it has Finesse trait, then it doesn't. There are plenty of examples of feats that would certainly work better if they did have Finesse (Witch's Armaments: Eldritch Nails being a prominent example - Witch making more than one STR-based melee attack each round doesn't make any sense at all).
Yes, a caster going melee could be considered a terrible idea because it's tough w/o ingrained abilities like Wild Shape. If in a lighter, easier campaign it could work. And going Dex may feel fine as it provides defense too, but then what kind of damage are you doing? Enough to warrant all that investment & risk? No. And is the AC from Dex really enough to say you have good enough defense to move into melee range? No. Do you not see how fully-decked out warriors get hurt easily...and deliver rather powerful Strikes in return just to survive? In short, your first Strike will be about the value of a warrior's second Strike. It's fine as a third action if you have zero MAP, but it's not worth any actions moving or elsewise cutting into you getting a spell off every round.
Could you reach mediocrity with full investment of buffs, stats, gold, feats, and other resources? Sure, but that's where martial classes begin! So question is, if you envision your PC doing melee attacks, why choose Animist? Consider MCD Animist. To give an example, my Barbarian has the same attack bonus as ally's spells vs. AC, which is higher than a full caster can get with Dex. Yet I do about triple the damage. And for one action vs. two (albeit with movement and extra risk).
--
Yes, the bite lacks those traits, the Kholo are an Ancestry w/ a Str bonus after all. They can use their fist if they want, perhaps for the Agile when they have MAP. The main benefit is gaining the Grapple trait with Crunch, for when their hands are full. That's an extraordinary option...for those with Strength.
You'd need a much bigger weapon to do over half the damage of your fellow melee attacks. About the only safe Strike option for caster is using ranged attacks, which couple nicely with a save Cantrip.
Man this system feels so oppressive.
So, what's the point of taking something like Witch's Armaments or the Witness to Ancient Battles if they're just going to give you a subpar mediocre option that ultimately ends up being a waste of feats?
There is quite a bit of freedom in having the system take care of the math for you as long as you aren't trying to build something silly.
Feats become something to build an interesting character with - not something that you have to agonize over for building a powerful character with.
There is quite a bit of freedom in having the system take care of the math for you as long as you aren't trying to build something silly.
Feats become something to build an interesting character with - not something that you have to agonize over for building a powerful character with.
Sadly they're very much the latter for me, since my experience playing Adventure Paths has always been "You'd better build correctly or you'll go down in every fight".
Pretty much all of my characters to date have felt very useless at all times except the time I built a Monk. He felt great.
I've always pegged striker options in caster classes as being for striker classes dabbling in the MC AT, not for the pure caster to take for themselves unless they also have means to better their attack rolls like druids do through their form spells
Some of them are way too high level for that, like Animist's Grudge Strike. You can't get it until level 6, so you'd need to be level 12 to get it as an archetype and at that point it's effects would be very weak.
That will depend heavily on your subjective opinion of what is fun and useful, and which roles you enjoy. I've played many different classes that were great, but I enjoy playing many different roles
I've primarily played spellcasters and most of the time I feel very weak and like my spells rarely do what they're supposed to. The only significant exception to this is when I managed to get a chain of Sleep spells off to get my team into a place without having to fight half the people inside.
If you want a Dex-based unarmed attack character, kholo isn't the best ancestry choice. The kholo baseline jaws attack doesn't have the Agile or Finesse traits.
However, you can take the Crunch ancestry feat to increase the damage to 1d8 and gain the Grapple trait on it for a Str-based character.
What was it you liked so much about your monk? That'd be a clue about what role you click with. Maybe you can build another character like that
I felt effective and like I wasn't constantly trying to play 4D chess trying to figure out exactly how many casts of Magic Missile I needed that day, I guess.
I was playing a strength-based Tanuki monk with Teakettle and Statue form, and Mountain Stance. The shapeshifting gave me fun utility and flavor and Mountain Stance was a simple and effective way to strike well while also keeping my AC high enough not to get obliterated due to my low dex. I had lots of HP so I could be on the front line without too much issue. It was a character with a simple goal that I was able to reach without much fuss.
That vs. the spellcasters I've played where my concept never really feels like it matches with mechanics, or I feel like I'm getting backstabbed by the rules or the fact that NPCs have extremely high bonuses to saves.
I was trying to play a nonlethal pacifist utility wizard. I took Daze as my main combat spell. Did low damage and had an abysmally low chance of inflicting Stun ONE. I genuinely don't think it ever stunned anything. Since most of my spells were save-based, they rarely worked. As my GM described it 'spells feel bad in PF2 because most of the time they do a lesser version of what they did in PF1, and only do their main thing on a crit fail'. or something like that.
And that's added to the fact that most casters have to micromanage exactly how many casts of every spell they need, so you need to be a divination mage just to know how many times you'll need to cast Fireball vs Charm Person, vs, whatever. THAT combined with the drastically reduced spell slot pool compared to PF1.
I've always pegged striker options in caster classes as being for striker classes dabbling in the MC AT, not for the pure caster to take for themselves unless they also have means to better their attack rolls like druids do through their form spellsSome of them are way too high level for that, like Animist's Grudge Strike. You can't get it until level 6, so you'd need to be level 12 to get it as an archetype and at that point it's effects would be very weak.
That will depend heavily on your subjective opinion of what is fun and useful, and which roles you enjoy. I've played many different classes that were great, but I enjoy playing many different rolesI've primarily played spellcasters and most of the time I feel very weak and like my spells rarely do what they're supposed to. The only significant exception to this is when I managed to get a chain of Sleep spells off to get my team into a place without having to fight half the people inside.
Grudge Strike is honestly great, in the right circumstances. It's not a use every round feat (Paizo has tried to eliminate feats/actions that are so good you always want to use them every round in ever situation) but under the right conditions it's great. A 2 action attack that gives you a +2 circumstance bonus to attack (which also increases your likelihood to crit) and an extra 2d6 damage which are either less commonly resisted or trigger weakness. That's great.
I can imagine a fighter using this against a higher level boss monster to really lay into them. That +2 to attack enhancing their already better than normal attack proficiency, and then bonus damage to top it off? Yeah, this is great against bosses.
Perhaps you might start an advice thread discussing what you're playing and what you've been doing and how that's not working for you. And then people can make suggestions about what you could do alternatively. Very likely it's about your strategy and approach. PF2 is very tactical. You have to use the right tool for the job. You can just select one favorite tool and use it all the time, you're going to fail if you do that.
It is worth noting that spellcasters do generally have a tough time than martial characters in PF2. You need to use a spell that has a save your enemy is weak with. Not just whichever spell you like.
And I would also generally recommend spontaneous casters over prepared casters in this edition. If you want access to utility spells (or less commonly used spells), wands and scrolls are your friend. Unlike PF1, in PF2 spell casting items use your save or attack stat so they as effective as if you used a spell slot.
Edit: OP, did you have a lot of experience with PF1? If so, you probably have a lot of ideas about strategy and approaches from that that are terrible ideas in PF2 because they simply don't work. It took me over a year to like PF2 switching from PF1 (and honestly it was partially I had to quit playing TTRPG because of life stuff and forgot a lot of details) before I was able to come back to PF2 and enjoy it (because I stopped trying to play PF2 like pF1).
Where is all of this talk about other classes using Grudge Strike coming from? That feat can't be taken via multiclass archetype. None of the Wandering feats can.
Where is all of this talk about other classes using Grudge Strike coming from? That feat can't be taken via multiclass archetype. None of the Wandering feats can.
*Checks*
Indeed. Source: The Animist's Power class feat poaching feat.
"You can’t use this feat to gain animist feats with the wandering trait."
Where is all of this talk about other classes using Grudge Strike coming from? That feat can't be taken via multiclass archetype. None of the Wandering feats can.
True, I was just trying to say a fighter would love to pick it up (if they could) and that it wasn't a bad feat inherently.
Yeah, stun is a bad one unless you know an enemy has a very low will. A pacifist-themed wizard is probably better off taking the Nonlethal spellshape feat at L2 and then just using it with Electric Arc, Frostbite, etc.
I'm surprised you say the save spells rarely worked; one of the benefits of using them is that they almost always do at least half damage, unless you're fighting L+2 or similar enemies. And if you can catch multiple enemies in an AoE, well....3 half-damages is one-and-a-half damage. :)
Sounds like you may be more comfortable with a spontaneous caster. Nothing prevents you from picking sorcerer or oracle etc. as your class but donning a pointy hat and theming your PC as a pacifist utility magic nerd. Hmmm, now, how to combo spontaneous caster with Nonlethal feat...well, you could archetype to get it?
Half damage feels pretty pitiful compared to the martials striking 2 or 3 times a turn and doing reliable damage + Strength. But also most of my spells weren't damage dealing, so on a success they just do some minor effect like making the enemy groggy for 1 round.
Spontaneous casters have one MASSIVE problem compared to prepared casters in that their spell repertoirs are TINY. As a prepared caster I can theoretically have every spell in the game AND prep them at any level.
As a spontaneous caster, I have to carefully curate a list of.. what... 4 spells per level? That I can't change without spending an impossible amount of time retraining? And the game has hundreds of spells, many of which are extremely situational. I *think* there are magic items that let you essentially slot another spell in, but in the case of Spell Hearts the save DC never increases on them, and items are generally extremely expensive compared to my party's wealth in APs so far.
Kineticist isn't appealing to me because I generally don't want to play a blaster. The cool and interesting utility spells are what continually draws me to spellcasters.
Perhaps you might start an advice thread discussing what you're playing and what you've been doing and how that's not working for you. And then people can make suggestions about what you could do alternatively. Very likely it's about your strategy and approach. PF2 is very tactical. You have to use the right tool for the job. You can just select one favorite tool and use it all the time, you're going to fail if you do that.
It is worth noting that spellcasters do generally have a tough time than martial characters in PF2. You need to use a spell that has a save your enemy is weak with. Not just whichever spell you like.
See, the issue with that is that I need to know what I'm going up against ahead of time to be able to use the right tool, and that's... frankly impossible a lot of the time. It's difficult to tell at a glance what saves an enemy might be weak against without metagaming. I don't THINK learning save strength is a function of Recall Knowledge?
And even if I did know what an enemy may or may not be weak to, I can't rewind time and re-prep my spell slots mid-combat to take advantage of that.
And worse, if I WAS a spontaneous caster, I would be TRAPPED inside of my spell repertoire. Casting implements only solve part of this because Wands can only be used once per day without risking breaking them and staves are not cheap. (Nor do I fully understand how they work, but that's a different issue).
Edit: OP, did you have a lot of experience with PF1? If so, you probably have a lot of ideas about strategy and approaches from that that are terrible ideas in PF2 because they simply don't work. It took me over a year to like PF2 switching from PF1 (and honestly it was partially I had to quit playing TTRPG because of life stuff and forgot a lot of details) before I was able to come back to PF2 and enjoy it (because I stopped trying to play PF2 like pF1).
I've played a fair amount of PF1 and frankly I hate it a lot more than I hate PF2 in general. My issue doesn't stem from trying to play PF2 like PF1, it comes from...
I dunno, a desire to choose cool and interesting options when the system wants me to be a master planning min-maxxer who tactically assimilates with a hive mind called [party] to perfectly dominate every combat encounter?
That's definitely a bit of hyperbole, but me and my group are more interested in playing fun characters who are cool and interesting than playing Rainbow Six: Absalom or whatever, if that makes sense? And I feel like PF2 hates us for that.
And/or maybe I'm falling into some of the ivory tower trap options that feel like they'd be cool or good but are actually bad, and I'm overlooking useful options because they feel underwhelming or situational? It's probably very complicated and a lot of it stems from the fact that I don't enjoy carefully perusing options to build a character.
I'm rambling uou sorry. I could post an advice thread, but I'm worried I'd just start fights or something, or come off disingenuous?
Edit: I think I struggle to understand what the game 'wants' of me, what it's designed to do. Maybe it's a mismatch between the lore folks and the mechanics folks in the design team. My party struggled to get through battles in Edgewatch with a 6 person team when the general opinions we could find online talked about how easy all the encounters were for many groups.
I'll just chime in that the best fix for early APs, or just the problem your group is running into in general, is for the GM to give the PCs one extra level over what's expected. That extra +1 and early proficiency bump really helps out a lot! It takes the pressure off the group to be so optimal and coordinated.
Tiny compared to what? Have you seen 5e Sorcerers for example (old ones at least)? Because while repertoires are still constrained, in 2e you can get most of useful things for several categories of spells. Even if probably not for all of them...
Compared to a wizard, I guess? A wizard starts with nearly double the known spells as a sorcerer and gains known spells twice as fast. The trade-off is that you have to prepare specific slots and you can cast 1 fewer spell per level.
I'm not the type of player that chooses the best-in-class obvious picks. I tend to go for weird utility spells like Magic Mailbox or Create Tool that aren't really all that useful to constantly have in your toolbox, vs the 'obvious choices' like... I dunno, fireball? Magic Missile? Needle Darts?
5e's sorcerer has fewer spells known, but because 5e's spell pool is a lot smaller it doesn't feel as restrictive.
me and my group are more interested in playing fun characters who are cool and interestingCool! Do that!
'Ignore all situational spells' is sort of counter to the idea of playing a character that's 'cool and interesting' over 'optimized'. And also ignoring all situational spells tends to require carefully weighing options to pick out which spells are going to be useful in the most situations, and which of the most useful spells to pick over the other most useful spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not the type of player that chooses the best-in-class obvious picks. I tend to go for weird utility spells like Magic Mailbox or Create Tool that aren't really all that useful to constantly have in your toolbox, vs the 'obvious choices' like... I dunno, fireball? Magic Missile? Needle Darts?
Well, I think that might be why you aren't as effective as you'd want to be. If you don't pick good spells, you don't do as well. If you pick a good selection of evergreen spells, you'd have a much better chance of doing well.
'Ignore all situational spells' is sort of counter to the idea of playing a character that's 'cool and interesting' over 'optimized'. And also ignoring all situational spells tends to require carefully weighing options to pick out which spells are going to be useful in the most situations, and which of the most useful spells to pick over the other most useful spells.
You don't have to ignore them, you just don't LEARN them. That spell you might cast one in a blue moon is what scrolls are for [especially once they are a few levels under your max spell rank]. Or a wand/staff/spellheart/ect. And you're going to be looking though and weighing options no matter what, so that really isn't a consideration IMO. After all, you have no way of knowing what spells are cool and interesting if you haven't carefully weighed all the spells: picking cool spells takes as long as it takes to pick powerful ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spontaneous casters have one MASSIVE problem compared to prepared casters in that their spell repertoirs are TINY. As a prepared caster I can theoretically have every spell in the game AND prep them at any level.
As a spontaneous caster, I have to carefully curate a list of.. what... 4 spells per level? That I can't change without spending an impossible amount of time retraining? And the game has hundreds of spells, many of which are extremely situational. I *think* there are magic items that let you essentially slot another spell in, but in the case of Spell Hearts the save DC never increases on them, and items are generally extremely expensive compared to my party's wealth in APs so far.
The way PF2 plays, this isn't nearly as limiting as you think it is. Most spells are frankly not worth using. Each level tends to have some standouts that work on almost everything, some situational things you might want (but make good scrolls/wands), and stuff that either never comes up or comes up so rarely that it's hardly ever worth using.
See, the issue with that is that I need to know what I'm going up against ahead of time to be able to use the right tool, and that's... frankly impossible a lot of the time. It's difficult to tell at a glance what saves an enemy might be weak against without metagaming. I don't THINK learning save strength is a function of Recall Knowledge?
"What's their worst (or best) save" is absolutely a valid piece of information for Recall Knowledge. Abilities like Whispers of Weakness can also just tell it to you for an action if you invest the feats to get Oracle Archetype.
And even if I did know what an enemy may or may not be weak to, I can't rewind time and re-prep my spell slots mid-combat to take advantage of that.
And worse, if I WAS a spontaneous caster, I would be TRAPPED inside of my spell repertoire. Casting implements only solve part of this because Wands can only be used once per day without risking breaking them and staves are not cheap. (Nor do I fully understand how they work, but that's a different issue).
This is why generalist spells and spontaneous casters shine. Take something that works on different saves, and use that. It's a problem at low level because your slots are limited, but that eases up significantly later.
Slow hits Fortitude and Synesthesia hits Will. Both are extremely effective. It's easy for spontaneous casters to be able to cast them several times a day. Prepared casters have to guess which one they're going to need and prepare multiple castings or risk being out of luck. Spontaneous casters just go "I'll cast however many I need".
Hell, my Oracle is level 17 and I just cast a third rank Fear last night. It still works on fights where I don't want to use something big (and given how long the dungeon we're in right now is without a long rest, that's been a thing).
I dunno, a desire to choose cool and interesting options when the system wants me to be a master planning min-maxxer who tactically assimilates with a hive mind called [party] to perfectly dominate every combat encounter?
That's definitely a bit of hyperbole, but me and my group are more interested in playing fun characters who are cool and interesting than playing Rainbow Six: Absalom or whatever, if that makes sense? And I feel like PF2 hates us for that.
And/or maybe I'm falling into some of the ivory tower trap options that feel like they'd be cool or good but are actually bad, and I'm overlooking useful options because they feel underwhelming or situational? It's probably very complicated and a lot of it stems from the fact that I don't enjoy carefully perusing options to build a character.
The core problem is a lot of PF2 spells aren't good. That was also a problem in PF1, but you had more spell slots and the "silver bullet" niche spells were super good in their niche. Now we have fewer spell slots and those niche spells were generally nerfed. The utility ones are often still worth using as scrolls (think water breathing/water walking), but even a prepared caster has to know they'll need it ahead of time or take it and hope it comes up any given day except for the one kind of Wizard that can swap things out on the fly.
In combat, generalist spells tend to win the day because they work on everything and there are some extremely effective ones. You take a few of those and you cast them a lot, which is what spontaneous casters excel at.
This is also true for damage spells in that the generalist ones tend to be the best. Something like Moonlight Ray does absolutely massive damage, but only against very specific targets and the rest of the time it doesn't work (super good in Spore War, usually useless in some other APs). Unless you know you're fighting those targets it's not worth preparing at all, whereas stuff like Chain Lightning just works anytime you have a pack of enemies.
Casting implements only solve part of this because Wands can only be used once per day without risking breaking them and staves are not cheap. (Nor do I fully understand how they work, but that's a different issue).
You prepare a staff when doing daily preparations. It gains charges equal to your highest rank spell slot (this does not cost a slot). When you cast from a staff, you use charges equal to the rank of the cast spell.
That's the basics. There's some extra things you can do that vary by prepared/spontaneous caster.
I don't play casters much, since I also have issues playing them, but my approach is to spontaneous casters is getting the following for each rank: one "optimal" spell (things like Haste that are just always good), either one solid damage spell for a high rank or one spell that heightens usefully for low rank, and one completely free choice. Four-slot casters get an extra free choice. For cantrips, two boring, practical damaging cantrips (one for longer range, one for multi-target) before I start grabbing the flavorful stuff.
Picking only the best spells isn't fun, but it's also good to have solid fallbacks that do something useful. It's striking a balance with the system as best as I can.
From there, get a fun gimmick spell (like Invisible Item) on a wand, a few circumstantial low-level spells, and if possible, a staff for anything low-level you want to spam.
Now, in practical terms, what I actually do is play a lot of Thaumaturges, Kineticists, and now Commander. I suspect that Necromancer will join the list, since "spam thralls and focus spells" handles a lot of combat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to be firmly in the camp of "I like wizards, I want to learn all the spells". But gradually in PF1 with psychics I realized that if you know enough spells, the limited repertoire actually wasn't really that limiting. (I was up to about 6 spells known per level though.)
In PF2 I think that's even more the case. It's much less common that that one niche spell is really game-changing. The core, simple solid spells take you very far. Monsters don't have nearly as many immunities/resistances as in PF1 so more spells actually work in most circumstances.
What also matters is that the repertoire of a spontaneous caster really isn't all that limited, because you learn 3-4 spells per rank as well as signature spells. So when you're doing damaging spells (usually from your higher slots) you'll often have 6-8 spells worth choosing between.
For utility magic, scrolls are surprisingly good for spontaneous casters. "Written magic" sounds like it should be a wizard thing, but it's at least as good for sorcerers. They do a lot to fill in the gaps for things you only occasionally need (but then are really useful).
Perhaps you might start an advice thread discussing what you're playing and what you've been doing and how that's not working for you. And then people can make suggestions about what you could do alternatively. Very likely it's about your strategy and approach. PF2 is very tactical. You have to use the right tool for the job. You can just select one favorite tool and use it all the time, you're going to fail if you do that.
It is worth noting that spellcasters do generally have a tough time than martial characters in PF2. You need to use a spell that has a save your enemy is weak with. Not just whichever spell you like.
See, the issue with that is that I need to know what I'm going up against ahead of time to be able to use the right tool, and that's... frankly impossible a lot of the time. It's difficult to tell at a glance what saves an enemy might be weak against without metagaming. I don't THINK learning save strength is a function of Recall Knowledge?
And even if I did know what an enemy may or may not be weak to, I can't rewind time and re-prep my spell slots mid-combat to take advantage of that.
And worse, if I WAS a spontaneous caster, I would be TRAPPED inside of my spell repertoire. Casting implements only solve part of this because Wands can only be used once per day without risking breaking them and staves are not cheap. (Nor do I fully understand how they work, but that's a different issue).
Not exactly. Play a spontaneous caster. Choose a variety of spells that target fort, reflex, and will saves. Make sure that includes your Signature spells too. Those are the ones that you can heighten as you desire. So if you choose spells that cover the various saves, you'll always have something worthwhile available. And you can absolutely ask which save is the weakest when recalling knowledge. The GM shouldn't tell you the exact value, but should tell you which is weakest. Frequently the weakest save is like 3 points lower than the best.
And honestly it's far worse for prepared casters than spontaneous. Because you don't need to plan for how many spell slots of a thing. Just access to a variety to deal with fort/reflex/will. And as far as implements go, you missed the most important one. Scrolls. Scrolls are the most useful thing for combat. Wands aren't really for combat. They're for spells you'll want to use often (everyday) but don't need multiple castings of each day. Something like a 2nd level wand of Tailwind for 8 hours of +10 movement speed without using a spell slot.
Scrolls are best for combat, because you'll use a lot of them. Where martial classes spend money on weapons and runes, you should be spending that money on scrolls.
Edit: OP, did you have a lot of experience with PF1? If so, you probably have a lot of ideas about strategy and approaches from that that are terrible ideas in PF2 because they simply don't work. It took me over a year to like PF2 switching from PF1 (and honestly it was partially I had to quit playing TTRPG because of life stuff and forgot a lot of details) before I was able to come back to PF2 and enjoy it (because I stopped trying to play PF2 like pF1).
I've played a fair amount of PF1 and frankly I hate it a lot more than I hate PF2 in general. My issue doesn't stem from trying to play PF2 like PF1, it comes from...I dunno, a desire to choose cool and interesting options when the system wants me to be a master planning min-maxxer who tactically assimilates with a hive mind called [party] to perfectly dominate every combat encounter?
That's definitely a bit of hyperbole, but me and my group are more interested in playing fun characters who are cool and interesting than playing Rainbow Six: Absalom or whatever, if that makes sense? And I feel like PF2 hates us for that.
If your whole group agrees the game is too hard (and early AP were overtuned) then the GM should adjust the challenge level. Either weakening the enemies a bit, or increasing the PCs level relative to what the game expects. +1 or even 2 levels to the PCs can really shift the math in your favor.
And/or maybe I'm falling into some of the ivory tower trap options that feel like they'd be cool or good but are actually bad, and I'm overlooking useful options because they feel underwhelming or situational? It's probably very complicated and a lot of it stems from the fact that I don't enjoy carefully perusing options to build a character.I'm rambling uou sorry. I could post an advice thread, but I'm worried I'd just start fights or something, or come off disingenuous?
Edit: I think I struggle to understand what the game 'wants' of me, what it's designed to do. Maybe it's a mismatch between the lore folks and the mechanics folks in the design team. My party struggled to get through battles in Edgewatch with a 6 person team when the general opinions we could find online talked about how easy all the encounters were for many groups.
As I said earlier, a thread discussing your groups overall tactics may be in order to understand exactly what's happening.
There's also a possibility, that occurs to me, is your GM making adjustments from the AP based on previous (PF1) experience? If they experienced how OP characters in PF1 could be, they might be making adjustments that they don't realize make the game exceedingly harder than they think.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Demonskunk:
Something that maybe you might enjoy is a sorcerer using the Arcane Evolution feat. It basically allows you to switch out 1 spell per day. So it's a spontaneous caster with a pinch of "all the spells" wizard.
I think it's a good bargain: you can tune a bit to focus on the day's specific problem, but you keep all the advantages of a spontaneous caster. Pretty often, even a prepared caster will keep 80% of their prepared spells the same from day to day anyway.
I would be careful which scrolls you buy. On level scrolls are a massive money sink and unless you're running crazy long adventuring days you have enough slots. You're better off putting the money into other things. What you want in a scroll is something fairly cheap that doesn't come up often enough to know/prep.
Examples include earthbind, helpful steps, and friendfetch. Maybe a couple first rank command scrolls for if the enemy is weak to will just cause they're so cheap.
Condition removal scrolls might seem good on first glance, they're certainly circumstantial, but tbh keeping a full suite of them of a high enough level to work with the counteract mechanic is too expensive and you should be looking for other condition removal (paragon battle medicine, treat condition, pepper poultice, various other alchemicals), or slapping them on a spontaneous caster who can choose not to cast them if they don't come up.
I would be careful which scrolls you buy. On level scrolls are a massive money sink and unless you're running crazy long adventuring days you have enough slots. You're better off putting the money into other things. What you want in a scroll is something fairly cheap that doesn't come up often enough to know/prep.
Examples include earthbind, helpful steps, and friendfetch. Maybe a couple first rank command scrolls for if the enemy is weak to will just cause they're so cheap.
Condition removal scrolls might seem good on first glance, they're certainly circumstantial, but tbh keeping a full suite of them of a high enough level to work with the counteract mechanic is too expensive and you should be looking for other condition removal (paragon battle medicine, treat condition, pepper poultice, various other alchemicals), or slapping them on a spontaneous caster who can choose not to cast them if they don't come up.
It's absolutely true that on-level scrolls are expensive relative to expected wealth. But, DCs/spell attack rolls are consistent across spell level. So even level-1 or level-2 spells can be equally effective from a spell DC/attack roll can still be effective. But ultimately I agree, don't expect to use 4 on level scrolls everyday. You might do that, but only on the day you're expecting to fight the boss.
It's absolutely true that top-rank scrolls are expensive relative to expected wealth. But, DCs/spell attack rolls are consistent across spell ranks. So even rank-1 or rank-2 spells can be equally effective from a spell DC/attack roll can still be effective. But ultimately I agree, don't expect to use 4 top rank scrolls everyday. You might do that, but only on the day you're expecting to fight the boss.
We'll go easy on you this time since it appears to have been your first offense.
;)
It's absolutely true that top-rank scrolls are expensive relative to expected wealth. But, DCs/spell attack rolls are consistent across spell ranks. So even rank-1 or rank-2 spells can be equally effective from a spell DC/attack roll can still be effective. But ultimately I agree, don't expect to use 4 top rank scrolls everyday. You might do that, but only on the day you're expecting to fight the boss.We'll go easy on you this time since it appears to have been your first offense.
;)
You can pry level from my cold dead ambiguously used hands.