| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll update this every five levels or so.
First five levels of the animist is above average for a caster.
Damage is very average. Earth's Bile advances slowly every two levels and the 10 foot radius burst is sometimes good and other times makes it hard to use. I see why Teridax and a few others want to add the status bonus to the persistent damage as Earth's Bile is very meh damage even with Channeler's Stance, especially if hitting a single target or two and any of them have resistance to earth or fire or both. It's ok for one action, but it's very unspectacular damage.
Garden of Healing is great for downtime healing. It obviates the need for medicine.
Spellcasting is versatile. You can act as the healer and divine caster. The signature spells allow for decent versatility.
It very much does match druid type of play where it fills a few roles well enough to not need a dedicated healer.
Sustain is a bit clunky, but not as bad as I thought, especially if you can get haste from someone else.
Feats are just ok. I picked up Channeler's Stance and went Rogue Archetype with Mobility to set up for the Liturgist higher level ability as most low level feats aren't very appealing. Level 6 feats look better.
So far enjoyable. A hybrid caster that does well enough at a few roles. Nice to have wisdom as base stat since it affects will saves and Perception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for the feedback.
For PFS, I was considering playing an Animist with Flames Oracle dedication for Fiery Aura as I feel it should combo well with Earth's Bile.
What do you think of it ?
I did this with a kineticist with Thermal Nimbus. That was fun.
Probably be ok with Earth's Bile. The persistent damage from the Oracle focus spell will be higher than than Earth's Bile. Once you get the aura up, it's free damage once you hit them for some fire damage. It works regardless of save.
With Earth's Bile if they make a regular save, no persistent damage. Another reason why Earth's Bile can be meh. If something saves, they don't even take the persistent damage even if you are adding the Status bonus from Channeler's Stance. Thus I don't think it's a bad idea to stack the Flame Oracle aura.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I found myself not using Earths Bile at L3-4 due to the wonky scaling.
Have you used Nymph's Grace yet? In the right situation it can be absolutely ridiculously overpowered. One of the few apparitions that I reasonably often circle into, especially at level 7+ when I get my third apparition.
Not yet. It might be ok to try for this character since I do have them being a bit closer than most of my casters.
But the nymph's grace spell list aren't as good as Steward of Stone and Fire and Custodian of Groves and Gardens. I like having access to the spells from those lists.
It's a balancing act figuring out the vessel spell you will use the most coupled with the best spell lists for apparition spells. It's not as easy to change as is often sold by the pro-animist crowd. You have to pick your apparitions for the day. You can't change them until the next day and picking an apparition for one vessel spell with a spell list you won't use much is a serious consideration.
I'm the healer and blaster of the group. So I have to focus my spell lists in that direction.
Maybe as a 3rd or 4th apparition once I get them I might be able to fit it in.
It is nice to have Circle of Spirits to change the primary apparition as needed which allows me to alternate between Earth's Bile for combat blasting and Garden of Healing for downtime healing.
|
Maybe as a 3rd or 4th apparition once I get them I might be able to fit it in.
Yeah, the class opens up a lot at 7th level when you get your third apparition. Or earlier if you don't have to be the out of combat healer.
Basically (over simplifying, of course) one apparition for the spells leaving 2 for their vessel spells.
Its hard to not attune to Steward. Fireball is just too good at rank 3 and 4 and wall of stone at rank 5. And Earth's Bile is nice 1 action chip damage.
I think I mentioned it earlier but Earth's Bile becomes quite good when combined with Blazing Spirit (assuming you're built for it, of course), often allowing you to get 3 or even 4 enemies in the burst.
You're quite right, people overstate how flexible the Animist is. It IS very flexible, of course (especially when you know what you're facing the next day) but that flexibility is still limited by your stats, equipment, party, etc.
It's a balancing act figuring out the vessel spell you will use the most coupled with the best spell lists for apparition spells. It's not as easy to change as is often sold by the pro-animist crowd. You have to pick your apparitions for the day. You can't change them until the next day and picking an apparition for one vessel spell with a spell list you won't use much is a serious consideration.
Absolutely.
I am pro-animist. And this is what I have been trying to convince people of since the playtest. Yeah, the flexibility is great. But it is balanced against the opportunity cost. You can pick an apparition because of one thing that you want - whether that is spell list, cantrip, focus spell, or even Lore skill. But you can only choose freely for one of those. You will get the rest of the package tacked on whether you like it or not.
Maybe as a 3rd or 4th apparition once I get them I might be able to fit it in.
Yeah, the class opens up a lot at 7th level when you get your third apparition. Or earlier if you don't have to be the out of combat healer.
Basically (over simplifying, of course) one apparition for the spells leaving 2 for their vessel spells.
Its hard to not attune to Steward. Fireball is just too good at rank 3 and 4 and wall of stone at rank 5. And Earth's Bile is nice 1 action chip damage.
I think I mentioned it earlier but Earth's Bile becomes quite good when combined with Blazing Spirit (assuming you're built for it, of course), often allowing you to get 3 or even 4 enemies in the burst.
You're quite right, people overstate how flexible the Animist is. It IS very flexible, of course (especially when you know what you're facing the next day) but that flexibility is still limited by your stats, equipment, party, etc.
Why Blazing Spirit? It's a reaction ability usable once every 10 minutes. It's ok for a once every 10 minute defensive ability, but that's a tough sell to take this feat for use once every 10 minutes.
Yeah, that's what I told you, animist is a good class but not the powerhouse people want it to be. Earth's bile is a great focus spell, but the 10-feet burst makes it a bit unwieldly, especially if your friends try flanking.
It *can* become powerful after level 9, especially if you use all the shenanigans that allow you to step multiple times (elf step, 6th pillar...). But by this point a lot of classes have outpaced it.
As an aside, you should really try Nymph's grace, it single-handedly wins mook encounters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I've got first hand experience with nymph's grace turning a death sentence encounter of 12+ low level enemies into a cakewalk. With it, I blocked off access to the rest of my party and rarely had successful strikes against myself due to the spell's protection. When it works, it works REALLY well. You kinda just gotta know when you need it ahead of time or get lucky. My example experience was a bit of both.
I like earth's bile because it's generally better than most, if not all, cantrips and costs a single action (and a focus point). Compared to a cantrip, it has a great AoE and a more reliable rider effect, persistent damage on a failure, not a CRITICAL failure. I'm in an adventure that has A LOT of enemies that are weak to fire as well. I've honestly been using it less often than I should. Lol.
Kinda curious what synergy you have going on with Mobility. I'm guessing it's to combo with short Tumble Through actions but maybe I'm missing something.
I am glad to see that the Animist's strength is finally percolating through to more players. I'm quite surprised not to see Skirmish Strike mentioned at all despite the Rogue archetype pick, but if nothing else this goes to show that the class can achieve quite a lot even before tapping into its best synergies.
One thing, though:
I see why Teridax and a few others want to add the status bonus to the persistent damage as Earth's Bile is very meh damage even with Channeler's Stance, especially if hitting a single target or two and any of them have resistance to earth or fire or both.
I have advocated for literally the exact opposite. Earth's bile in my opinion is strong enough that I rule against applying its status bonus to its persistent fire damage, even though I believe it would otherwise be valid RAW. Dealing half of fireball's damage as a single action with the ability to both partially bypass fire resistance/immunity and trigger weakness to two different damage types, and so repeatedly all for the cost of a single Focus Point, is significantly above the curve for focus spells, and even slot spells at early levels. As several people have noted, this isn't even the most impressive option around, and nymph's grace can flip certain encounters upside-down.
Because I'm an idiot and went from memory :-). I meant Roaring Heart, of course :-) :-)
Why Blazing Spirit? It's a reaction ability usable once every 10 minutes. It's ok for a once every 10 minute defensive ability, but that's a tough sell to take this feat for use once every 10 minutes.
Ah. Ok. I'll take a look.
I am glad to see that the Animist's strength is finally percolating through to more players. I'm quite surprised not to see Skirmish Strike mentioned at all despite the Rogue archetype pick, but if nothing else this goes to show that the class can achieve quite a lot even before tapping into its best synergies.
One thing, though:
I see why Teridax and a few others want to add the status bonus to the persistent damage as Earth's Bile is very meh damage even with Channeler's Stance, especially if hitting a single target or two and any of them have resistance to earth or fire or both.I have advocated for literally the exact opposite. Earth's bile in my opinion is strong enough that I rule against applying its status bonus to its persistent fire damage, even though I believe it would otherwise be valid RAW. Dealing half of fireball's damage as a single action with the ability to both partially bypass fire resistance/immunity and trigger weakness to two different damage types, and so repeatedly all for the cost of a single Focus Point, is significantly above the curve for focus spells, and even slot spells at early levels. As several people have noted, this isn't even the most impressive option around, and nymph's grace can flip certain encounters upside-down.
Half fireball damage is nothing at high level. At the moment it's dealing 2d4 and 2d4 +3 with possible 2 persistent fire damage on a failure. That's an average of 13 damage on a failure on the save. Not bad, but I found a lot of bosses make their save quite often avoiding the persistent damage and taking 6 or 7 damage. That is not that great at all. I'd be better off shooting them with a bow.
I can see how it will get better against mooks at higher level. Bosses may always be something it's not that great against.
Yeah, I've got first hand experience with nymph's grace turning a death sentence encounter of 12+ low level enemies into a cakewalk. With it, I blocked off access to the rest of my party and rarely had successful strikes against myself due to the spell's protection. When it works, it works REALLY well. You kinda just gotta know when you need it ahead of time or get lucky. My example experience was a bit of both.
I like earth's bile because it's generally better than most, if not all, cantrips and costs a single action (and a focus point). Compared to a cantrip, it has a great AoE and a more reliable rider effect, persistent damage on a failure, not a CRITICAL failure. I'm in an adventure that has A LOT of enemies that are weak to fire as well. I've honestly been using it less often than I should. Lol.
Kinda curious what synergy you have going on with Mobility. I'm guessing it's to combo with short Tumble Through actions but maybe I'm missing something.
Yes. Setting up short Tumble Through actions so as not to activate Reactive Attacks. Reactive strikes can be incredibly brutal if you play a class that has to move to sustain spells.
And I like being able to move without setting off reactive strikes. The only classes I don't care as much about it are the plate wearing classes, especially champion or guardian.
Every other class that maxes at Excellent or doesn't get master armor until 17 or 19 I like to have mobility. Getting wrecked by Reactive Strikes is not fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Half fireball damage is nothing at high level. At the moment it's dealing 2d4 and 2d4 +3 with possible 2 persistent fire damage on a failure. That's an average of 13 damage on a failure on the save. Not bad, but I found a lot of bosses make their save quite often avoiding the persistent damage and taking 6 or 7 damage. That is not that great at all. I'd be better off shooting them with a bow.
I can see how it will get better against mooks at higher level. Bosses may always be something it's not that great against.
This should normally go without saying, but AoE will obviously be more effective against groups of lower-level enemies than against single high-level enemies, yes. Based on the numbers I'm guessing you're still level 6, so I'll be happy to run the math:
So even when making assumptions that favor the bow, and at a level where spellcasting proficiency is lagging behind, earth's bile will generally be better against even a single mook pound-for-pound, though you might want to change tack if facing a powerful lone enemy. Putting aside how level 6 isn't high level, at least not in my books, half fireball damage is not nothing at any level, which is why during the playtest, players were frequently spamming earth's bile x3 to deal fireball-and-a-half damage every round at no spell slot expenditure, forcing Paizo to implement a restriction in the release version. In general, the ability to deal damage as a single action as a caster is itself a significant benefit, because it allows for more throughput compared to casters that are typically limited to two-action spells. Thus, while earth's bile may not seem like much by itself, it will sit comfortably alongside other spells you choose to use during the same turn, which need not even be blasting spells depending on the circumstances.
Half fireball damage is nothing at high level. At the moment it's dealing 2d4 and 2d4 +3 with possible 2 persistent fire damage on a failure. That's an average of 13 damage on a failure on the save. Not bad, but I found a lot of bosses make their save quite often avoiding the persistent damage and taking 6 or 7 damage. That is not that great at all. I'd be better off shooting them with a bow.
I can see how it will get better against mooks at higher level. Bosses may always be something it's not that great against.
This should normally go without saying, but AoE will obviously be more effective against groups of lower-level enemies than against single high-level enemies, yes. Based on the numbers I'm guessing you're still level 6, so I'll be happy to run the math:
* Ignoring Channeler's Stance for a minute, and ignoring the ability for persistent damage to apply more than once, earth's bile at that level will deal 5 average damage on a success, 12 average damage on a failure, and 24 average damage on a critical failure. A PL+0 enemy with a moderate save for its level (+14) will therefore have a 15% chance to critically succeed on its save, a 50% success chance, a 30% failure chance, and a 5% critical failure chance, taking a total of 7.3 average damage per cast or Sustain. Against a PL+3 enemy with a moderate save (+18) this drops to 2.8 average damage.
* Assuming full runes for that level, Strength +4, and embodiment of battle, a composite shortbow at that level will deal 10 average damage on a hit, and 25.5 average damage on a crit. Assuming Dexterity +4 on top (which shouldn't be possible on your character), you will have a 50% chance to hit a PL+0 enemy with high AC (AC 24) and a 5% chance to crit, dealing a total of 6.3 average damage. Against a PL+3 enemy with high AC (AC 28) this drops to 4.3 average damage. So even when making assumptions that favor the bow, and at a level where spellcasting proficiency is lagging behind,...
I don't use a shortbow, so you would have to upgrade to d8s for the damage.
Nothing else you've stated is new information. Half-fireball not impressive at high level. Longbows have much, much longer range. Allows me to open up at longer range while dropping AOE.
Earth's Bile has its uses. Nice against mooks when much closer.
I'll see how it scales up and works with how my group plays since we like to hit from range to open. It's damage is still pretty low and can activate two types of resistance. Resist all is twice as effective against it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's damage is still pretty low and can activate two types of resistance. Resist all is twice as effective against it.
With the most recent clarification/errata on resistances, Resist all should really be called Resist any. It will not activate twice on a single effect.
I don't use a shortbow, so you would have to upgrade to d8s for the damage.
Nothing else you've stated is new information. Half-fireball not impressive at high level. Longbows have much, much longer range. Allows me to open up at longer range while dropping AOE.
I was being kind and using a composite version just to get that extra damage in on a literally impossible build, but I suppose none of this matters terribly if all this bow is going to be firing in is a white room where you have as much room as needed to make the longbow’s horrifically long volley trait not matter. The weapon is in my experience very much the archetypal min-maxer’s trap.
It's damage is still pretty low and can activate two types of resistance. Resist all is twice as effective against it.With the most recent clarification/errata on resistances, Resist all should really be called Resist any. It will not activate twice on a single effect.
They changed it? Where is this?
I was being kind and using a composite version just to get that extra damage in on a literally impossible build, but I suppose none of this matters terribly if all this bow is going to be firing in is a white room where you have as much room as needed to make the longbow’s horrifically long volley trait not matter. The weapon is in my experience very much the archetypal min-maxer’s trap.I don't use a shortbow, so you would have to upgrade to d8s for the damage.
Nothing else you've stated is new information. Half-fireball not impressive at high level. Longbows have much, much longer range. Allows me to open up at longer range while dropping AOE.
I'm not even sure what you're talking about since I do this build all the time. I fire a bow quite often at lower levels. My group leverages range to our advantage.
I was being kind and using a composite version just to get that extra damage in on a literally impossible build, but I suppose none of this matters terribly if all this bow is going to be firing in is a white room where you have as much room as needed to make the longbow’s horrifically long volley trait not matter. The weapon is in my experience very much the archetypal min-maxer’s trap.I don't use a shortbow, so you would have to upgrade to d8s for the damage.
Nothing else you've stated is new information. Half-fireball not impressive at high level. Longbows have much, much longer range. Allows me to open up at longer range while dropping AOE.
I generally agree with this sentiment and make similar arguments, but the animist is such a short range caster compared to many others that having your long bow for using when your combat focus spells are out of reach actually works out pretty well in this case. You don’t even necessarily need proficiency in it to use it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fire a bow quite often at lower levels. My group leverages range to our advantage.
In a large amount of published Paizo material in a significant number of encounters you really don't have that option. You open a door and combat starts at close range. You walk around a corner and combat starts. Etc.
And scouting ahead is NOT a universal answer to the above. You often just don't have the opportunity. Or doing so is close enough to suicide for the scout that the player eventually gets tired of bringing in new characters :-) :-).
And, of course, many casters best spells have a 30 ft range.
I get the impression that your groups style seems to be a combination of making things more difficult by rolling encounters together AND making things easier by letting the PCs set the terms of the encounter far too much. I'd have to play at your table to be sure. But it is pretty obvious that your style is NOT the normal one at most tables, that you're an outlier in many ways.
Adding the obligatory : I'm not calling badwrongfun. You do you. But realize that your table IS an outlier.
The longbow is for earlier levels and occasional higher level use.
Weaker battles you want to rely on something like a cantrip and a weapon to maintain some damage while your martials clear the trash. You maybe drop one meaningful spell to help lower the hit point pools.
At higher levels you may use something like a Phantom Orchestra with an Effortless Concentration sustain then drop some harder hammer spells while moving or mixing in a single attack from range.
I see these as the layers of combat. You start the combat softening targets at range, then switch to shorter range attacks when enemies close.
Our group doesn't have max rank heroism to cast on everyone. We focus the heroisms on the martial hammers so they can do the control things like trip or smash things hard.
The bow is a tool in the toolbox. Min-maxing a caster is having a wide toolbox, not repeating the same actions over and over again. You may open the fight at range hitting with the bow and a longer range spell. Then as they close you switch to a single hammer spell, maybe hit with Earth's Bile, then do support as needed depending on the difficulty of the fight.
We don't spend much time on round by round tactics in discussions here. Everything is some white room under ideal circumstances in general discussions. In the game, things are changing including range, numbers on the battlefield, where everything is setup, and so much more. You want to have lots of useful tools to adapt to changing circumstances.
I've been playing long enough now I don't really care about maximizing damage every round or always casting some slot spell. I'm more interested in minimum resource use to win fight fairly easy and saving resources for major fights to unload. I'm perfectly happy to cast cantrips and shoot the bow if the fight is a bunch of easy mooks the martials are having fun ripping apart.
Most players in my group have built their character as strong as they can manage to do it. I'm ok letting all the min-maxed martials have their shine time tearing apart groups of mooks. They do it well for no resource cost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fire a bow quite often at lower levels. My group leverages range to our advantage.
In a large amount of published Paizo material in a significant number of encounters you really don't have that option. You open a door and combat starts at close range. You walk around a corner and combat starts. Etc.
And scouting ahead is NOT a universal answer to the above. You often just don't have the opportunity. Or doing so is close enough to suicide for the scout that the player eventually gets tired of bringing in new characters :-) :-).
And, of course, many casters best spells have a 30 ft range.
I get the impression that your groups style seems to be a combination of making things more difficult by rolling encounters together AND making things easier by letting the PCs set the terms of the encounter far too much. I'd have to play at your table to be sure. But it is pretty obvious that your style is NOT the normal one at most tables, that you're an outlier in many ways.
Adding the obligatory : I'm not calling badwrongfun. You do you. But realize that your table IS an outlier.
Things vary with us so much I can't explain it all. We always try to use range to our advantage and set the battlefield. But of course this makes it so our DMs don't play things the standard way as they have the opposing side using their own tactics. Then you have to adapt as needed.
What we absolutely do not do though is, "I walk up to the door and open the door."
DM says, three orcs inside. Roll initiative.
That playstyle hasn't been practiced by this group for decades. We lost interest in that Keep on the Borderlands style of just starting out play a long time ago. Now we want some well done back and forth tactical battles with a DM that knows how to counter nearly everything we do or at least challenge it to make the fight feel dangerous.
Once you been playing a long time, you want someone to find ways to make fights interesting so the same tactics don't work every time and can be countered or pressured to make you try something new. Not an easy feat with my old, jaded group.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They changed it? Where is this?It's damage is still pretty low and can activate two types of resistance. Resist all is twice as effective against it.With the most recent clarification/errata on resistances, Resist all should really be called Resist any. It will not activate twice on a single effect.
It was part of the whole "clarification of what a damage instance is" to and fro a few months ago, which came as part of a season errata I believe.
Basically IIRC, an effect (say a Strike or a spell) is a single instance of damage, no matter how many additional damage stacks on it.
You apply Resist All only once and you choose the type of damage to which it applies.
Hence why I and some others thought it should be renamed as Resist Any.
I will try to find the thread/post where this was officially stated.
It must have happened around Feb.6th 2026 when the 2026 Spring Errata were released.
EDIT : The best I could find is this thread
They changed it? Where is this?It's damage is still pretty low and can activate two types of resistance. Resist all is twice as effective against it.With the most recent clarification/errata on resistances, Resist all should really be called Resist any. It will not activate twice on a single effect.It was part of the whole "clarification of what a damage instance is" to and fro a few months ago, which came as part of a season errata I believe.
Basically IIRC, an effect (say a Strike or a spell) is a single instance of damage, no matter how many additional damage stacks on it.
You apply Resist All only once and you choose the type of damage to which it applies.
Hence why I and some others thought it should be renamed as Resist Any.
I will try to find the thread/post where this was officially stated.
It must have happened around Feb.6th 2026 when the 2026 Spring Errata were released.
EDIT : The best I could find is this thread
That takes of resist all.
So the monster would have to have resist physical and resist fire to stop Earth's Bile completely now. And it helps a lot of other weapons with damage runes quite a bit. That's a helpful change against resist all which was a little too powerful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They changed it? Where is this?It's damage is still pretty low and can activate two types of resistance. Resist all is twice as effective against it.With the most recent clarification/errata on resistances, Resist all should really be called Resist any. It will not activate twice on a single effect.
it's in the Player Core spring 2026 errata on the official errata page, and its long:
Complex effect immunity has a new example.
Weakness and resistance entries are broken out to more clearly indicate how they work for damage types and for traits, materials, and more.
The rules now state clearly that each weakness and resistance can now apply only once to a single effect. In complicated cases, the GM can go through them like a checklist.
If a creature has weakness to both a damage type and material, both weaknesses now apply. This is an intentional change so good preparation and itemization give an advantage as players might reasonably expect.
A single source of damage could always have both a weakness and resistance applied to it, but the rules now address that.
Resistance to all damage or to a wide array of damage (such as physical damage) also applies only once. This is a big change to the status quo! Most monsters with resistances like these aren’t balanced around resisting multiple types of damage per hit, so this is unlikely to significantly change how they play. There is a rule about applying multiple resistances to the same type, but a multi-type resistance can be applied to the most beneficial damage type if it could apply more than one.
To add an extra clarification here, a “single effect” includes all the damage, traits, and other characteristics of a Strike or spell. Subordinate actions with their own effects and damage rolls typically get treated separately unless they state otherwise, such as the ranger’s Hunted Shot feat (Player Core 157).
Please also note that when the book is reprinted, this text will likely change to fit the space available. If changes are made for function rather than space, that will be noted in the erratum.
Immunity
When you have immunity to a specific type of damage, you ignore all damage of that type. If you have immunity to a specific condition or type of effect, you can’t be affected by that condition or any effect of that type. You can still be targeted by an ability that includes an effect or condition you are immune to; you just don’t apply that particular effect or condition.
If you have immunity to effects with a certain trait (such as death effects, poison, or disease), you are unaffected by effects with that trait. An immunity might match both a trait and a damage type (such as electricity). The immunity applies to effects with the trait as well as damage of that type. Some complex effects might have parts that affect you even if you’re immune to one of the effect’s traits; for instance, a creature immune to death effects wouldn’t ignore the poison damage or concealed condition from a toxic cloud spell.
Immunity to Critical Hits
Immunity to critical hits works a little differently. When a creature immune to critical hits is critically hit by a Strike or other attack that deals damage, it takes normal damage instead of double damage. This does not make it immune to any other critical success effects of the actions, such as a critical specialization effect or the extra damage of the deadly trait. However, in some cases the GM might determine the added effects don’t apply.
Immunity to Nonlethal
If you’re immune to nonlethal, you’re immune to all damage from attacks and effects with the nonlethal trait, no matter what other type the damage has. For instance, a typical construct has immunity to nonlethal attacks. You can take a penalty to remove the nonlethal trait from your fist attack (page 282), and some abilities give you unarmed attacks without the nonlethal trait.
Temporary Immunity
Some effects grant you immunity to the same effect for a set amount of time. If an effect grants you temporary immunity, repeated applications of that effect don’t affect you for as long as the temporary immunity lasts. Unless the effect says it applies only to a certain creature’s ability, it doesn’t matter who created the effect. For example, the blindness spell says, “The target is temporarily immune to blindness for 1 minute.” If anyone casts blindness on that creature again before 1 minute passes, the spell has no effect.
Temporary immunity doesn’t prevent or end ongoing effects of the source of the temporary immunity. For instance, if an ability makes you frightened and you then gain temporary immunity to the ability, you don’t immediately lose the frightened condition due to the immunity you just gained—you simply don’t become frightened if you’re targeted by the ability again before the immunity ends.
Weakness
If you have a weakness to a certain type of damage, that type of damage is extra effective against you. Whenever you would take that type of damage, increase the amount of damage by the value of the weakness. For instance, if you are dealt 2d6 fire damage and have weakness 5 to fire, you take 2d6+5 fire damage.
A single effect can activate more than one weakness at a time, but adds each of the subject’s weaknesses only once. For example, if you made a Strike with a flaming cold iron battle axe benefiting from a spell that gives it additional fire damage, and you targeted a creature with weakness to cold iron, fire, and slashing, the Strike would benefit from all three weaknesses but wouldn’t apply the fire weakness twice.
Some weaknesses can apply when a creature wouldn’t normally take damage, as determined by the GM. In such cases, you take damage equal to the weakness value when touched or affected by something with that characteristic. For example, a creature with weakness to water would take extra damage if it were targeted by a spell with the water trait or splashed with water.
Resistance
After any weaknesses, apply resistances. If you have resistance to a type of damage, each time you would take damage of that type, reduce the amount of damage by the listed number (to a minimum of 0 damage).
Resistance can specify combinations of damage types and other characteristics. For instance, you might encounter a monster resistant to non-magical bludgeoning damage, meaning it would take less damage from bludgeoning attacks that aren’t magical, but would take normal damage from a +1 mace (since it’s magical) or a non-magical spear (since it deals piercing damage). A resistance also might have an exception. Resistance 10 to physical damage (except silver) would reduce any physical damage by 10 unless that damage was dealt by a silver weapon. A damage source can be changed by both a resistance and a weakness. For instance, a cold iron battle axe’s damage could both increase due to cold iron weakness and decrease due to resistance to slashing damage.
A single effect can activate more than one resistance at a time, but subtracts each of the subject’s resistances only once. If the subject has more than one resistance to the same damage type, they apply only one, usually the highest. For a resistance to a category including multiple damage types, like resistance to physical damage, to spells, or to all damage, if the subject is taking damage of multiple types included in the category, the subject can choose which damage type to use the resistance against.
This is the relevant part:
A single effect can activate more than one resistance at a time, but subtracts each of the subject’s resistances only once. If the subject has more than one resistance to the same damage type, they apply only one, usually the highest. For a resistance to a category including multiple damage types, like resistance to physical damage, to spells, or to all damage, if the subject is taking damage of multiple types included in the category, the subject can choose which damage type to use the resistance against.
So yes, "Resist All" now functions as "Resist Any", as it will resist any one damage type per attack.
Not super happy with the way weaknesses work. I may change that. Weaknesses are already too strong as it is with martials with multiple attacks. Not sure why Paizo thought that would be good as it turns bosses into cakewalks when everyone in the party has a weapon activating a material weakness or holy on every attack. It makes the whole fight weak and the runes and materials are easy to acquire.
I think the divergent experience here is that Deriven is going to have his party cast max rank heroism on everyone then fight 4 battles in 2 min (20 rounds), so that longbow is hitting far more often than in most parties where nobody buffs the caster, while Earth's Bile needs two focus points out of three max and a constant drain of one action.
It's basically a weirdo situation no class is designed for. Except the cleric, I guess.
The problem here is not with buffing, it's with the longbow's volley trait. As a reminder, the longbow has the volley 30 ft. trait, meaning that you take a -2 penalty to attack rolls against targets within 30 feet of you. In my experience, a great deal many encounters happened entirely within this distance, such that the party's bow users would have taken that penalty the whole time, and even in the instances where the encounter happened on a larger battle map, enemies getting into melee range of the party's melee characters was a common enough occurrence that the bow users would have been frequently hindered, or would have otherwise needed to spend actions moving just to get outside of volley range. This is why the weapon commonly used as the gold standard for ranged combat is instead the shortbow, which does not deal with this penalty. That someone would have "no idea" of the hindrance imposed by this trait on a weapon they allege to use routinely is a red flag in this kind of discussion.
The problem here is not with buffing, it's with the longbow's volley trait. As a reminder, the longbow has the volley 30 ft. trait, meaning that you take a -2 penalty to attack rolls against targets within 30 feet of you. In my experience, a great deal many encounters happened entirely within this distance, such that the party's bow users would have taken that penalty the whole time, and even in the instances where the encounter happened on a larger battle map, enemies getting into melee range of the party's melee characters was a common enough occurrence that the bow users would have been frequently hindered, or would have otherwise needed to spend actions moving just to get outside of volley range. This is why the weapon commonly used as the gold standard for ranged combat is instead the shortbow, which does not deal with this penalty. That someone would have "no idea" of the hindrance imposed by this trait on a weapon they allege to use routinely is a red flag in this kind of discussion.I think the divergent experience here is that Deriven is going to have his party cast max rank heroism on everyone then fight 4 battles in 2 min (20 rounds), so that longbow is hitting far more often than in most parties where nobody buffs the caster, while Earth's Bile needs two focus points out of three max and a constant drain of one action.
It's basically a weirdo situation no class is designed for. Except the cleric, I guess.
A red flag? Or we don't play like you do and don't have much trouble with the volley trait or they take Archer Archetype and Point Blank Stance to solve the volley trait or they use the Daikyu. There are so many ways around the volley trait.
Bud, if the volley trait is what you're having trouble figuring out, then that is a red flag as to how well you min-max.
The animist has no shortage of 1 action activities to do when they are within 30ft range. That is why I think they are actually the exception that makes longbows good.
A red flag? Or we don't play like you do and don't have much trouble with the volley trait or they take Archer Archetype and Point Blank Stance to solve the volley trait or they use the Daikyu. There are so many ways around the volley trait.
Bud, if the volley trait is what you're having trouble figuring out, then that is a red flag as to how well you min-max.
I think you're kind of giving it away by immediately jumping to the archetype and either the stance feat or 6th-level legacy archetype feat that solve this particular problem without acknowledging how this would fit into your character's build, including the one you are discussing now. I certainly don't take two feats and enter a stance every encounter just so that I can remove the inconvenience of using a specific bow on a spellcasting class.
And to be clear: in order to never even conceive of just how detrimental this trait is with that much volley range, you would need to have run essentially nothing but homebrew adventures, using battle maps of above-average size, all while running a particular playstyle where you never find yourself within Striding distance of a melee ally and never have enemies approach you, a decision the GM has to continually make as well. You're right, that is certainly not my experience playing Pathfinder, and I would go as far as to say that it is in no way the typical Pathfinder player experience.
A red flag? Or we don't play like you do and don't have much trouble with the volley trait or they take Archer Archetype and Point Blank Stance to solve the volley trait or they use the Daikyu. There are so many ways around the volley trait.
Bud, if the volley trait is what you're having trouble figuring out, then that is a red flag as to how well you min-max.
I think you're kind of giving it away by immediately jumping to the archetype and either the stance feat or 6th-level legacy archetype feat that solve this particular problem without acknowledging how this would fit into your character's build, including the one you are discussing now. I certainly don't take two feats and enter a stance every encounter just so that I can remove the inconvenience of using a specific bow on a spellcasting class.
And to be clear: in order to never even conceive of just how detrimental this trait is with that much volley range, you would need to have run essentially nothing but homebrew adventures, using battle maps of above-average size, all while running a particular playstyle where you never find yourself within Striding distance of a melee ally and never have enemies approach you, a decision the GM has to continually make as well. You're right, that is certainly not my experience playing Pathfinder, and I would go as far as to say that it is in no way the typical Pathfinder player experience.
Which we do. I do not allow DMs to use small battle maps and I expect them to be able to adapt to my playstyle. I understand what you're saying as I've seen a lot of badly designed battle maps that encourage people to start fights at some short distance, but I do not play this way. I expect the DM to stretch out the map even if they have to draw it themselves.
I know a lot of groups tend to be a group of people that wander forward and wait for the DM to start the battle telling them to roll initiative. I have never played this way past my early years as a kid, not even pickup groups.
Even when I join pickup groups, I start to organize the combats into a more focused force. I can't play that way. It ruins the game for me and takes me out of immersion.
I don't know how your group plays. I know I use longbows and similar long range weapons a lot and my group uses range to their advantage. The DM adapts the maps and encounter areas to our tactical choices or counters what we're doing if the monster is capable of doing so which some are.
I like the bow. I like to operate outside of 30 feet. I may have to adapt that choice to better use vessel spells like Earth's Bile. I'm figuring that out as we go.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What we absolutely do not do though is, "I walk up to the door and open the door."
Following is a genuine question.
So what do you do if the scenario is basically a dungeon and, well, there is a door?
Lets assume that you're some level between L5 and L10 where you have lots of options but not ridiculously many.
There is a door in front of you. How do you handle it without
What we absolutely do not do though is, "I walk up to the door and open the door."
Are you always playing home brewed adventures and you've just come to a gentlemans agreement that there will never, ever be simple dungeons?
Edit: Just read your post immediately above this. It seems that you pretty much DO only run homebrews specifically tailored to your (no idea if your is singular or plural here, but fortunately its gramatically correct either way :-) :-)) preferences.
That explains a lot. It also makes your experiences way more of an outlier than I thought they were.
I'm pretty sure that I'm firmly in the vast majority when I say that pretty much ALL the games I am in rely heavily on published materials. Oh, they're often tweaked and altered but the core is some published material. And published material is chock full of dungeons where you just have to open the darn door.
What we absolutely do not do though is, "I walk up to the door and open the door."
Following is a genuine question.
So what do you do if the scenario is basically a dungeon and, well, there is a door?
Lets assume that you're some level between L5 and L10 where you have lots of options but not ridiculously many.
There is a door in front of you. How do you handle it without
What we absolutely do not do though is, "I walk up to the door and open the door."
Are you always playing home brewed adventures and you've just come to a gentlemans agreement that there will never, ever be simple dungeons?
Edit: Just read your post immediately above this. It seems that you pretty much DO only run homebrews specifically tailored to your (no idea if your is singular or plural here, but fortunately its gramatically correct either way :-) :-)) preferences.
That explains a lot. It also makes your experiences way more of an outlier than I thought they were.
I'm pretty sure that I'm firmly in the vast majority when I say that pretty much ALL the games I am in rely heavily on published materials. Oh, they're often tweaked and altered but the core is some published material. And published material is chock full of dungeons where you just have to open the darn door.
Depends on the DM. I mostly use adventures from Paizo. My buddies like to make adventures.
To answer your question, what if there is a dungeon with a door.
We're usually moving through the dungeon in a combat formation. Scout in front 30 to 40 feet. Usually martial tank behind, backed up casters and ranged martials.
We reach a door. Rogue or high perception martial checks door for traps. Tank martial moves into position. Ranged and casters set up behind tank or off to side with cover. Door is opened.
Martial tank holds position at the door or enters depending on ability to know what is inside. This is often dictated by what we are fighting.
Then initiative is rolled, battle begins. Tank martial holds door so monsters cannot pass by and damage is focused on them. Ranged sets up behind tank and hammers monsters inside room whether AOE spells or bow attacks.
Then you have to tell me what we're fighting and how they're reacting to the door being opened as this is the opening salvo where we try to create the battle control chokepoint.
Some general tactical considerations:
1. We want martial attacks focused on the heaviest armored tank.
2. We want to control the flow of movement so we do not get flanked or surrounded.
3. We want the opening rounds to allow the casters to drop AOE to soften targets, so the martial will hold position waiting for the targets to use move actions.
From there it's a matter of adapting to circumstances and abilities of the monsters.
What we learned early on is PF2 turned the main tactical consideration of the game is action management. You want to put the enemies at an action disadvantage. One of the best ways to do that with the opening round is make the enemy spend move actions while they move into your range allowing you to use attack actions.
Once you have an action advantage and soften their hit points in the opening round, it makes most of the fights easy after that.
A DM is going to counter a lot of this or turn the tables by setting you up for the ambush, but those are the fun fights where things get rough and you have to adapt and work for the win. The majority of fights a well built party should be able to establish an action advantage using the varied abilities of PCs parties against often limited creatures in most types of terrain.
Which we do. I do not allow DMs to use small battle maps and I expect them to be able to adapt to my playstyle.
I will start by pointing out that this seriously undermines any argument you make of balance or design based on your experience: not only is your experience extremely atypical, you are forcing the GM to accommodate your playstyle as what appears to be yet another extension of your "optimization". Of course your experience will always reflect your biases when you are always controlling the conditions.
Second, and not related to the main point, but I would never admit anyone at my table who would "not allow" me to run encounters that don't suit their niche playstyle, much less feels entitled to have me change my adventure around their specific build. That sounds like an utter nightmare to deal with.
Which we do. I do not allow DMs to use small battle maps and I expect them to be able to adapt to my playstyle.I will start by pointing out that this seriously undermines any argument you make of balance or design based on your experience: not only is your experience extremely atypical, you are forcing the GM to accommodate your playstyle as what appears to be yet another extension of your "optimization". Of course your experience will always reflect your biases when you are always controlling the conditions.
Second, and not related to the main point, but I would never admit anyone at my table who would "not allow" me to run encounters that don't suit their niche playstyle, much less feels entitled to have me change my adventure around their specific build. That sounds like an utter nightmare to deal with.
So any players that try to use tactics at your table, not allowed. Run the adventure exactly as Teridax made it without any regard for player agency or what players want to do with their group tactics. If that's your DM style, have at it.
Maybe the majority of tables are running that way. I don't know. I don't run that way. I like to think about the layout of the battlefield and use it to my advantage. I don't see why a DM wouldn't allow it.
I expect the DM to provide tactical challenges within the capabilities of the opponent. They should be up to the task of challenging a group that uses strong tactical play. I don't think that is asking too much of a DM or the other players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So any players that try to use tactics at your table, not allowed. Run the adventure exactly as Teridax made it without any regard for player agency or what players want to do with their group tactics. If that's your DM style, have at it.
Yes, actually, please don't tell me how to run the adventure when I'm GMing, and instead feel free to play your characters however you like within the bounds of mutual respect. I am not limiting your agency as a player by running an AP as written, and you are free to use whichever tactics in combat in response to the circumstances presented to you.
Again, you may not realize how telling this is, but you're giving it away by framing browbeating the GM into compliance as "tactics". It is not tactics to force the GM to make encounters accommodate your playstyle; in fact I would argue it is the very opposite: tactics are about adapting to different situations and having options for when things don't go perfectly as planned. What you're describing, by contrast, is a set of scenarios where everything goes exactly as planned, because that's how you've ordained it, and you don't have to adapt or shore up your weaknesses. I would have perfectly respected using that longbow as a backup for when enemies are out of earth's bile's 30-foot range, but instead you've effectively ordered your GM to politely line up their NPCs out of volley range every time and stay there, just so that you never experience the downsides of the choices you've made. To describe this as tactics is to shoot fish in a barrel and call it marksmanship.
TL;DR, Deriven's group barely ever lets casters fights at 30ft or less, starting battles far enough most melee martials need 2 Strides to close the gap, which is probably why those 30ft vessel spells aren't doing much.
Most classes are, again, designed for parties like the ones I run - who open the door and see enemies within 30ft, then roll initiative. See Battle Cry.
It's funny you bring that up. We did have a player that took Battle Cry. He got to use it so rarely that when he did, he was happy. This is due to how we set up and play.
But it pays off with casters with weak saves not being close enough to be grouped in AOE, gazes, auras, and the like. Some of these gazes, auras, and AOE capabilities are not worth it to be close to as a low save caster. Found that out the hard way when first running PF2.
Monsters are way stronger in PF2 compared to PCs. There is no way to build up your saves so high to make them trivial and few spells to make you immune to their abilities that last very long. On top of not having enough slots to have the luxury of slotting such spells.
Even immunity to energy is extremely hard to come by. In PF1, most classes had the Energy Immunity spell to make energy AOE attacks laughable. Not anymore. You're lucky to get 10 or 15 resistance and if you fail or even worse crit fail and you will feel extreme pain from an AOE spell, breath weapon, or similar attack.
I'm surprised any casters want to get close to most of these monsters. If they have some ability like fast flight with reaction avoidance or dimension door to bypass the frontline, the casters get hit hard and painful. That's why one of the first thing casters do is make sure to be far away, have your hidden mind up, or at least cast level 4 invis. You don't want to get wrecked.
So any players that try to use tactics at your table, not allowed. Run the adventure exactly as Teridax made it without any regard for player agency or what players want to do with their group tactics. If that's your DM style, have at it.Yes, actually, please don't tell me how to run the adventure when I'm GMing, and instead feel free to play your characters however you like within the bounds of mutual respect. I am not limiting your agency as a player by running an AP as written, and you are free to use whichever tactics in combat in response to the circumstances presented to you.
Again, you may not realize how telling this is, but you're giving it away by framing browbeating the GM into compliance as "tactics". It is not tactics to force the GM to make encounters accommodate your playstyle; in fact I would argue it is the very opposite: tactics are about adapting to different situations and having options for when things don't go perfectly as planned. What you're describing, by contrast, is a set of scenarios where everything goes exactly as planned, because that's how you've ordained it, and you don't have to adapt or shore up your weaknesses. I would have perfectly respected using that longbow as a backup for when enemies are out of earth's bile's 30-foot range, but instead you've effectively ordered your GM to politely line up their NPCs out of volley range every time and stay there, just so that you never experience the downsides of the choices you've made. To describe this as tactics is to shoot fish in a barrel and call it marksmanship.
Using a battlefield to your advantage is tactics. If you have to browbeat a DM to use the layout of a battlefield to your advantage, not sure what to make of that. The DM should just be used to it as it should be a common tactical choice acceptable to all DMs since it is a very reasonable request that the game world should allow.
A DM accommodating a group's tactical choices is forcing the DM? That's a strange way to view it. My entire group plays this way. So I guess you would refuse all five players and then leave because we browbeat you. Not much my group can do about that. I guess you wouldn't like the people in my group.
Fortunately, neither of us has to worry about that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you say,
I do not allow DMs to use small battle maps and I expect them to be able to adapt to my playstyle.
do you mean that you more or less pick the totality of maps in an adventure or do you strategize with the party to decide where on a map to fight? The words you are using make it sound like you are overriding a ton of GM agency.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using a battlefield to your advantage is tactics. If you have to browbeat a DM to use the layout of a battlefield to your advantage, not sure what to make of that. The DM should just be used to it as it should be a common tactical choice acceptable to all DMs since it is a very reasonable request that the game world should allow.
First off: no, it is neither common nor generally considered reasonable for a player to ask the GM to draw a larger battle map just for their sake. Second: you speak of encounters as if they all happened in wide open plains. This has very much not been my common experience, and many encounters at my table happen in indoor spaces, where expanding the battle map would mess with the dimensions of the dungeon. You are correct: using a battlefield to your advantage is tactics, which is why players at my table avoid relying on weapons with large volley ranges and instead adapt their playstyles to the battle maps that they encounter. By contrast, bullying the GM into serving you the perfect, frictionless battle situation on a silver platter is not tactics.
A DM accommodating a group's tactical choices is forcing the DM? That's a strange way to view it.
To be clear: a GM accommodating the party of their own accord is not forcing the GM, though I really don't think tactics can be said to be involved here when the accommodations made are to remove any possible downsides of your "tactical choices". To me, that's babysitting.
What I am specifically referring to, however, is this:
I do not allow DMs to use small battle maps and I expect them to be able to adapt to my playstyle. I understand what you're saying as I've seen a lot of badly designed battle maps that encourage people to start fights at some short distance, but I do not play this way. I expect the DM to stretch out the map even if they have to draw it themselves.
Emphasis added to the important sections. Your GM isn't accommodating you just because they want to, you are not allowing them to run scenarios that would disadvantage you. You are pressuring the GM with the expectation that they accommodate you, to the extent that you sincerely expect the GM to draw a new battle map from scratch sooner than use one out of the box that doesn't suit your tastes. It is you, not the GM, who are limiting the other's agency, in a manner I personally find shocking.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Deriven and others are partly talking past each other.
Deriven seems to me to be overstating his position and others are reacting to that overstatement.
If you look above, I asked him what he did at a door. His answer
1) basically admitted that his previous statement was exaggerated or possibly just poorly communicated
2) was a slightly more organized and team oriented version of what most groups do
I think it is true that a good GM tries, within reason, to react to and adjust to their groups play style. If the group loves to talk their way past encounters, the GM provides more opportunities to try. If they want really hard fights, the GM provides them.
And, from the player side, most of us have been in groups where there was a significant mismatch between our style and the GMs. When that happens the first step SHOULD be to communicate with the GM and see if some compromise can be reached.
I think Deriven is just saying that. And I suspect that almost all of us agree with that
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand what derivin is talking about and don’t think it is obnoxious as a player to ask “can I keep moving 30 ft that way even though the map ends?”
It is a TTRPG, not a war game. If the GM wants to say “ it’s thick forest. You can move that way but everything on the map will be concealed and it’s difficult terrain.” They can. Or they can just leave it wide open with nothing there. But, “No, you can’t move that way.” Is a pretty nasty bit of GMing, especially if the maps tend to be very small. Minimally, it’s a good thing to bring up in a session 0 (or talk about as group after the encounter) to avoid those moments in play.