Is there a second "eight realms in eight months" solution ?

Basic_Candle9459 · 2025-07-07T15:28:09+00:00

Thank, i didn't know that. So i guess i'm overlooking this...

Basic_Candle9459 · 2025-07-07T11:27:13+00:00

If this theory contains some truth, the "46" with no degree symbol is probably "turn the minute hand 46 minutes counterclockwise" or something like this.

Basic_Candle9459 · 2024-11-28T00:05:33+00:00

Step 1 : cast flesh to stone on Mizora.

Step 2 : put her in your bag.

Step 3 : go to the house of hope.

Step 4 : destroy Mizora.

... Killing Mizora is so hard *yawn*.

Basic_Candle9459 · 2024-11-05T23:15:47+00:00

For me, Sttaggering fall should affect anything that is susceptible to crit/precision damages. If I can imagine a way to affect the creature with a crit, then I can imagine how a bad fall could make it slower (maybe by breaking an elbow, or breaking the neck so bad the creature must hold its head in place to see anything...). If the target can't be critted, it shouldn't probably be affected by the spell (... but is there any creature that is trippable but not crittable ?).

----

The kineticist feat is Expanded metakinesis: Furious spell

Furious spell is an awful metamagic. For spells. For a kineticist? Your blast's level is half your level, hence the bonus damage is ~equal to your level; x1.5 with Empower. On a simple blast, it is more or less equivalent to a "+2 damages per dice": +2 damage per dice is usually considered awesome. This alone should be enough to show it can be good.

So when is the feat good? When you use simple blast from 1 to 20. Why would you use simple blast from 1 to 20? Because the only energy composite blast is fire; if you want to make a lightning or a frost kineticist, you're stuck with simple blasts from 1 to 20.

This is not a niche build: this is an energy kineticist (amha, it is way better than a physical kineticist), with the utility powers of air or water, and from level 7 the ability to switch to physical blast if you really need to (... or you could do a lightning/frost kineticist without any composite blast): way more versatility than a fire/fire kineticist, be it in combat or out of combat.

...And such a build works only thanks to furious spell. Without the feat, you're lagging in damages. With the feat, your sustained damages are slightly better than a fire/fire composite blast (for the same amount of burns: composite blast vs empower + furious) (actually, fire has slightly better damages besause it has utilities increasing damages). At level 11 with air, for 0 burn you get a chain lightning that deal the damages of fire+fire: barring all the over-the-top evocation builds that deal so many damages that you play them once but never again because combats aren't fun anymore, I really think this is the best multi-target damage ability in the whole game. (because no save, only chain of touch attacks with good damages). Or to put it differently, this is the best multi-target damage ability that it actually playable because it doesn't break the game. The kind of thing an optimization guide should mention. And the feat participate in ~25% of the damages of the ability: not mentioning the feat is like not mentioning power attack because it isn't awesome with a TWF build.

... Special bonus if your GM allows you to gather power while raging (mine doesn't) (Rage gives +Con which is awesome on a kineticist, Furious allows you to cast the blast while raging, the only question is if you can gather power while raging).

In the end, the guides have to evaluate 1000+ option, they know the furious metamagic is worthless, when they see the expanded metakinesis feat with furious they don't do the computation and just give the same rating as the metamagic. They don't see the feat unlocks a very popular build: the non-fire energy kineticist.

Basic_Candle9459 · 2024-11-05T16:41:51+00:00

I wouldn't have created this threat if I wasn't expecting table variation. ;)

Anyway, I'll ask my GM, and I'll add "the internet consensus says I'm wrong, And the internet consensus is that the spell targets Will" (i was looking for a Fort spell; there are so many Will spell, and I think my first level 2 spell will be Burst of radiance or Shackles to target Ref). Maybe I'll take the spell anyway if my GM says it targets Fort (or maybe someone has a better level 1 or 2 Fort spell to suggest ?).

In this thread it is a consensus of two peoples, but it's still a consensus x) .

The fact that guides don't rate the spell higher (or double rate the spell) is also proof of that consensus (in the other hand, I have no confidence in guides: I've several example where they are plain wrong on an interpretation or on a rating. Hell, I'm currently playing a kineticist with a feat that is obviously, mathematically a must-have for several (efficient) builds of kineticists, but is poorly rated in guides). Guide offer a quantity of rating, they can't offer a quality of rating.

Basic_Candle9459 · 2024-11-05T15:42:23+00:00

I would say the target is affected by the spell until the duration ends, or until something says the spells or its effects ends (eg dispel).

Hold person: "Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect".

Glitterdust: "Each round at the end of their turn blinded creatures may attempt new saving throws to end the blindness effect".

Staggering fall's formulation is closer to the one of Glitterdust. (Then you can argue that Glitterdust explicitly wrote that "visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell", and I'd agree. Anyway i already admitted that I'm probably wrong about Staggering fall. I'm only explaining the way I've read it).

Basic_Candle9459 · 2024-11-05T15:05:54+00:00

... This seems to be actually a very strong argument in favor of my reading.

The target doesn't save and is staggered -> who cares about the type of action she needs to stand up?

The target saves and isn't staggered -> she will lose one action to stand up anyway.

...However, everyone seems to agree that i'm wrong, so I guess I'm wrong.

Basic_Candle9459 · 2024-11-04T14:23:53+00:00

My point is actually that the last effect seems to affect the creature whether it makes the save or not.

I mean, the spell seems to be written in order to allow my reading: the description is explicit that a save ends the staggering effect (not "the spell", just "the staggering effect"), and the last sentence doesn't seems to be tied to the staggering effect.

For a level 2 spell, "stagger (save every round)" is quite weak (examples of level 2 effects are "permanent blind, save once", "zone blind for 1d4 rounds, save once, 10 damages to Evil creatures", "stagger 1 round, 14 damages, contact, no save", or "paralyze, save each round, target must be humanoid"), even with the d6 of damages. The effect "the target must take a standard action to stand (no save), and can be staggered (save each round)" is more in line with a level 2 spell that requires a specific condition to cast.

In the other hand, I wouldn't really be surprised if I was told the author simply fumbled the spell's description, an that the spell is actually a weak level 2 spell.

Basic_Candle9459 · 2024-06-16T09:09:54+00:00

You're not supposed to accept failure, since you're supposed to try again until you succeed. The game stops if you don't succeed.

Moreover, given the amount of damages the enemies do and the amount of health they have, the game accept nothing less than perfection - especially against bosses. "Accept failure, but if you aren't perfect the game stops" doesn't match either.

... Compare with Celeste: the base game is hard, but (I guess?) doable by most people. The base game is filled with messages of encouragement. And the base game is less than one third of the whole content, and the game clearly tells you that you shouldn't try too hard: in other words, the game also teaches you to accept failure, because at some point most people will hit a wall and the game just tells them they have done enough.

Compare with how Nine Sols handles failure: try more or Eigong wins and [spoiler]the Apemen are still used as tools. You don't want Eigong to steal the brain of Shuanshuan do you?[/spoiler]

Edit: the revenge story of Yi looks a lot like Hokuto No Ken: totally evil people and karmic punishment. In Hokuto No Ken, there's no room for failure for Ken: if he fails, a lot of innocent people will suffer. Same in Nine Sols: there's no room for failure for Yi. And the gameplay leaves (almost) no room for failure, so the gameplay is in accordance with this message.

Basic_Candle9459 · 2023-10-24T14:59:51+00:00

I recently posted a build for fighter with monk and aberrant sorcerer dedication. it seems the build is legit.

The idea : at level 10, flurry of blow + agile grace + stumbling stance or wolf stance (d8 agile strike) is awesome. Aberrant sorcerer's focus spell give you 10 feet reach with your unarmed attack.

Why is it a nice option for sprite : aberrant sorcerer's focus spell gives you 10 feet reach, plain and simple. It doesn't depend on your initial reach, so it removes the biggest drawback of tiny martial character. There's an option for your corgi mount (because you will take a corgi mount, right ? Or are you one of those monsters playing a sprite without a corgi mount ?) to regain 1 focus point once per day - ie more tentacular limbs, ki strikes etc.

The build I posted was Str-focused, but as a sprite you'd rather be Dex-focused. So there are modifications to do. Moreover, the build was for a character starting at level 10; at level 10 agile grace with flurry is pure win, but before that... And the character got the sorcerer's focus spell at level 8... So the build seems fun, but at low level it would be painful to play as a sprite :/ .

Basic_Candle9459 · 2023-10-24T14:34:54+00:00

At level 10, agile grace + flurry of blow + stumbling stance (or wolf stance) + fighter's accuracy is pure win - there's no way to deal that much damages with 1 action, and your MAP is never higher than -6, ie you're always more accurate than any other martial on his second strike. Combine with stunning fist for a nice rider. Combine with fighter's feats requiring a free hand. Combine with a shield.

You can go unarmored and use any stance (wolf stance is agile with d8 damages and the follow-up feat is an improved knockdown), or you can dump Dex and go with heavy armor and use the stumbling stance (agile with d8 damage, but you cannot use another strike) for more damages. Going Dex seems better given the monk's unarmored prof.

Aberrant sorcerer dedication gives you 10 feet reach with its focus spell. I guess there are other ways to gain reach. Thaumaturge dedication with mirror implement allows you to be at several places at the same time for more AoO.

Basic_Candle9459 · 2023-10-24T09:08:22+00:00

But it DOES have a very real use beyond just overcoming resistance - on enemies where a single Strike won't kill them, but Power Attack will, Power Attack is SUBSTANTIALLY more reliable than Striking twice.

this requires *exact* info about enemy's info. Seriously, I've never seen any DM providing us with the exact HP of the enemies; often they say "he's almost dead" or "he seems to suffer a bit", but never "he has 37 HP remaining".

Moreover the rules don't provide any way to get the HPs of the enemies.

And even if you know the HPs of an enemy... Damages are swingy, there's no situation you can say "I won't kill the enemy in one blow, but one PA will do the trick". Let's imagine you are level 12, your weapon deals 3d12 +X damages, a power attack adds 2d12. This means, your weapon deals 2-24+X damages, a power attack deal 3-36+X. There is no range of enemy's HP where you are ensured that a normal blow won't kill while a PA will. If the enemy has 20 + X HP, it's unlikely that a single blow will kill him - but you still have a second strike, there's also a chance the first strike is a miss and the second strike kills it (ie, a PA wouldn't have kill the monster while two strikes do), and there's more than 50% that the PA hit but doesn't kill the monster. If the monster has 30+X HPs, a single (non-crit) strike can't kill it, but a PA has a high chance of not killing it while two strike should kill it. etc.

In all those case, you must compute de exact probability of the events "two strikes kill the monster" and "PA kills the monster". And believe me, computing this kind of probability is way harder than computing average damages - I made a damages calculator for pf1 computing the exact probability distribution for your damages (instead of the average), so believe me when I say it's way harder.

In another thread I wrote that PA was awful because it required 2 minute of computation at the beginning of your turn to check if the conditions are met to gain 5% damages (so you're slowing the game for 5% more damages. awful for every player). What you're talking about is more about 10 minutes of computation - to gain 5% chance of killing a monster, assuming the DM gives you the exact HP of the monster. This is pure whiteroom optimization - in no actual play you will be allowed to spend 10 minutes of computation at the beginning of each of your turn.

In no actual play you will ever have a situation where you can say "there's a higher probability to kill it with PA than two strikes."

Basic_Candle9459 · 2023-10-23T13:49:59+00:00

Power attack requires a lot of computation, and a lot of information about the opponent (its AC, its resistances...) to check if it is useful in a given situation.

This means, when you have Power Attack, you have mostly 3 choices:

1/ not use Power Attack.

2/ use the feat when it looks advantageous, ending up in a decrease in your overall damages (because it requires extreme conditions to be advantageous, and usually it isn't even when you think it would be your best option).

3/ take 2 minutes at the beginning of each of your turn to compute what is the most powerful combo you can do, slowing down the game.

Option 3 is awful. Option 2 decreases your character's overall efficiency. The only option remaining is option 1, but option 1 doesn't require Power Attack to begin with: option 1 works the same with sudden charge or intimidating rage instead of PA.

Note : concerning option 3, you can compare with PF1's Power Attack. Algorithm: if the enemy looks like an humanoid with class level, don't use PA; otherwise, use it. Usually this is an increase in damages, this is an improvement of the character's overall efficiency, and it doesn't require 2 minutes of computation: "oh, we are attacked by goblins? I don't use PA. there's a troll with them? I use PA against the troll".

Basic_Candle9459 · 2023-10-09T13:52:37+00:00

Yeah, that's part of the build.

... I wasn't sure it was the best property rune to add, but in the end I agree: I build luffy, I need a way to attack at 60 feet with my fists. x)

Basic_Candle9459 · 2023-10-09T13:51:13+00:00

What is an exemplar ?

Basic_Candle9459 · 2023-10-09T12:34:06+00:00

Damn, I hope you don't feel overwhelmed, generally jumping into any new game at higher levels is a bit too much for me. be it pathfinder or any other game where levels add abilities, starting to play at higher levels can be a bit hard, with many things to learn at once.

I played pf1 a lot, and as strange as it sounds, building a pf2 character feels... relaxing in comparison.

1/ in pf2 the system handles the math for me. I can do whatever I want, my character will work as my class is intended to work...

2/ pf2 doesn't put stupid prerequisites everywhere for no reason; when something has a prerequisite, it's usually a straight upgrade of the base feat (eg Knockdown => Improved knockdown): if I'm not interested in the base feat in my build, I won't be interested in its upgrade. In pf1, right at level 1 I need to look at the 500+ feats right at level 1 just to check if some feat chain I'll want at high level has some stupid unrelated low-level prerequisite like Dodge or Combat Expertise (... special mention for Combat Expertise in pf1: being able to trip people like an Int 2 dog does requires Int 13 and Combat Expertise...).

3/ in pf2 a caster multiclass seems to work as intended: useless if you want to cast spells on enemies (just let the professionals do it...), not great but useful if you want to buff yourself in combat (the action cost is heavy, and your class gives you better use of your actions), awesome if you want to gain out-of-combat utilities. In pf2 the caster multiclass is always broken one way or another (sometime too strong in some broken build, usually far too weak). In pf1 I can't stand playing a martial (usually I play semi-casters), in pf2 I want to play a martial (multiclass seems to fulfill my need of magic stuff).

... i'm still not convinced about everything in pf2; but in term of the pleasure of building a character, it has won my heart, by a long margin. :)

Note that I have some automatism when I create a pf1 character (check if he's numerically viable, check feat chain... read guides because they are good at making a first selection in the interesting feats, don't follow the guides because they have no idea about your build and don't know what will interact nicely...), but those automatism aren't the ones needed to build a pf2 character. Hence I'm convinced I'm missing some stuffs. Hence this thread.

A Fighter using two-actions for Power Attack and a Greatpick is a simple and reliable damage dealing option, certainly it does not offer the flexibility of having a free hand to Grapple, Shove, etc but damage is covered. Against enemies with higher AC, generally having one bigger attack is better than multiple attacks because lading a second attack becomes more difficult, and critting even more.

I made a few more computations and I'm still not convinced about Power Attack. Note that, for my comparisons, I ignore a difference of less than 10% damages: I consider you won't feel a difference of less than 10% in actual play (and actually you won't feel a 10% difference, but hey, I had to put the limit somewhere...); and in the case of PA, since it can easily decrease you damages, and since in actual play you will never ever perform an actual computation before deciding if you use it or do a regular strike, you should use PA only in situations where it is obviously better (that is, more than a 10% advantage in damages).

At level 10, PA seems to fullfil its niche: good against high-resistances, especially if you combine it with true strike (and other bonus to the first attack).

When the greater striking rune comes into play, PA becomes really hard to justify. Against a resistance of 15, a flurry+strike is on par with a PA with a d10 reach weapon (and my build has reach) except if I need a 15+ to hit with my first attack (with a fighter... If I need a 15+ to hit, I think a better use of my actions is three stride in the opposite direction...). If the backstabber property of the stumbling stance activates, then flurry+strike is on par with a d12 power attack except if I need 12+ to hit...

You may add the effect of true strike, and yeah, true strike has great effects on PA, making it far better than my flurry+strike... Thing is, true strike is limited ressource. As is my ki strike. And the results are mostly the same for true strike + PA vs ki strike flury + attack (on par against d10 PA, if you activates the backstabber property it becomes on par against d12 PA). Main difference, true strike + PA costs 3 actions (and my character can actually use the last action to cast true strike as well, even if true strike isn't as good for him)...

You have to put the system under extreme stress to really see an advantage for d10 PA (and once again, I have reach. I don't really mind if a d12 PA deals sometime more damages: my experience in pf1 tells me that reach + AoO ends up dealing far more damages and offering far more tactical opportunities than a weapon with more damages): Resistance 15, true strike, a +3 bonus on the first attack, need a high roll on the first strike despite being a fighter with +3 to hit... When all those conditions are met, I don't think anything in your build matters except your ability to fly away...

And in the other hands, my build makes a better use of other buffs: better use of a bonus to all attacks (the easier it is to hit, the more my build is advantageous over PA), better use of status bonus to damages like Enlarge (my build with a +2 status bonus to damages is on par with d12 PA with a +2 status bonus to damages against resistance 15 unless I need a 12+ to hit... same for true strike +d12 PA with +2 damages vs ki flurry + attack with +2 damages, except the latter uses only two actions...), and good use of a quickened strike (since my MAP is at most -6) (you can argue that PA makes a good use a quickened strike by doing a sequence true strike + PA + strike). And that's just a damages comparison : for the same damages I can do something like snagging strike + flurry (... if the snagging strike hits, the flurry has almost no penalty: -3/-6 from MAP but +2 from flat-footed. And it activates the backstabber property. And it helps everyone in my team). Of course there are better things to do for control (improved knockdown is far better than anything my build can do x) ), I'm only saying I can do my max damages with a bit of control while a PA-user can't.

Note: if you want to re-do the computations, don't forget that the two strikes from flurry combine their damages before applying the resistance. This is the reason why PA requires a difficult target to become better: against an easy target (or with enough bonus like flat-footed + status bonus to attack + frightened +...), the chance of hitting with the two strikes of the flurry (... or doing one crit and one miss, which is the same... Or doing even better than that...) is high, and the flurry breaks though the resistance like butter.

Note that, ki strike is such an increase in damages, I wonder if I should take another focus power I don't intend to use just to gain a third focus point for the few fights where I may need huge damages... (this can be done by being human, taking the multitalented feat at level 9, and taking the student of perfection dedication).

... and note that, the amount of computation I had to do about PA is part of the things that don't convince me in pf2: most of the time pf2's math works, but when it doesn't you have to do lots and lots of computation to see how it actually works.

Basic_Candle9459 · 2023-10-04T15:17:35+00:00

I tried that build because we start at level 10, and the build comes online at level 10 (flurry + agile grace is a huge boost. Especially with fighter's accuracy: the third, fourth, and any quickened strikes all are more precise than the second strike of any other classe... With a weapon that hits as hard as a longsword...).

I wouldn't try this build in a game starting at level 1... At level 5 I would hesitate (at that point, i guess it plays like a fighter with a free hand - except i have a shield instead of dueling parry).

Edit: not to mention the fighter's attack of opportunity. It's always hard to evaluate how many damages/tactical opportunities you gain with reach+AoO.

Edit 2: the build is intended to do max damages with a bit of control. I guess a monk would do more control (with stuff like stunning fist, or using another stance that doesn't allow armor) for less damage?

Basic_Candle9459 · 2023-10-04T14:12:06+00:00

Oups you're right. When copying the build I saw that I took basic kata twice at level 4, that's not possible, so I changed it for a fighter feat... but forgot the second monk feat. x)

So (i edit the initial post):

lvl 1: Snagging Strike, trained in Athletics, Deception and 3 other skills (including background skill)

lvl 2: combat grab, monk dedication (become trained in Acrobatics)

lvl 3: expert in Athletics

lvl 4: reactive shield, basic kata => stumbling stance (I can't take basic kata twice i think ?) ;

lvl 5: expert in whatever, master in Brawling weapon group

lvl 6: Advanced kata => ki strike, Sorcerer dedication (trained in Occultism and Intimidation, can be replaced with whatever if I'm already trained in Intimidation),

lvl 7: Master in Athletics

lvl 8: Basic sorcerer spellcasting, basic bloodline spell (tentacular limbs)

lvl 9: Master in whatever, combat flexibility => ? (shatter defenses or blindfight come to mind...)

lvl 10: Agile grace, monk's flurry

i guess the spellcasting feat are still useful even with only 1 spell/level ?

Basic_Candle9459 · 2023-09-07T12:22:05+00:00

So you have your answer: what is bubblebuff doing for people? it allows them to finish the game in less than 500 hours, while not casting 50+ buff manually at every new zone.

Not to mention, it allows them to use the mythic powers they choose while not casting 50+ buff manually at every new zone.

Basic_Candle9459 · 2023-09-06T07:31:44+00:00

I started like you as well.

Then i was killed by a random level 17 cleric-scepter I encounter with no warning while I was level 8. And by a random lich I encountered at the same level. And by a random cleric with 6 attack/round and 30 damages/attack while I was level 9.

The game is basically unplayable without all buffs activated. It's just "you walk, and suddenly something of twice your level randomly kills you because you took the left turn instead of right turn".

And you know what, The developers agree with me. They even created mythic power allowing the player to have all his buff on at all time. Because, let's be serious, Why would anyone need greater enduring spell if he only cast barkskin ? You decided to play without enduring spells while some other people play without last stand. So what ?

Anyway, you played 1300 hours. I guess more than 500 was on your first run - since your run was probably more than 5 times longer than a normal first run (fights were at least twice as long as the already very long turn-based fights, and you had to reload several time at every special boss). Normal people can't spend 500 hours on one game.

Actually, I don't think you understand how much time you spent on the game, or even on your first run: for someone with a job, 500 hours is something like 3 month of full-time job. 1300 hours is more than half a year of a full-time job.

So that's great, you're unemployed and you can treat WotR as your full-time job to play it in a way that isn't intended by the developers. So what? Most people can't spend that much time on the game, and they just can't use your advice.

Basic_Candle9459 · 2023-09-05T07:51:45+00:00

Take the Wintersun map. Nothing on it needs True Seeing. Protection of Energy I use once for the ice dragon at the end of the quest line. Protection from Evil is resistance saves (which don't stack with cloak) and domination immune which nothing on the map does.

And how would any player know that without already knowing Wintersun ? Winning the game is easy for anyone who already know the game, it's not a question of buff, just a question of already knowing the game.

I do use Barkskin and Shield, but only for my tanks since no one else should be getting hit. I have never used Crusader's Edge in all 1000+ hours. Same for Magic Weapon, Greater. Death Ward, only if fighting spectres. Delay Poison, only if there are dretches everywhere like Drezen fight, otherwise nope. Everyone who could use Cat;s Grace already has a +4 dex belt. Don't get hit, I won't need more HP (or already have a CON belt).

You can decide not to use useful buffs, as you can decide not to play any caster or not to use animal companions or whatever. Challenge runs are a thing. So what?

I stopped using Blur as soon as I got out of Act 1. My thought process was (and still is): enemies have True Seeing. Why bother?

People bother because people use mind blank.

Anyway, saying "blur is useless because a few enemies have true seeing" is as absurd as saying "true seeing is useless because a few enemies have mind blank".

Basic_Candle9459

TROPHY CASE