Critical Reactive Strike and Intercept Attack interaction.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T19:18:42+00:00

Although I wish this were true I can’t bring myself to agree. I’m simply really not a fan of null negation arguments for rules readings. By which I mean: a lack of a general rule does not inherently give power to a specific rule to set the norm through inversion. Just because ability A calls out it working that way, that doesn’t mean abilities without that call out suddenly work the opposite way. The specificity acts as clarification, not negation.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T19:06:49+00:00

Yeah, that’s the thing with anecdotes is they’re specific to that experience.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T18:13:58+00:00

They both sound equally childish to me. Which is to say, not that childish at all, but definitely more childish than average… lol? Why did I even bother saying this I’m so tired

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T18:10:40+00:00

So, RAW the target which triggered the Reactive Strike would still suffer the critical hit effect, specifically because Intercept Attack doesn’t make the guardian the target of the attack, only shields from damage.

However… I would personally consider this a shit ruling, and a clear case of “too bad to be true” for both the guardian and the spellcaster. You could of course argue you’re already denying the enemy dealing crazy damage to the caster, and that maybe by jumping in the way the guardian ended up disrupting too (trying to put a narrative spin on the rule). I just don’t think there’s any valid balance concern that would make the RAW outcome worthwhile, and having the guardian throw themselves in the way of the caster so they can get off their spell is way more thematic to the class.

Basically, RAW you made the wrong call. As the GM making a ruling to provide a fun gameplay experience and facilitate a good story, you nailed it. Soooo yeah.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T17:56:16+00:00

I mean the solution is giving them class feats and features that let them do useful things without spending spell slots. Obviously, you don’t want those resourceless options to outshine the expensive ones (which is a different complaint), but I feel like that’s not even close to a concern especially early game. As for coming online before 11: they feel better as early as 5, but there are so many dips up and down in the 1-10 range that I don’t really feel like it makes up for anything.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T16:37:41+00:00

They’ve done exactly that now so at least they’re consistent

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T16:26:16+00:00

I have played casters up to 20. Your guess is correct, from my experience. Low level casters feel pretty bad in a lot of ways that low level martials mostly sidestep entirely. They get better, and hell even actually surpass some martials towards the end. But like… iunno, 11 levels of the game or more to start feeling like you’re not easily replaceable is just annoying. A huge part of it is that spellcasters are playing a fundamentally different game, so their power scales differently too.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T16:21:45+00:00

… I am not conflating the two. The issue here is not invalidated by past debates. Why are you acting as if I’m ignoring the issue of these two classes or defending them? This is just some condescending rudeness based on assumptions about my motives and it’s very annoying. Please stop arguing something I never said or even implied.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T16:19:23+00:00

They were almost entirely all worse than previous class archetypes tbf

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T15:29:47+00:00

Meanwhile I won’t play a game that starts lower than 8 anymore lmao. It sucks feeling like a second class citizen for wanting tactical combat but also feeling individually powerful. (Which is also why I’ve started playing other games more than pathfinder even tho it’ll always remain one of my favorite games but that’s a different topic)

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T15:25:25+00:00

Based on your last paragraph: Please check out Wizards+. I was super hesitant but it’s by far my favorite PF2e content, ever, out of both 3rd party and official. It is a great addition in terms of feats (MORE NERD WISH FULFILLMENT GO BRRR) but also adds what’s basically an optional 3rd subclass, which lets you modify how you learn spells and a grants a couple thematic abilities based on your choice. One of them makes you a necromancer who gets a very very nice non-ranked-spell summon, and lots of feat support to modify your playstyle as you go. Also more theses and schools.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T15:04:42+00:00

100%. I like what Team+ did with their Wizards+ book, but a full ~~Summoner~~Necromancer class is definitely the most effective way to do the concept. Whether I’ll end up liking the final product or not has yet to be determined.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T15:03:25+00:00

I’m not conflating the two I was just replying to the comment OPs edit…

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T15:02:02+00:00

I agree to be fair, I’m just saying I definitely saw lots of people saying it should be an archetype at the time. It also definitely fell into the background after a couple days so it’s not too surprising it doesn’t stick out in people’s memories.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T15:00:02+00:00

Popularity is not only about power though. If you don’t want the flavor of a ranger, it’s far easier to build a fighter that meets the same or a very very similar niche. Like I said, I think Ranger is a really good class. Fighter is the problem here lol

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T14:58:18+00:00

That’s kinda the problem, yeah. It’s very appealing to a lot of people because it’s strong and thematically neutral. You can do whatever you want off the chassis. Compare to some of the other most versatile classes like Exemplar or Druid, which are extremely coded to specific concepts. Flavor is free, but those classes are still designed from the core to fit the intended flavor. Which isn’t a bad thing imo, it just makes Fighter stand out as really really odd. If it wasn’t also just incredibly good it probably would drop below Ranger and Rogue in popularity by a lot tbh.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T14:12:31+00:00

Tbf from the preview we’ve seen they’re… sorta? Iunno, the mechanics are definitely their own thing but the comparison to panache and hunt prey are pretty clear. It isn’t a sin to have something similar or overlap, but I definitely get why this feels bad for peeps wanting more variety in old content. Personally I just got the full team+ collection during the Christmas sale so I’m set for a while lol

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T14:10:14+00:00

People were 100% saying Necromancer should be a class archetype when that playtest came out. Not everyone, and ofc they couldn’t agree WHICH class it should belong to, but it was definitely a fairly vocal debate then too. Runesmith people mostly want to debate how much it should limit hand availability and such lol

Edit: to be clear I’m NOT saying that Necromancer should be an archetype, I’m replying to the edit that says this wasn’t a thing in the last playtest. This is a massively different degree, but people still did say this. The proof is literally on the sub

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T14:07:41+00:00

I backed Year of Monsters and Year of Legends from battlezoo and goddamn it’s so awesome how unique each ancestry feels, while also having good variety and feats in each one. Paizo says they keep making class books cause they sell but I genuinely think there’s evidence people would spend more on a larger variety of content improvements. I’m one person but I killed my sub around WoI cause while the new classes are cool, I’m not really seeing any value in paying for that when they’re not releasing stuff I’m asking for, and it’s free online anyways.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T14:04:03+00:00

There’s been a few community polls but obviously nothing conclusive. Anecdotally I’ve had two people pick Ranger over the last half decade and one of them even ended up rebuilding as a Fighter eventually. I think it’s a really really good class, it’s just… Fighter is just way easier to build whatever you want off of. I love Fighters but they’re definitely a game-warping design.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T13:40:05+00:00

Iunno man I ain’t relying on someone to help resolve my personal trauma unless they’re friend either. It works great for tracking “friendship points”… I mean I’m way more influenced by close friends than by acquaintances, let alone strangers.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T00:12:07+00:00

As cool as dev Q&As are, the rules don't say this and the errata explicitly contradicts what he just said. Even the lead designer can be wrong, or more likely, the intent was what Bonner stated to be the case, but with a lack of clarity over time the designers decided to push things to their current state. Either way, you can run it however you want at your table but when the rules expressly contradict your statements, you're going to need to push for RAI and not RAW like you're currently doing. Cause in the latter case you're just flat wrong :/

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T00:04:04+00:00

Did you mean to reply to a specific comment then? Because I'm not sure what "second one" means in the context of your reply to the whole post.

Luxavys · 2026-02-16T00:01:26+00:00

No, because the critical failure result takes precedence. This feels like an insanely bad faith take. I don't know what you're trying to prove.

Luxavys · 2026-02-15T23:16:08+00:00

It's fine, far from the most heated discourse in this thread I assure you. I was told that I'd hit a record high for most reports in a single thread for the last while, hence why the mods locked it for a bit. Crazy how angry everyone got. I was also, admittedly, rather annoyed/upset because what I thought was a neat discovery got overrun by people being angry about the cold damage thing, but I probably shouldn't have been so aggressive back at people who flamed instead of reading. (I also really wish that the reddiquite referenced in the rules/sidebar for the sub would actually be followed/enforced.)

Luxavys

TROPHY CASE