WyattArcana's page

Thanks for not letting this community down Paizo.

10/10 would boop all these snoots.

Maybe I'm late for this part of the discussion, but regarding how similar arcane and occult are;

Arcane is how mental and physical connect - a neuroscientist/brain surgeon. a fully scientific approach to a physical problem with chemicals or scalpel.

Occult is where mental and spiritual connect - it is a psychiatrist, dealing with the brain and how it feels/copes with the world, medicine may be used, but in many cases talking and dealing with emotions is all that's needed.

Both are experts of different aspects of the mind and apply that expertise differently, and certainly there's overlap enough that they'd have a lot to talk about at a party, but in the end for all their similarities, what they do is completely different. They can solve some of the same problems, but they each also solve problems the other might do more harm than good trying to solve problems more suited to the other - a square peg in a round hole.

This is a faulty analogy since real world science and fantasy magic are very dissimilar at their core, but might be enough to illustrate how important differences of two superficially different things can be. Imagine a brain surgeon or a psychiatrists each trying to help the other's patients... the results would be disastrous.

*shrugs*

Very disappointed in the lack of revolvers.
If a crossbow can be balanced with a longbow I am certain they can figure out a way. Even if its a rare/ unique variant I hope we get some sort of multi-shot fire-arm. I can homebrew it easily enough but it feels strange that I would have to.

I think regarding the complaints about dul wielding being functionally locked behind a level 6 feat due to not having a hand free..
My guess is the advanced firearms will be like revolvers and other multi-shot weapons, giving an interesting choice between accuracy (since advanced are q proficiency level behind) and action economy until you get the feat.

So I do think its working as intended, and interesting, but I do feel like it would have been nice to get at least one example of that to test and compare the two options.

Qssuming we see spellstrike as two actions with a single check for success/failure...

That would free up the third action for all builds and allow more round_to-round versatility.

It would also eliminate the need for slide casting and many other feats that only exist to fix the action economy issues created byb3 action striking spell.

This would also, perhaps counter-intuitively, make less need for those spells that exist only to make striking spell more attractive. All the extra riders and effects with striking spell would still be nice, but would no longer look like must-haves, instead allowing you to branch out more with feat choices.

I'd like to see the remaining sythesis reworked, and for each to add a unique reaction (something the class sorely lacks right now) or even a focus spell stance (a great idea others have suggested!). I'd prefer they feel less limiting to a weapon, or allow us to pick up an additional sythesis.

I'd love to see a new kensai style sythesis where the sword is part weapon, part familiar, part spellbook, maybe even part staff.

Feats to expand on the Tome concept, and the unarmed.

The 4 spell slots can work if we see more minor magic effects without spells (like the feats that add spellstrike riders, but not requiring spellstrike). Or a variation of the wave slots mentioned.

Even just 1 slot per level you've advanced out of would both open up utility for a class that is severely lacking it, and make a muliclads caster dedication a lot less appealing than it is currently.

Right now nearly all feats (while mostly interesting) are either built onto or rely on striking spell. Which is not satisfying when you run out of slots or don't have the action economy to use it.