Aramar's page

The hustle exploration activity can only be used for [con mod x 10] minutes at a time, but given that it doesn't cause fatigue, can I assume a character can take a quick break and resume hustling?
On the one hand it works better for long-distance running, but I wonder if hustling for effectively the entirely exploration day was intended.

Speaking of exploration time, it seems like the rule that a party is fatigued after 8 hours of overland travel (in ideal conditions) should be listed in a more upfront fashion than being hidden in the temperature effects table. I read the line about precipitation reducing non-fatiguing travel time to 4 hours and spent an hour flipping through the exploration sections trying to find what that 4 hours was reduced from.

The Night Herald cultists at the Moonmere have a spell save DC of 22. And while it's been noticed that certain enemy stats are arbitrarily inflated to hit target numbers, that's not true of the save DC which appears to just be the enemy level of 8 plus the Cha bonus of 4 (plus 10). In contrast, the cultists' to-hit bonus of +17 with the crossbows has been seemingly inflated, since the +17 is much higher than lvl+dex+prof+potency.
The result is that the cultists were, at least in my run of the adventure, much more reliable as archers rather than as casters. More attacks per round, larger 'pool' of attacks (30 bolts vs handful of spells), and higher to-hit odds even on iterative attacks. The only tradeoff was the crossbows' moderate damage (2d8+2d6) versus the spells' battlefield control.

PC Numbers:
Barbarian: F +16, R +14, W +13; AC 26
Monk: F +13, R +14, W +15; AC 24
Cleric: F +16, R +12, W +16; AC 28

The cultists didn't have any spells which targeted Reflex saves, so the lowest save bonus was effectively a +13, which means the players had anywhere between 60%-75% chance of saving against any given spell.
In contrast, the odds of not taking a hit from a initial crossbow bolt ranged between 30%-50%. (the iterative bolt matched the spellcasting odds, at 55%-75%)

These are just the base numbers, not accounting for any magic or conditions. However, while there are options for decreasing an opponent's save numbers, most such options allow an unmodified save first, and still don't bring the above percentages much closer to one another. In contrast, there are multiple options for boosting one's own to-hit or lowering an enemy's AC without allowing them to make a roll, e.g. Heroism, true strike, flanking, etc..

These numbers can go both ways; the cleric's spell DC of 23 has somewhere between a 50-60% chance of success against 1 level lower cultists and 40-20% against the 1 level higher dragon, which certainly feels low when I look at it but, as none of players have recently played offensive spellcasters, I can't say how it feels in-game.

I noticed the high odds of saving against magic in Sombrefell Hall, but I thought maybe that was just because, again, the enemy magic was targeting Fort/Will and my players were all armored clerics/paladins. But in Mirrored Moon Enervation was unlikely against any in the party and I couldn't even keep a barbarian confused for more than a round, and where's the fun in that?

I'd like to see Expert/Master Spellcaster happen at much lower levels and allow for other possible lower-level methods of increasing spell save DC's (unless I missing a part of rules, in which case please direct me). I'm not looking to steamroll my players, but I'd like slightly better odds of injecting offensive (damaging and status) magic into combat.

While class-locked feats are not a huge hit at my gaming table, we nonetheless took it as an opportunity to explore what other options a class might have in place of what we were expecting (e.g. while the barbarian no longer gets AoO, what other useful Reactions might they get instead that we would enjoy just as much?)
Reading through the upcoming class feats and preparing to test them, there are a few items that we felt needed highlighting or clarification:

- The barbarian's Sudden Charge/Leap and Furious Sprint are not marked with a Move trait, while the Fighter's Sudden Charge is marked with a Move trait. This would indicate the Barbarian does not provoke an AoO when using these abilities, but a fighter would. This may be an editorial issue.
- The barbarian's No Escape and the rogue's Reactive Pursuit are similar concepts, but the barbarian's is level 2 vs the rogue's level 4, and the barbarian can always move even if the target goes farther, while rogue can't move at all unless the target stays close enough. Would it be fair for these abilities to be made identical?
- The fighter and barbarian both get Swipe; the barbarian's can only be made while raging but can be made on any attack of the turn, while the fighter can make Swipe anytime but only as an Open (first) attack. Assuming this is the intended trade-off?
- It's still weird that AoO is locked behind only fighter and paladin, and Quick Draw behind Rogue and Ranger.
- The sorcerer's Overwhelming Spell and the wizard's Overwhelming Energy are similar concepts; Spell is lvl 8 and ignores 10 of one energy type while Energy is lvl 14 ignores 10 of all energy types - these feel like lesser and greater version of the same idea, so why does the sorcerer only get the lesser and the wizard only the greater?

In a past livestream, Mark mentioned that the solution to many class-locked feat concerns might not be to unlock the feats but provide different but related kinds of feats as befits each class's approach to a fighting/skill/spell style.
E.g., some of the early ranger's ranged feats are oriented towards Hunted targets rather than general targets, and Mark mentioned a rogue's version of TWF might be more speed/finesse-oriented than the fighter's power approach.
We found interesting example of this design mindset in comparing the barbarian's Knockback, the fighter's Brutish Shove, and the monk's Knockback Strike.

The fighter's ability is the most complex of the three, allowing either a Shove or an unavoidable flat-footed condition, while requiring a two-handed weapon and a Press attack, and comes on-line earliest at lvl 2, with an improved version at lvl 4. But it is a form of moving the target in conjunction with damage.
The monk's is less complex, allowing an athletics check for a shove (potential for greater distance) on a successful unarmed attack, but it does require two actions (also not sure if it actually deals damage). However, it doesn't arrive until lvl 10, with a greater version at lvl 12 for increase shove distance.
The barbarian's is least complex, requiring a single action after a successful strike (note the similar but different requirements between the monk and barbarian; the latter is effectively a two action maneuver, but written with a requirement rather than combination of actions) , and Shoving the target as though with a successful Athletics test (no chance for critical Shove distance). It also doesn't arrive until lvl 10, with a greater version at lvl 14 which allows for an Athletics roll and the possibility of a combined Trip attempt
Each of these make thematic sense with what the different classes are trying to achieve (battlefield control, damage, etc..) and while some of the language could be unified, we're looking forward to seeing how they feel in play later on in the playtest.