Am I reading this right? That spellstrike is a free action to place a spell into the weapon but you still need to cast the spell. So 2 actions to cast a cantrip then use your 3rd action to move or attack? That would place melee magi at a significant disadvantage to ranged magi just on action economy alone.
So far my group has done double class feats and its worked great. To be honest a lot of us were initially down on second edition because it felt like it was difficult for any build to have any sense of wiggle room.
Once we implemented this change though everyone's enjoyment went up.
Since in P2e not much power is located in feats it hasn't lead to any sense of being overpowered but has done wonders for being able to more quickly realize a character concept.
they should show they queue for shipping when your order is pending and maybe show the approximate time for your order to be approved.
Honestly that probably would be a disaster. You'd most likely end up with a bunch of impatient people continuing to whine but now with information to try and micromanage. I could imagine the warehouse crew have an emergency or a meeting and somebody scream their head off on the forum because their shipment didn't go out when they expected.
I think it might be good to step back from some of the minutia to talk big idea stuff.
1.) Grit. I think that the interplay between Retorts and Grit is good, but there are too many things competiting for Grit as a resource. Its your primary ability resource and now its moving into being a defensive component. The design space is getting cluttered, probably some things could work well enough without requiring Grit.
2.) Something are kinda OP and Grit as a requirement isn't that much of a balancing factor when you can get Grit easily. I've mentioned Flashing Counter as a good example, getting what could be 1-2 extra attacks potentially every turn. It doesn't even require Grit. Whirling Blades is another, its basically Double Slice but you can use a greatsword. That makes something like Killing Strike not as attractive when I'm basically doubling my chances to hit, don't have to worry about flat-footed (which can be really bad with the new crit system), and both use the same resource. These are just example but there are more.
So what if instead of trying to make Grit the catch all resource, Drifter also gets Focus Powers. This would free up the design space a little. Things that are strong like Flashing Counter could remain strong but are balanced out by requiring focus points and thus limiting its use.
Things like Drifter's Gambit could just be a a nice DR bonus that scales with level and without having to constantly worry about failing and could always provide Grit because its use is limited.
I think this could be a way of freeing up the design space, increasing interplay with abilities, and varying up gameplay a little.
I think the way to go might be to make Flashing Parry/Counter more similar to the TWF Parry feats. I mean right now if you were melee why wouldn't you want to use Flashing Counter every time you can, unless you were about to die? Free extra attack why your attacked in melee? Yes please. Wait you mean I can also make the target miss? Oh and there a feat where I get additional reactions and +2 to attack with reactions?
That's just too good. It might be smoother to have Flashing Parry as the retort it is now. A Parry Stance which is no retort but + AC while inside, and Flashing Counter trigger on a crit failure against you with the option to spend Grit and counter as it is now.
That's more inline with current melee characters, Gunslinger as ranged should be fine.
Nice work Cozzymandias. I showed your work to some friends and they all agreed its very well done. Kudos.
I took some notes down on some of our thoughts. Its mostly for the Ronin path because well some of our people aren't the biggest fan of guns at the table and one is a huge samurai fan so sorry I'm not getting too much for you there.
Anyway here it is.
Nick of Time is awesome.
I like Drifter's Gambit. It might work better has a flat check like 1 is crit fail, 2-9 is a fail, 11-19 success, 20 crit success. This way its a legit gambit that stats won't effect. I could see room for a feat that improves a crit fail to fail and a fail to a success something like that.
Too many attack abilities require Grit require Grit making interplay between tough unlike Fighter's who get Flourishes and Presses. For example something like Elegant Finish might be great if instead of requiring Grit, required that you had spent Grit on an attack ability this turn.
Someone mentioned Impossible Flurry might not be so hot as compared to Ranger since there's no Flurry hunter's edge to help mitigate it. I haven't run the math with high damaged weapons so maybe he has a point maybe not.
Perfected Strike for a capstone seems a little weak for a 3 action ability. One suggestion was a 1 action attack that you have advantage on and if you crit then there is some ride like you don't spend Grit or can maximize up to two die.
Legendary Technique: Paizo has been pretty adamant about Legendary Weapon Proficiency being a Fighter thing only. Personally I'm fine with it since its one weapon but food for thought.
Reaper's Stance is still pretty clunky. What about something like a Monk Stance where you can add weapon properties? Like your weapon gains Forceful if it didn't have it already and Deadly if it did and if you do lethal damage gain +10 ft for movement speed until end of your next turn. Something simpler would be a benefit here.
Anyway great work thus far!
Ok some quick feedback.
Regarding the Ronin path, giving two advance weapon proficiencies is very nice but I'm not sure entirely needed. Generally speaking there is some barrier to entry on them which requires a feat. For the Gunslinger path yes it makes sense but for the Ronin I'm not convinced.
What if instead they got heavy armor proficiency? It would be fit with the Rogue Samurai or Knight trope and help out characters that want to run strength and still do fine in melee.
Re: Reaper's Stance, well I think others have mentioned the penalties just kill it.
Tenacious Blood Magic turns 1 round blood magic effects into 1 minute effects.
Thanks for sharing. Does anyone else feel like that's incredibly weak for a capstone? Wow +1 to skill checks or AC for a minute! Glad I didn't take that extra 10th level spell.
Even with the more interesting blood magic abilities this feels like a waste of print space. Even for damaging ones like Elemental, Dangerous Sorcery a FIRST level feat is better. Anyone seeing a good interaction I'm not?
Every time you gain a spell slot you gain a new spell. The only condition is when you learn a new spell level the first spell you learn has to be your bloodline spell.
So you hit 3rd level and you gain 3 level 2 spell slots. That means you learn your 2nd spell level bloodline spell plus 2 more of your choice.
The only exception to this is if you took a feat that gave you an additional spell slot and didn't specifically say you learn a new spell with it then you only get the slot.
This has more or less always been the case with the sorcerer regardless of edition. The Sorcerer has always been a test bed for new ideas handicapped from overcaution. Honestly at this point they may as well wrap the arcane sorcerer back into the Wizard and bring back the Mage class. Just have bloodlines be alternatives to Schools. Everything can go Arcanist style casting because unless Paizo sits down and does major work on the Sorcerer its just not worth having. Right now the Sorcerer has to compare against 4 primary spellcasters and its doesn't stack up well against any them.
I have grave concerns if Paizo thinks Quick Prep is balanced, let alone should be for free. I laughed when prior to the playtest releasing it was said some of the designers thought the Sorcerer was more powerful than the Wizard. The Sorcerer's history has been to red-headed step child to the Wizard since it debuted as its own class in 3e. Nothing has changed save the fact the class now gets to be the red-head step child to the Bard, Cleric, and Druid now as well.
I love the class and its always been the type of caster I want to play but its been the test bed for new ideas that have always error on the side of overcaution and left the class as definitively weaker than its peers. The only saving grace as been being a full caster meant you were strong anyway in previous editions.
Frankly I think they should just roll the arcane Sorcerer into the Wizard and have bloodlines as another option instead of schools then change every caster to arcanist style.
After this I have zero confidence that there will be balance among the Wizard and Sorcerer let alone the other 3 primary casters of Occult, Primal, and Divine. Trying to balance 1 class against 4 others are going to require a lot more TLC than I think Paizo has the time/ability to give.
I hate to say this because I love the idea of the Sorcerer, I love how in 2e it can have different spell lists. Still I just don't see how Paizo can pull this off without major work into the class.
I love this idea. I also agree that this should also have built in benefits with Proficiency.
Take MakeItStop's weapon attack for example.
Success: You deal damage normally.
Here would could have proficiency actually add something beyond +1 like.
Trained: You no longer drop your weapon on a botch -4, instead you are flat-footed until the start of your next turn.
I'd like to actually feel more like I'm getting better as I level.
Honestly I think Retribution Strike should just go. It's not that its weak, because its potentially quite strong. It's an interesting idea but there is just a whole host of issues around it that make it ill-suited to be the Paladin's defining class feature.
Off the top of my head
-It doesn't work with even some Paladin deities favored weapons. Paladin's of Erastil, sorry guys either use Erastil's favored weapon and lose these feature or take a melee weapon even if it isn't ideal for roleplaying. Its understandable though, because ranged weapons + ret strike wouldn't be balanced.
-It forces the Paladin to act as a 4th edition defender. It forces the whole class into a reactionary playstyle which some people will hate. I don't feel this is give me a tool kit and I'll pick how I want to play, instead this makes the class feel very much like 'you will play the Paladin this way.'
-Its use is highly dependent on the positioning and the DM giving you opportunities to use it. If the DM wants to deny you too many opportunities they can.
-Its worth will vary from table to table based on party compositions and DMs. That also means whatever assumptions Mark, Jacob, and crew are using to balance this ability are ultimately wrong, because assumptions are just assumptions and won't be accurate table to table.
-Limits room for abilities like Smite Evil because if you overload the class with offensive powers its likely going to be too strong.
-If you succeed if actually tanking and taking the hits, you effectively lose you class feature for that round + any class feats you invested into it. Somehow this is considered to be ideal?
-If you want to actually use Ret Strike you are hoping for one of your party members to be attacked. That is kind of a disconnect between what a guardian should actually be wanting which seems to be how Paizo wants people to see the Paladin.
-Action Economy. The Paladin potentially has a lot of features competing for a reaction.
IMO I think Paizo would be better served by scraping Ret Strike or making it a feat than the class defining feature. If Paizo does then it opens up a whole lot of room to accommodate different playstyles rather than marrying the class to one idea, supported by a clunky class feature.
I have to agree with OP. The class feels too reactive.
Paladin's should be about seeking out evil and smiting it. Ret. Strike should either be a feat or a class component but not the defining feature of the class.
Ret Strike simply put
That's pretty restrictive.
Also as a side note, does anyone else feel like the Paladin's focus on armor is just screaming for there to be a Radiant Spirit tied to armor? It feels like a big obvious hole to me.
Honestly I think the solution to how best to handle Spontaneous Heightening is really easy.
The Sorcerer can replace one of their Spontaneous Heightening spells for the cost of 2 spell points.
1.) Make the ability feel more spontaneous, fitting the Sorcerer's theme.
2.) Not give Sorcerer's the ability to heighten everything reducing balance concerns.
3.) Have an opportunity cost because these is the equivalent of spending 1 to 2 uses of their auto-heightening bloodline abilities.
It would make sense to me on a fluff level as well, since the Sorcerer is expending the energy from their bloodline to open up the potential of one of their spells.
*Bloodline = spell list. I love this, this is absolutely fantastic.
*Bloodline Powers. Personally I'm a little underwhelmed by the one's previewed. Is it flavorful? Absolutely, but how useful is it? Having a backup weapon would basically do most of what Glutton's Jaws do.
The real question is will Bloodline Powers + Spontaneous Casting be enough to mechanically keep the Sorcerer on par to other full casters like the Cleric or Wizard, with there greater spell versatility and own domain/school powers?
*Spontaneous Heightening. I understand why Paizo is afraid to let Sorcs heighten anything but there absolutely needs to be a way in the Core Rulebook to expand this. I mean some options will be a no brainer like Dispel Magic. Most players will gravitate to whats best in most encounters for day to day usage so I could easily see one or two very good spells reserving those Spontaneous Heightening slots, limiting experimentation and builds.
Secondly as we get expansion products keeping the Sorcerer so limited for their entire career is going to get more and more obvious as other spellcasters can more easily add new spells known to experiment with while Sorcs will still be in the mindset of whats the biggest bang for your buck on each spell level.
Since the Sorcerer is so restricted on their number of spells known, they absolutely should be the masters of the spells they do know.
At the VERY least there should a feat that lets them increase the # of spells they can spontaneously heighten or maybe some feature that starts them out at 2 then get +1 for each level of TEML they move up.
Ever since Paizo has spelled out that arcane magic is described as logic, rational thought, and categories in the 'All About Spells' blog I can't help but feel arcane feels like a poor fit for Sorcerers.
I fully expect Sorcerers (and perhaps Bards) will remain arcane but when I read that description is made it pretty clear that arcane magic was solely being based on Wizard traditions without much thought to the other traditionally arcane spellcasters. If the spontaneous arcane casters do remain where they are at it will feel like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. If ever Paizo were going to try and make these classes more now would be the time.
I tend to agree with QuidEst on this. The problem with Bards have been too much emphasis was put on them being a jack-all-trades class that this eventually became the class identity. A bard apparently needs to be a skill monkey (but not as good as Rogue), a caster (but not as good as Wizard) but somehow is Arcane and can heal (not as good as cleric), can fight (but not as good as a Full BAB class), etc all while somehow being able to play music and being loremasters.
I'd love if 2nd edition focused on giving Bard a more firm identity with its own flavor. If making the Bard Occult does that, then I'm good with that. Frankly I think an Occultist like Bard that can store resonance in their instruments to create different spell like effects would be an interesting idea.
Frankly I'm a bit disappointed in the Slayer, that practically nothing was done to after playtest 2. In fact it lost an advanced talent. Really the Slayer needed some nice new talents to better give it its own features rather than copy/paste which 90% of the class really is. Most of the work on the Slayer was done before it ever entered the design phase. That's not to say its not functional though.
Exploiter wizard is still the best class in existence, because it can do all the things that people were afraid would break the arcanist on the chassis of the wizard class.
Yeah if any class should have gotten exploits of the Arcanist's parents then it should have been the Sorcerer. They could have used it considering everyone can take the major of their class features with either Eldritch Heritage or now the new bloodline amulets.
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
Yeah that was my impression when I was told. I still don't have the book but from the spoilers I read, here's my knee jerk reaction: Why play a Sorcerer?
Arcanists can spontaneously cast and has a day to day versatility the Sorcerer will never achieve. They also get vastly more tricks than a Sorcerer does with bloodlines. It also seems most of the Sorcerer's stuff can be gained with either the Eldritch Heritage feat line or the new bloodline amulets. Its stuff is out there for anyone to take to a level beyond even the Fighter has endured.
They can't get a decent bloodline or archetype that significantly adds new and powerful options as a spellcaster. Compare that to the Wizard who in this book alone can play with Arcanist's exploits, the Shaman's stuff, or flat out go cast from completely different spell lists. You'd think that they'd get a bloodline/archetype to play with Exploits like the Wizard but no, instead you get a option to hit things....that works well with a 1/2 BAB class. Any archetype requires multiclassing to work should be questionable.
Right now it seems the only reason to play a Sorc is it gets +1 spell slots max over a specialist Wizard. (Other than RPing of course). That's sad.
Poor Sorcerer. It gets an archetype to be the mutt of sorcerers and then an archetype to punch things from what I understand. I haven't seen it but unarmed melee attacks just don't seem like a good idea for 1/2 BAB d6 HD. It can't even get a freaking Arcanist bloodline.
Meanwhile the Wizard is taking spells from other class lists, and playing with Arcanist Exploits, Hexes, and Shaman spirits. With all that and the new Arcanist why do we even have the Sorcerer again? Heck you can even take a lot of the Sorcs class features with Eldritch Heritage but the poor Sorc can't get anything to improve its casting?
I'd really like to know what there isn't at least an Arcanist bloodline.
So the Wizard can play with the Arcanist's stuff but not the Sorcerer? So lame. There goes the chance to play the type of Sorc I've wanted to play since I first read about the class in 3.0. <sigh>
Being able to use your innate connection to magic to bend the rules of magic? Nope. Exploits would be considered knowledge and the Sorc is the dumb brute of magic. But hey here's an archetype to punch people because that will go great with your 1/2 BAB you dumb brute Sorc.
Sorry. Thank you for the information Kudaku its great of you.
I would like to see this as well. Since the game treats talents as being roughly equal to feats, I'd like legitimately good options to make me debate whether I want an extra feat or X talent because its very useful and awesome, just like some of the Barbarian options. Do that and you've succeeded. For the most part as it stands now its usually the no brainer to take the feat option.
Ah yes I forgot ty, and of course there should be a once per round limitation.
Frankly I just hope Paizo is agreeing with some of the feedback here that the Slayer does need some more distinctive features given the changes in the other classes since in the revision.
Anyway some talent ideas for fun
Still not sure on what type of interaction FT and SA should have
That's damage. I figure the Swash would have better AC would it not?
It does seem wrong and counter to trying to sneak around and set up Sneak Attacks but it might be worth considering. I went around as a THF strength build and man I could have used the extra AC.
I wasn't the player. I *think* (key word there)1d6+25
Axe to Grind might have been in there also not sure. I arrived late and didn't get a look at everyone's sheet so I could be off and of course it doesn't count the times he actually spent Panache or Power Attacked.
How sub-optimal is it really? Did the test account for AC differences? Because the playtest I recent ran with some friends(and yes Dex to AC) the Swashbuckler was phenomenal as a melee combatant. He did good damage, had a good AC, and frankly was a very solid build. Granted we ran it at 11th level. He could gain more offense or defense with panache as needed. The only complaint was some of the Deeds were things that would barely if ever get used. (genuine question not trying to be a you know what.)
Sure and I get that. The feat idea doesn't bother me at all. It would be good for a ton of builds. What I said is Precise Strike (as it currently stands) + Dex to damage might be a bit much.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Rogue Eidolon's thoughts mirror my own here. Frankly if Swashbuckler gets Dex to damage then Precise Strike gets way too good.
Ooooo I like. Its also very similar to the Assassin's Creed combat where once you build up your combo damage you can keep them rolling as long as you don't miss. Its very set up and knock down.
This. The Slayer needs unique features otherwise its a copy and paste job. Functional sure. Viable yes. But it needs something to distinguish itself.
The worst part is you can't even calm your boss down after you tell him. ;)
I realize that lots of words have other meanings, but "Stalker" doesn't sound like something I want to be (or have around). Is that meaning just more salient for me than it is for other people?
Maybe it doesn't bother me because its been a DND Ranger build for a while. But similarly call me a Slayer and I expect to be able to rock my Favored Target which for the most part the Slayer is lacking on since Favored Target and the class damage feature have zero interaction.