B.S.'s page

Also, a handful of nitpicks:

- Why is uncommon red, but rare is only orange? Normally, the scale goes yellow, then orange, then red, with red being the most dangerous or restrictive. It would probably be better to adhere to this convention.

- Page 102, Knockback Strike: It uses 2 actions, costs a feat, and all it does is attack and shove. It doesn’t even boost the Shove attempt. Is just negating the Shove’s multiple attack penalty supposed to be worth a whole class feat?
- - - While on the subject of Monks, it would be helpful to state exactly how their AC works on page 97.

- Please don’t split up Prestidigitation into different versions based on spell list. Come on. Either give the other lists a different, more limited spell, or else give each one the full version.

There's no gentle way to say this: I don’t like the way that nearly everything scales with character level.

It severely cheapens every other modifier. For example, it makes it so that an untrained, low Charisma, but high level Barbarian will always be a better liar than a low level Rogue or Bard. That makes no sense!

And just increasing the untrained penalty (as seen in the current errata) isn’t enough because (1) the problem pervades through pretty much every facet of the system, and (2) all it really accomplishes is increasing the already substantial incentive to become Trained in as many skills as possible, rather than actually mastering anything.

I get that you’re trying to make scaling things simple, straightforward, and linear, but this design decision takes it way too far. It makes skill levels virtually meaningless to the final result.
... I really don’t think I would play such a system long enough for a campaign to really get going, it breaks my immersion so badly. But I’ll move on now before this turns into a single-minded rant.

-
Why are Sorcerers so OP? An extra spell AND spell slot of every level? Similar thing with Universalist Wizards. Not only does an extra spell slot of every level make them way more powerful than other classes, they’re way more powerful than every other subclass of Wizard!

If any spellcasting class should get a bunch of extra spells like Sorcerers, it should be the Bard, what with their focus on lore. Instead, the closest Bards can get is effectively a whopping 1 extra spell in their repertoire via Esoteric Scholar. (And the prerequisite for that should be Bardic Lore, not Versatile Performance, btw.)

Speaking of the underwhelming existence that is the Bard right now: they suck - in every way. Most of what they get is just a very minor buff, which only lasts a single round, and never scales. It’s so much weaker than every other caster as to be laughable. A good Bard design just needs to tick a few boxes: Worthwhile buffs and debuffs. Lore mastery granting extra spells (maybe even from other spell lists). Skillmonkey with a side of martial prowess. Overall versatility. But this version manages to come severely short on literally every single one of those components. The errata even made them less of a skillmonkey!

-
If I’m reading the Crafting section correctly, then you always spend materials worth ½ of an item’s purchase value, and then can finish quickly by spending more materials, up to a grand total of the full value of the finished product. Or you can take your time to avoid this extra material cost.

This basically works from a mechanical standpoint, but it completely fails any notion of logic. A finished product always, Always, ALWAYS is worth more than its component parts. For example, some sticks, feathers, and scraps of metal are practically worthless, but shape those bits of metal, attach them to the sticks after smoothing them out, and fix the feathers to the other end, and suddenly you’ve got something with real Value. Crafting rules should at least come a little bit closer to reflecting this reality. And they definitely should NOT imply that doing the job quickly somehow uses up twice as many sticks and bits of metal.

-
In an individual spell’s / power’s description, Please add a tag for which list(s) the spell is on. It would be incredibly cumbersome to have to flip back and forth between the spell descriptions and the spell list just to know whether an interesting spell is a valid option for a character or not.

You should also consider separating the various types of powers from the normal spell descriptions. After all, they have different mechanics and different sources.

.
That’s all for now. I’ll spare you the full breakdown of the Bard’s shortcomings, etc. lol

Again, removing good traits is not the same as making something "more powerful." That's just how the language works.

To be clear: my contention is not that this is RAW, nor RAI. My contention is simply that, at least on the surface, the text seems unnecessarily contradictory. And since the text has not yet been finalized, it would be wise to modify it so that there's no room for misinterpretation.

Use the statistics for a fist even if you’re kicking, kneeing, or attacking with another part of your body.

- pg 178

In other words, treat all unarmed attacks as fists, even if it's actually a knee, etc instead of a fist.

Saying that certain features can make unarmed attacks more powerful is not quite the same as saying they can change any aspect of them, including removing traits.

I second all of this.
Literally every word.

I just downloaded the pdf a few days ago, so I'd assume my version includes any errata, but idk. Anyway, here's some things that jumped out at me:

- Page 45 says Advanced Alchemy grants you the Alchemical Crafting feat, then goes on to say “You can use this feat to create common alchemical items...” This could be referring to either alchemy feat. Change it to “You can use Advanced Alchemy to quickly create….”

- Page 46 says “You can empower only a 1st level bomb.” Then, it goes on to talk about empowering a 3rd level alchemist’s fire. Change it to “You can only empower a bomb with a level that is up to your Alchemist level.” - or somesuch.
--- Is there any limit on the number of bombs you can empower? As written, it seems to apply to every daily preparation, Quick Alchemy, and normally crafted infused bomb, ad infinitum.

- On page 64, change “At 1st level, you learn one 1st-level occult spell of your choice” to “At 1st level, you learn two1st-level occult spells of your choice” (this is how it works for every other caster class).

- On page 175, change “If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s Hardness, the item takes a Dent.” to “If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s Hardness in a single hit, the item takes a Dent.”

- Page 176 says “If you’re not wearing armor, substitute your proficiency in unarmored defense,” but it does not say what you substitute that for. Do you substitute that for the armor bonus, or just for the armor proficiency? When using unarmored defense, is the AC formula effectively 10 + Dex mod + (unarmored defense proficiency x 2)? Or is it this, but only for Monks? If so, then this needs to be more clearly stated, and should also be represented in Table 6-3. (If not, then Monks are really up a creek.)
--- Why isn’t the formula stated on page 97?

- 178 leads me to assume that all unarmed attacks always count as “fists,” and therefore 180 leads me to assume that all unarmed attacks are always considered agile and finesse. However, all but two Stances list those standard traits. This dichotomy is confusing. Please insert a line that clearly states whether a Monk uses Strength, Dex, or his choice for unarmed attack / damage rolls, and whether a Stance can remove these standard traits. (“Specific trumps general” makes me assume that this is the case, but it’s definitely worth clarifying since this is kind of a core element of the class.)

- Does the standard Ki Strike actually cost any spell points? It doesn’t say so, let alone how many. However, it does mention choosing between treating ki powers as divine or occult… but doesn’t mention how this choice changes anything.

- Continual Flame lists material costs for heightened versions, but says nothing about any benefits to doing so.
--- Speaking of which, the book only says that a torch sheds bright light in a 20ft radius. Does it also shed dim light for any distance beyond that? As written, it doesn’t appear so….

- Spiritual Weapon’s entry says “Attacks with the weapon use your attack modifier with that type of weapon, but substitute your spellcasting ability modifier instead of the normal ability modifier.” … Is this supposed to be “use your weapon proficiency modifier with that type of weapon...?”

-----------
- In the individual spell / power descriptions, PLEASE add a tag for which list(s) the spell is on. It would be incredibly cumbersome to have to flip back and forth between the spell descriptions and the spell list just to know whether an interesting spell is a valid option for a character or not.
--- You should also seriously consider separating the various types of powers from the normal spell descriptions. After all, they have different mechanics AND different sources.
- (Since each power has a unique source (usually a class feat), is there even any reason to keep power descriptions separate from their sources?)

.

Btw, where should I provide my general feedback on the rules?