Gathuspia

Charon Onozuka's page

624 posts. No reviews. 3 lists. 3 wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 624 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
Just don't do what the GM that was running the game I briefly wanted to play an Investigator in did: threaten (and he would have done it) to run That's Odd by just saying there's a rubber duck in every room.

If there is a rubber duck in every room that the Investigator is being tipped off about - then clearly there is a greater conspiracy involving rubber ducks! That entire campaign deserves to be derailed to further delve into why rubber ducks are appearing with such frequency and what sinister secrets they might hide.


My initial (scattered) thoughts for a Shaman class.

Primal Spontaneous Caster. I dislike the idea of making them divine as that seems to step into the niche of clerics/oracles. I dislike making them pick-a-list as I think Sorcerer/Witch/Summoner fill this mechanical niche to capacity (though I think the first two need some improvements). I can see them being occult, but think primal would be a bit better while also adding a new take on a strictly primal caster other than Druid.

I could see the Shaman having a Spirit Animal (Familiar) similar to PF1, though I'm not committed to the idea.

I always thought the PF1 Hunter's Animal Focus would be a good fit for the Shaman with different theming. Theme as the shaman taking in the spirit of an animal to provide a temporary buff based on the type of spirit.

I kinda like the idea of being able to imbue spirits into objects, though wonder if mechanically it'd overlap with thaumaturge implements too much. (Haven't interacted with that class much.) And while I like the idea of taking some of the theming from the PF1 Medium, I'd personally think the mechanics would have to be reworked significantly for PF2 + Shaman theming.

I like the idea of some type of Shamanic Trance type ability. Unsure what exact mechanics would be.

Would avoid the use of psychedelics as a feature for a full class. While I see potential - I think a class would turn into a meme as a result and somewhat diminish the final class. An archetype that used psychedelics for spiritual means would be interesting however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I wouldn't read too much into that twitter statement. They clarify that it was from the marketing team, and they don't know the intentions of the design team. In other words, all they did was point out something done recently prior to the change without providing much additional insight to the situation.

Considering Impossible Lands was released in November and likely finalized/shipped to print prior to then - there is a time gap that they may not have known this new errata would exist.

Overall, I'm hopeful that they errata the later ancestries to be 2 boost, 1 flaw, 1 free as otherwise those ancestries may as well not have a stat spread.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gesalt wrote:
If they didn't think 3free/2flaw was an issue, all they needed to do was not touch it. That they did, going as far as to remove the option from everyone, tells me that they wanted it gone and used this as a good opportunity.

I honestly wonder if the 3free/2flaw stat line was unintended from the start. From the way the voluntary flaw rules were written, it seems clear they were intended for ancestries which already had a flaw, and I could easily see the writer not considering what happened when it was applied to humans or the +Boost/+Free ancestries that didn't exist at the time.

My biggest worry about everyone having a 3free/2flaw stat line is that it seems like it'd become the one true option for most optimized characters. Outside of maybe Magus, most classes can afford to ignore at least two stats - and anyone who isn't an Int/Cha caster is near guaranteed to put their flaws there since those are the two weakest stats mechanically. As someone who plays at a table of (somewhat reformed) optimizers, I would not look forward to seeing most characters of every ancestry become less intelligent and less sociable as a result.

SuperBidi wrote:

How +2 +2 +2 -2 -2 can be better than +2 +2 +2 -2?

Tell me.

As I tell you, Voluntary Flaws give worse stat arrays, always.

Because in exchange for one extra flaw, you have complete flexibility in choosing where each boost/flaw is applied, including putting all three boosts towards physical (Str, Dex, Con) or more rarely mental (Int, Wis, Cha) which is impossible with any of the fixed stat ancestries that guarantee at least one boost on each side.


Overall love the new alternate ability boosts. Either you get the ancestry stat spread (+Phys, +Mental, +Free, -Flaw), or the flexible human stat spread (+Free, +Free). Now even easier to make a PC of any ancestry function optimally in any class! That said, it makes me want to homebrew new stat spreads for all the (+Stat, +Free) ancestries so they actually have an option instead of the +2 Free Boosts just being superior.

While part of me is sad for the changes to voluntary flaws, I can see why it is necessary. For some reason I never even considered what happens when Humans used that voluntary rule, and +3 Free Boost, -2 Free Flaws seems unbalanced compared to the other ancestry options, especially when 2 stats clearly pull less weight than the others in the system (Int, Cha).


First thing I'd want to see is adding more meat to Patrons. They're a huge thematic component of what makes a Witch a Witch, but are mechanically kinda vapid. For example, granting a trained skill isn't interesting when all of them just add whichever of the 4 skills is associated with your casting tradition and nothing else. Also end up meaningless under Witch Dedication since many Patrons end of being mechanically identical as a result.

Also, regarding Patron granted spells - these should be of a different tradition than the Patron grants! Paizo deliberately did this with Cleric Deities in 2e to avoid being a useless feature, but should consistently apply the same reasoning across any major spellcaster feature granting spells like this.

Need option to trade out the familiar increases for something else.

Speaking of Familiars, locking inanimate familiars behind a single rare Patron is pretty terrible. Numerous Witch archetypes in PF1 had some type of inanimate familiar, really need a more general option to do this.

Pick-a-List is fine and thematic. But what pick-a-list classes need is a meaty standout feature which differentiates themselves from casters of whatever tradition they end up picking. Summoners did this right with their Eidolons, but Bloodlines/Patrons/Hexes are a bit lacking to carry their own weight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Amusingly enough, when I mentioned wanting to look into 5e more, my group (who play both) talked me out of it. As near perma-GM, they wanted me to keep running Pathfinder because they said it allowed them more options for character creation and allowing them to make very different builds within the same class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
S.L.Acker wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
There's a reason knives have never been a dominant weapon on battlefields across history or altered the nature of warfare like even early firearms did. Even with something like a knife bayonet, it is more effective attached to the end of a rifle (functioning like a spear) rather than using it as a knife.
Knives (or more accurately stone handaxes) were likely among the first manufactured weapons used by humans against other humans. Along with the sharpened stick and thrown rocks; knives absolutely changed warfare. It just happened so long ago that we take for granted that people use weapons to kill other people.

Kinda defeat your own point here. Stone axes (+stone hammers) changed warfare, literal pointed sticks (early spears) changed warfare, knives changed tool use while being functional enough as a secondary (or tertiary) weapon.

S.L.Acker wrote:
This all said I don't think this forum is the right place to discuss terminal ballistics and studies of harm caused in cases of IRL trauma. I prefer a more gritty lethal game than many people here and often wish that Paizo had taken more risks in game design with PF2, but even I can see that this conversation can't go any further without getting too graphic for this forum.

Fair enough. My original response to this thread was meant to answer the OP's question of, "What are your thoughts on incorporating guns in your games, and on Guns and Gears in general?"

In general, my thoughts are that I'd prefer a system that supports a more "gritty lethal game" when mixing firearms into my fantasy. That's not what I come to Pathfinder for, and don't personally feel like it mixes well enough into the system for my tastes. Fine if you feel differently, but at this point I've said my piece and there is little point in me commenting further in this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Why is it just a cut for one but a shot through the head for the other? If it was a knife going through your heart or a bullet in your arm, would you still feel the same about their relative lethality and prefer the knife?

I used the headshot due to the in-game example I posted before of the sniper failing to be a sniper despite crit-shotting a mook 4 levels below them (player understandably immediately wants to flavor this as "Boom Headshot!" upon seeing the rolls/situation)... which is part of why I see the PF2 version of firearms as being an inadequate representation. (Obviously an adequate representation of this in the system would be broken, which is also unsatisfactory.)

But... are you seriously trying to compare the relative lethality of a knife to a firearm? Sure, have them both target the shoulder (normal hit, no vital organs to crit) or center mass (critical hit, plenty of vital organs); the firearm is going to leave a nastier wound, be harder to shrug off, and be far more likely to kill. And that's before considering that anyone actively resisting has a lot more defensive options vs a knife due to its vastly shorter reach.

There's a reason knives have never been a dominant weapon on battlefields across history or altered the nature of warfare like even early firearms did. Even with something like a knife bayonet, it is more effective attached to the end of a rifle (functioning like a spear) rather than using it as a knife.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
In the end Pathfinder is supposed to be a game where a badass with a dagger is on equal footing against a badass with a polearm who is on equal footing against a badass with a gun. The more you try to emulate the reality of how weapons work the less fun the people on the bottom of that tier list are going to have.

Disagree! A polearm with reach + better damage dice is going to be superior to a dagger in most situations, as would be expected. If a dagger had better damage dice than a greatsword - you can be assured that many would complain for not being believable. "You can make it work" (with feats/options) is very different from the weapons themselves being equal as a baseline.

keftiu wrote:
PF2 is not the simulationist game it sounds like you want.

For me, it comes down more to verisimilitude rather than simulation. I can accept the abstractions of hit points and grumble about small inconsistencies - but the treatment of firearms in a Pathfinder system starts to strain my belief. They feel tacked onto a system that originally wasn't made to support them - and either end up broken (& thus rightly banned) or feeling like Nerf knockoffs instead of a deadly weapon.

Overall, I feel PF2's system does a well enough job for swords/fantasy, but would rather play something else if I'm trying to represent firearms in my fantasy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
I guess I just don't see why that's materially different than replacing the gun with a sword or a knife, because those too can kill someone very quickly without significant training in the real world (while my fantasy fighter can take potentially hundreds of strikes from an untrained novice). At which point it just becomes a critique of HP as a mechanic more than anything else.

The big difference I see is that it is a lot easier for me to thematically justify that your PC character can bat away sword blows from a less experienced combatant than dodge/resist bullets (while simultaneously being incapable of dodging slower projectiles). Also easier for me to justify that a warrior grits their teeth against a deep cut compared to getting critically shot in the head with a sniper (see above) and is still walking/fighting. A peasant ineptly waiving a sword around is laughable, while the same peasant pointing a flintlock at you should be much less comedic.

And there is a massive gulf in lethality (especially compared to training) when comparing a knife to a firearm. Even against unarmed civilians, mass stabbings tend to be much less lethal than mass shootings and more likely for victims to survive their injuries. Meanwhile, the historical introduction of firearms basically started a paradigm shift in warfare that would eventually make most other weapons near-obsolete.

Even with the earliest firearms, compared to a skilled archer requiring decades of training, a peasant with a musket could perform with a week of training. If levels are representative to experience/training - then the peasant with a gun is performing above their level in this situation.

At the end of the day, when the system math makes getting shot with a flintlock hurt slightly less on average than getting punched, I can't help but think that it fails at representing firearms in a compelling way for me. I don't know about any of you, but I'd personally much rather take a punch than a bullet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

I haven't heard of the thing before either - though I have heard about AI and machine learning, so the concept isn't new.

From what you have described, it basically it sounds like an automated plagiarism device. At least as far as scraping GitHub.

Gotta say, "automated plagiarism device" is a great phrase that I will be using in the future to describe certain AI (especially the current issues in the art community with AI drawings).

-----
RE the AI Apocalypse:
There's two ways to take this.

The first is that the only jobs left in the dystopian future will be 1) Owners who make the profits; and 2) Programmers to refine the software as desired by the Owners. Everyone else will be in desperate poverty as they can contribute nothing of value and only a minimal amount of programmers are needed.

The second is to recognize that there are certain fundamental limitations inherent in AI that can't be solved by technological advancement alone, and are very likely to simply be impossible to execute. While the advancement of AI is almost certainly going to cause massive upheaval & change in the working world, there are still a number of limitations that make it undesirable as anything more than a tool for a large variety of purposes regardless of how much complexity it adds.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Part of the appeal of firearms (& crossbows) is that a minimum amount of training is required to punch above your weight class - and even a novice has a realistic chance to inflict serious harm.
Is that part of the appeal? Most of the time when I see people interested in firearms or crossbows fiction, they're looking to play or tell stories about gunslingers, snipers, monster hunters, or other types of experts. Not novices who get lucky shots. I'd say it's more the fantasy that's incongruous with PF than the weapon.

To put it another way, I see it as part of the appeal of the weapons historically, and find it harms my immersion when the weapons don't match that feel in gameplay (generally, because necessary balance to ensure they don't overshadow weapons that require more skill to use).

This especially becomes true if you're a lower-level PC, and shooting someone in the face is about as effective as slapping them with a wet noodle. With the flintlock pistol example from above, an average PC punching you will generally hurt more than getting shot unless a level difference makes crits more likely.

Malk_Content wrote:
A person is able to punch above their mechanical weight is with a certain item is not really a niche a game with any semblance of balance is able to portray, ot without a much deadlier paradigm.

Part of it is that I feel an accurate portrayal of most firearms requires a system with a "much deadlier paradigm" than what is available in PF. Firearms either end up feeling unbalanced or inadequate to me with the standard D&D/level-based system, and neither of those are appealing.

For a recent in-game example, a player of mine is playing as a sniper in an adventure path. After setting up One Shot, One Kill + Vital Shot + Critical hit + Attacking a mook 4 levels below them, their first reaction is (as expected) "Boom! Headshot!" However, that would be unbalanced, so had to dial back expectations since the weakest mook in the adventure path (a random guard) had enough HP to survive the critical sniper shot.

In order for the PC to actually live out their sniper fantasy, they'd have to pull off their combo against something so low-level that it no longer gives xp for being defeated. At that point, the weapon doesn't feel thematically deadly enough to actually represent a firearm and instead feels inadequate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
D3stro 2119 wrote:
What are your thoughts on incorporating guns in your games, and on Guns and Gears in general?

Personally, not a big fan. I know this type of content has its fans, but if I really wanted to mix guns/tech+magic - I'd rather look into playing something like Shadowrun.

D3stro 2119 wrote:
Personally, I think 1d4 for the flintlock pistol is a pitiful amount, much for the same reason I think 1d4 for a baseball bat style club is too small. I would bump it up to 1d6 for both.

Agreed, a flintlock pistol generally hurts less than a thrown dart because the dart gets to add STR dmg due to the thrown trait. People mention that firearms have the fatal trait, but due to how crits work (+/-10), this makes firearms most effective for shooting lower level enemies, which feels backwards to me. While this helps to make them balanced according to system expectations, it doesn't meet the fantasy for me - especially when the majority of shots are thematically described as grazing the target due to not being a crit.

Overall, I don't feel like firearms mesh very well with a level-based setting because they violate the core assumptions of how most other weapons work in a swords/fantasy setting - i.e. that a novice is minimally dangerous compared to an expert being highly lethal. Part of the appeal of firearms (& crossbows) is that a minimum amount of training is required to punch above your weight class - and even a novice has a realistic chance to inflict serious harm.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

I think the logic applies to both Kinet and Magus as far as AoO. A melee kinet wants to be in melee, that is why you play it. Having a significant number of enemies shut that down pretty hard just is not fun and absolutely not necessary for balance.

A Melee Magus wants to be in melee too, etc etc.

Once again, I don't see how it is comparable or worth saying a Magus is "shut down" in melee when they are still holding a martial weapon with a full martial chassis.

While plenty seem to disparage the Magus ability to make basic weapon attacks - when compared to a melee blast this attack is comparable at worst, and actually superior at some levels due to TEML advancement.

In order for a melee Magus to be comparable to a playtest melee Kineticist - their basic weapon attack would have to provoke, Spellstrike would have to remove their ability to make weapon attacks in addition to provoking, and the action spent to refresh spellstrike/be able to make basic attacks again would also have to provoke. They would also need to lose all focus abilities that function in melee, lose the option to choose any verbal-only spells, and require a feat to attack in melee without provoking (without addressing the other issues).

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
I think a fallacy a lot of people fall into (not necessarily you, just in general) is thinking casters always have all these spells prepared. Your options are pretty limited.

If your biggest weakness is AoOs, you have selectable options which help compensate that weakness, and you still refuse to select options which do so, that is 100% on you when an AoO appears.

Something as basic as True Strike not only works vs. AoO enemies, it also is a major boost when you can Spellstrike to boost your hit/crit chance on the damage spike. Part of why some of the first theorycraft Magus builds on the forums were all about how to get as many extra castings of True Strike as possible.

I'd also say an issue that people fall into in these threads is assuming the Magus is expected to Spellstrike every turn and every situation. Considering the action costs alone - the class clearly isn't designed to do that (just like the playtest kineticist wasn't designed around using overflow abilities every round, which is the Kineticist feature that more closely resembles Spellstrike rather than their blasts).


CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Actually a Kineticist has a fully functional ranged attack roll with the same to hit, so if anything they are less effected by AoO than Magus, they just have to move back and use their range attack.

I don't really buy that a class with marital weapon proficiency and martial TEML progression who is generally expected to be holding a perfectly usable weapon in hand during combat is somehow more affected by AoOs than the playtest Kineticist was. Plus they have verbal-only spells/abilities (limited) which will still function in melee without provoking (i.e. True Strike, Dimensional Assault)

And if you want to bring in ranged abilities - Magus has cantrips & spell slots which can allow for ranged combat with the added benefit of potentially targeting saves as well (Magi I've seen in play personally have kept a backup save-targeting cantrip in addition to their spellstrike cantrips). Not to mention scrolls/wands of buff/utility spells, etc.

By comparison, a Kineticist in our playtest had just used an overflow ability before the enemy (dragon) decided they were now worth attention and flew over. Simple weapon proficiency, slightly delayed TEML progression at various levels, and an expectation to use blasts meant they didn't have a weapon in hand. Considering just about everything the Kineticist does requires Gather Element (which provokes) - they had zero class abilities left. The one feat kineticists had for melee was both extremely badly worded (my group couldn't agree how it even functioned), and would still have been useless since it required Gather Element.

Overall, comparing the two seems like apples to oranges because the Magus still has options vs AoO while the playtest Kineticist had nothing left.

Unicore wrote:
... maybe a closer look at monster design and the frequency of AoO as a reaction and having conversations between adventure designers and developer leads about distribution of monsters with the ability ...

This I can agree with 100%. Part of what really impressed me in 2e was how much the play experience improved when AoO wasn't a default assumption. Combat suddenly became much more mobile and AoOs actually triggered more often because of it. (Compared to 1E where no one dared moved after getting into melee range.) Also would love to see more reaction with different triggers, especially against critical failures on melee attacks (like Swashbucker).

While I haven't played many adventure paths - it sounds like an issue with the campaign/monster design if enemies with AoOs are overrepresented in some of them.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The big difference I see between the Magus and the playtest Kineticist is that Spellstrike is only part of the Magus kit (even if a standout part) while everything the Kineticist could do would provoke an AoO.

Thus a Magus could still contribute to an encounter while avoiding AoOs (even if their damage was lowered), while the Kineticist couldn't do anything (including gather power or their basic attack).


Note: The Ancestry Paragon variant rule does what you ask for receiving more ancestry feats. Characters start with 2 Ancestry feats at first level and gain ancestry feats at all odd levels afterwards. Personally, I run all my games with Ancestry Paragon.

As mentioned, damage scaling typically requires either Handwraps of Mighty Blows or Automatic Bonus Progression to keep up. Comparing an unmodified unarmed attack to a fully runed weapon is a bit off - since a common dagger without runes will be just as ineffective for your high level character in that scenario (part of why I always play with Automatic Bonus Progression).

As for special abilities, yeah, it is kinda hard to make a balanced ancestry that gives something like unlimited flight at first level - so that will always be a noticeable issue. That said, I wouldn't agree that it applies to "almost all" of the current uncommon/rare ancestries.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just submitted my surveys yesterday and encouraged all my players to do so as well after our playtest session. Hoping others will do so as well!


Prepping to finally get a playtest going, and one player asked if they could use the Shifting Rune to give their kinetic blast a different damage type. I'm unsure how to answer this, so I'll ask here. Is the Shifting Rune a valid rune to apply to a kinetic blast? How would that work? For that matter, how does a shifting rune work when applied to handwraps of mighty blows normally?


aobst128 wrote:
I wonder what they're going to do with metal. I imagine it would have all b/s/p since metal is closely tied to weapons in fantasy and they come in every form. I don't know if I'd like it if it only came in slashing or something. How is that going to feed into it's stats I wonder. Maybe d6 agile finesse and d6 agile 30 feet ranged. Is that worth every damage type?

I know earth in PF1 gave all three damage types (original weapons were made of stone after all!), but is currently limited to just bludgeoning. Unless they alter the available base damage types for blasts in general, I highly doubt metal will have access to all three physical damage types (& especially not with both agile & finesse).

Considering nearly all the elements are currently bludgeoning (or versatile bludgeoning), I image they'll do something like metal = slashing & wood = piercing to make things a bit more diverse.

---

And actually something else I love. I love how they're not just going to base kineticists around the western alchemical elements (air, earth, fire, wind), but will also allow kineticists to focus on the eastern elements (earth, fire, metal, water, wood). While I know some are disappointed on not having aether as part off the base - I was never particularly attached to it.


Good to have a more positive thread.

I love the thematic of Inner Gates. Dedicated-, Dual-, and Universal- seem to be great starting points for deciding what type of kineticist you want to be. They need more work in my opinion (being class paths that auto-upgrade with level) but the core idea seems to be there and functional.

I love Kinetic Auras, and really hope dual-gate can get a way to maintain 2 auras of different elements at the same time.

I love that Kinetic Blasts have a melee option at the start. Kinetic Blade was always a quick pick on the PF1 version of the class for me - and I really like the idea of Kineticists being good switch hitters that can seamlessly change between melee & ranged combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as I can tell, yes. Kinetic Aura does not currently care if you gather a different element, release your gathered element entirely, or do anything other than what the aura lists, "A kinetic aura lasts until you get knocked out, until the encounter ends, or until you use a new kinetic aura, whichever comes first."

So you are completely free to have snow swirling around you and dealing cold damage (Winter's Clutch) while switching to fire and burning everything in sight.


aobst128 wrote:
Not exactly how elemental weapon works. It basically allows you to wield a standard simple or martial weapon along with your elemental blast. You would have your choice of either your hand crossbow strike or your ranged blast. They don't interact.

Correct - however your elemental weapon will use your elemental blast proficiency, letting you use martial weapons you are otherwise untrained with, and uses the same hand you're already using for your elemental blasts so it doesn't get in the way. The idea of getting more range is to compensate for the fact a water/earth dedicated gate is limited to 20-30ft for their ranged blast - which isn't much for ranged when a single move action will generally close that distance and PF2 is a lot more mobile than PF1.

Example: An Earth Dedicated Gate is typically limited to melee and 20ft blast. Adding Elemental Weapon (Hand Crossbow) triples their effective range to 60ft by using the crossbow attack. Within 20ft they can use their earth blast instead for the better damage dice. Then you still have a decent melee blast for anything that doesn't have an AoO. All of which uses the same hand and don't interfere with each other. For a switch hitter, having a decent range increment seems like something that is highly valuable, even if you have to drop a damage die for the farther attack.

Xenocrat wrote:

Bows 100% do not work. They aren't 1 handed. Two handed trait isn't an abuse, it's how the rules work. And you pay for it with an action to grasp the weapon.

The Hand Crossbow would do Hand Crossbow damage dice. It would only do the damage type (bludgeoning, for water/earth) of your blast type.

I'm not so sure. Bows are wielded by "hold it in one hand and also have a hand free." What is a one-handed weapon other than a weapon which wielding requires one-hand? Looking deeper into the rules, the term "one-handed weapon" doesn't seem exactly well defined, which doesn't matter for melee weapons that are only listed as 1 or 2, but muddies the water for if a 1+ hand weapon is included.

----
Granted, all of this might be meaningless since re-reading the Elemental Weapon feat I noticed it doesn't seem to have any mention of applying basic runes like the elemental blasts do. Which means it'd become a dead feat as you level up and your elemental weapon has increasing difficulty hitting/dealing damage. Which is probably worst for melee-focused kineticists (especially Air Dedicated Gate), since elemental weapon is currently the only way to not take AoOs with your typical attacks (or for air to have decent damage dice on a melee attack).


Xenocrat wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:


Elemental Weapon Due to how melee blasts provoke AoOs, this seems almost essential for anyone intending to be in melee frequently. I'd be okay with it if blasts were more a damage spike (i.e. Magus Spellstrike) but I don't think the class's most basic melee attack should provoke. Also don't like how current rules seem to incentivize going for a weapon with the two-hand trait. Even if melee didn't provoke - this feat seems a bit too good and almost essential for dedicated gate - either to increase damage for air, or grab more range for earth or water.
How do you grab more range for earth or water with a one handed ranged weapon. Even the guns, if you had access, are not good.

Hand Crossbow gives 60ft range compared to your blast's 20-30ft.

Bows are also listed as "1+" hands rather than 2 hands, so I've view them as a valid choice (especially if abusing the two-hand trait is legitimate). That'd give 60-100ft range without having to deal with a crossbow's reload & gaining the deadly trait. The volley trait on longbows can also be mitigated by using your ranged blast within 30ft and the elemental weapon for 30ft-100ft.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some more initial thoughts after spending some time on a rough test character building.

Kinetic Auras Seem rather action intensive, especially if you want to start a fight with one (i.e. Fair Winds). Nearly all of the 1st level kinetic auras seem to focus on difficult terrain - with Air being clearly superior to Earth (buffs allies instead of harming them). Strangely enough, the rules for Kinetic Auras don't seem to be attached to the element you currently have gathered or care about if gather power ends or switches - which seems wrong (and an indirect buff for Universalists). Would be really cool to have a feat / path advancement (for Dual Gate) that let you have 2 kinetic auras for different elements active simultaneously.

Elemental Weapon Due to how melee blasts provoke AoOs, this seems almost essential for anyone intending to be in melee frequently. I'd be okay with it if blasts were more a damage spike (i.e. Magus Spellstrike) but I don't think the class's most basic melee attack should provoke. Also don't like how current rules seem to incentivize going for a weapon with the two-hand trait. Even if melee didn't provoke - this feat seems a bit too good and almost essential for dedicated gate - either to increase damage for air, or grab more range for earth or water.

Cycling Blast While I see what this is trying to do, I think it is something that should either be part of a class path or removed. It seems too good to the point that dual-gate & universal-gate might as well not have a 6th level feat slot. Also dislike this being shared between dual-gate & universal-gate since it doesn't help to distinguish them. (Personally, I'd advocate for something like a dual gather element for dual-gate, letting them gather both their elements simultaneously and use impulses/blasts freely once they got high enough level. Universal would still still have access to more elements, but would have to swap between them and eventually get cycling blast as part of path to help the swap.)

Wings of Air While I love this feat, was very surprised to note that there is no requirement to stay in air element. Seems like this is a bit too good for dual-gate & universal-gate kineticists since they can activate flight and then swap to an element that can deal damage while keeping all benefits.


Kyrone wrote:
Interesting enough Universal Gate names the four elements instead of saying ALL or something similar, makes me wonder if it will exclude wood and metal and make it exclusive to dual and dedicated.

I'd expect having 2 separate "universal" gates in the final book.

One has access to air, earth, fire & water (4 western elements), other has access to earth, fire, metal, water, & wood (5 eastern elements).
---

Overall, it seems like Dedicated Gate wins if you know you'll be restricted to low level - but Universal is probably best for anything else. Ability to swap and alter certain abilities based on element is very good, especially if paizo goes with what most people seem to want and lets elements get more elemental blasts (heck, universal gate might be the reason they swapped every blast other than fire to physical damage only - since it'd be too good for universal gate to be able to swap to target any elemental weaknesses compared to dedicated gates.)


Group is finishing an adventure this week and will have scheduling conflicts for the next two weeks... Will need to find a decent published oneshot I can try to squeeze in before the playtest ends.

Open to any suggestions - preferably level 4-5 minimum with at least a couple decent combats to sink teeth into.

Failing that, will likely fall back on a simple coliseum with a couple levels of encounters to test out.

At least one player is excited to try Kineticist, and we haven't had time to look through Dark Archive fully - so likely will have a Psychic or Thaumaturge in the group. Other than that, Swashbuckler likely to just keep his current character and no idea what 4th will be.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Use it even in environments where this normally wouldn’t be possible." Bludgeoning attacks are already possible underwater, just not very good. Nothing in the ability says it removes all penalties normally associated with the attack, just makes the normally impossible actions possible.

I'd expect the earth & air kinetic blasts to suffer from the aquatic combat penalties barring any specific text otherwise - so it seems reasonable to expect this applies to water too with the current wording (though I don't think it should).

Same thing if a barrier of wind was imposing a penalty on all ranged attacks - I wouldn't rule that gather elements makes all kineticists immune to this penalty without some other specific text. The attack is still possible, the penalty being imposed doesn't alter that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, from the wording of the ability, I think water blasts would work underwater but still be subject to the normal Aquatic Combat rules pertaining to bludgeoning damage. So auto-miss ranged attacks and a penalty to melee attacks.

Which makes Fire Kineticists better at blasting underwater by default compared to Water Kineticists... that feels very wrong.

[Also, is it just me or do some of the core kineticist abilities seem to be written with Fire Kineticists in mind? Gather Element specifically makes fire kineticists not just usable in water, but better than all other kinetic blasts in water. Extract Element seems highly situational and nearly unusable - except for Fire Kineticists since only their elementals are commonly immune to their blast type. And even something like Elemental Weapon is only particularly unique for Fire Kineticists since it forces the damage type to match the blast (meaning rocks can never be sharp or pointy).]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
They also should have a revive option by turning into ash.

To be fair, fire kinda has this with All Shall End in Flames. Can basically nuke yourself and everything around you, turning everything into piles of ash while you get reborn.

But yeah, every other element gets a healing option and there are thematic justifications for healing fire which burns away impurities - so I think there should be something for fire here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Fair enough, I'll throw my first impression post here rather than making my own thread.

Inner Gate seems like an interesting way to separate kineticists. More initial options for focusing on a single element vs. greater amount of choices when leveling up. I do think the Universal Gate seems to be worded poorly considering we'll have 6 elements total at the official release. Might be better to chose either the 4 western elements (air, earth, fire, water) or 5 eastern elements (earth, fire, metal, water, wood). Granted, this also doesn't cover any unusual elements people may want to appear down the line (aether, void, etc.)

But why does Universal get to change their 1st-level pick every day? Seems like this is trying to go the way of the Wizard and make Universal just better than being more specialized. Compared to dual gate, who get 1 additional 1st level feat (which can't change) in exchange for cutting their blast & options in half, this doesn't seem like a fair trade-off - especially when the earliest big distinction between the two after 1st level is an optional 10th level feat. Dedicated Gate seems somewhat tempting with +2 1st level feats & Stoke Element (Feat 6), but Universal seems to be just best otherwise.

Gather Element seems kinda weird in that it basically functions as a stance, without actually being a stance. The only difference seems to be having overflow abilities that forcibly end it.

Elemental Blast Very happy to see both melee and ranged supported from the start!

Extract Element ...seems highly situational. I'd imagine many players will forget they even have this ability the rare times it becomes useful. As far as I can tell, primary usefulness is allowing Fire Kineticists to not become completely useless against a fire elemental?

Elemental Weapon (Feat 1) Love the thematic, but I'm unsure how this works. Do you get the weapon damage dice / traits when making an elemental weapon? If no, the ability seems kinda useless and just flavor. If yes, then seems at the level of a must-take for elements like air (low damage dice) or earth (low range) to compensate for their downsides. Don't say I particularly like how it changes the damage type to match your element - since other than fire, most elements don't make a lot of sense with this (my earth sword or water spear deal bludgeoning damage). Also doesn't really help avoiding to use weapons if my earth kineticist still needs a backup non-bludgeoning weapon for any enemies where bludgeoning isn't very effective. [Current campaign I'm running is zombie-focused where players have learned they need to use slashing damage to keep up. A water/earth kineticist would be better off with a sickle than ever using their blast, even with this feat...]

Elemental Impulse Feats
Expected that the old elemental options would primarily become feats, no big surprise.

Air
Wings of Air returns! And without the prerequisites! Already love this element, near permanent flight is exactly what I want as an aerokineticist, and will be difficult to resist on any universal gate kineticists.

No Lightning Blast-style impulse? Really feel there should be a low-level impulse that lets you arc electricity at foes.

Earth
Stone Shield doesn't appear to have any limit on uses after using Shield Block? (other than needing to re-Gather Element) That seems like a very good ability.

Fire
Lots of burning, as expected.

Water
Love Winter's Clutch as a snow/ice kinetic aura at 1st level - but think there should also be some type of water (room temp) aura ability.

-----
Overall
Neither particularly attached or against CON as the class ability score, but I feel like the class ability should do something for the class. Right now, it seems like CON doesn't actually affect any Kineticist abilities - which seems wrong.

Dedicated Gate vs. Dual Gate vs. Universal Gate:
Feel like these need more to distinguish from each other rather than just 1-2 extra first level options and a few optional feats later on. Especially for Dual Gate, which is in an awkward spot between the two. At minimum, I think there should be a class feature at some level beyond 1st which has different effects based on which Inner Gate you took.

Personally, I'd expect the Dedicated Gate to be the best at using their element, Dual Gate to have an ability to channel both their elements simultaneously (using either element's impulses freely), and Universal having the flexibility of all elements, but needing to spend time to re-gather a new element in order to swap between them (trade-off compared to dual gate). Also see dual gate as having best ability to mix blasts, while maybe allowing universal gate a feat to select multiple impulse feats with the restrictions they have to be of a lower level and of different elements (to help the issue of limited feat slot restrictions when trying to maintain more than two elements in a build - let them be the most varied while not getting the flashiest at-level abilities).


After seeing a certain post on Reddit sculpting this creature, I got a bit of inspiration trying think of a campaign to bring this horrible monster to my players. Not being completely satisfied with any of the statblocks I could find, I decided to try my own hand at bringing this creature to PF2.

For those unaware (or merely forgetting), the original tale of the False Hydra can be found here and is what I tried to base my design on more than referencing existing statblocks.

I'll post the pdf as a link here with a text version below the spoiler. Any feedback or criticism is welcome.

False Hydra:

False Hydra creature 6
rare ce huge aberration
Perception +17; darkvision, tremorsense (imprecise) 30 feet
Skills Acrobatics +11 , Athletics +15 , Society +13 , Stealth +15
Str +4, Dex +2, Con +5, Int +2, Wis +4, Cha +6
AC 20 (all-around vision); Fort +14, Ref +11, Will +17
HP 120; Immunities blinded, controlled, deafened, death effects, sleep; Resistances mental 5, sonic 5
Speed 5 feet; burrow 20 feet
Wail [[R]] (auditory, mental);
Trigger An adjacent creature hits the False Hydra with a melee attack. Effect All creatures within 5 feet take 4d6 mental damage with a basic DC 24 Will save. Using this ability ends the ongoing effects of Amnesia Song.

Melee [[A]] jaws +13 (agile, reach 20 feet), Damage 2d4+7 piercing plus grab

Abducting Bite [[A]] (attack)
The False Hydra attempts an Athletics check against a grabbed foe's Fortitude DC. On a success, the False Hydra pulls the creature 10 feet closer to it (20 feet on a critical success).

Amnesia Song [[A]] (auditory, concentrate, enchantment, mental, occult);
Frequency Once per round Effect The False Hydra sings an eerie melody which causes creatures to ignore it and forget its existance along with its victims. Each creature that can hear the False Hydra must attampt a DC 22 Will save to resist the effect. The effect lasts for 1 round, but if the False Hydra uses this ability again on subsequent rounds, it extends the duration, causing all affected creatures to reattempt the save. If a creature critically fails a save during the song's duration, further saves each round during the duration cannot get a result above a critical failure.
Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success The target does not notice the song and has difficulty focusing, treating the False Hydra as concealed.
Failure The target loses all memories of hearing the song and has difficulty directly perceiving the False Hydra, treating it as hidden. If the False Hydra was undetected by the target before this effect, treat this result as a critical failure.
Critical Failure The target loses all memories of directly perceiving the False Hydra and can no longer perceive the False Hydra as long as the song continues. If the target does not have knowledge of the False Hydra outside of their previous perceptions, they lose all memories of the False Hydra. If another situation would convince the target the False Hydra is there (such as seeing an ally attacking the False Hydra), the target can spend an action to reattempt the Will save.

Devour into Song [[AAA]] (death, occult)
The False Hydra can ingest the body of a creature that died within the last hour, regaining 2d10 Hit Points. Afterward, any target which critically fails a save against the False Hydra's Amnesia Song loses all memories of that creature in addition to its normal effects.

Elongate Neck [[A]] to [[AA]] (morph, transmutation)
With the sound of popping bones, the False Hydra stretches and coils its neck in preparation of its next attack. For each action spent to use this ability, the False Hydra doubles the range of its next jaws attack made this round. As long as the False Hydra has enough reach to go around an obstacle, this attack ignores cover and does not need a direct line of effect.

Sneak Attack
The False Hydra deals an additional 2d6 precision damage to flat-footed creatures.

Reasoning:

To explain some of my reasoning behind the design.

Amnesia Song is meant to invoke the signature ability of the False Hydra while functioning both within and outside combat. Outside combat, most creatures should fail the Will save within a minute or two, which gets upgraded to a critical failure and causes them to lose their memories. Within combat, it forces PCs to deal with miss chance as their minds struggle to resist the song's effects. Failures on the save no longer upgrade to critical failures, and even a critical failure can be recovered from (at the cost of action economy) as long as the rest of the party is engaged in combat.

Devour into Song is meant to invoke the other part of the False Hydra's signature ability, which somehow never seems to be represented in other statblocks I've seen. The healing is primarily to give temptation to use this in combat and temporarily end the song, as a three action activity leaves no actions left to sustain the song.

Abducting Bite / Elongate Neck Something I see in other statblocks for this creature are giving it normal reach for its size category compared to the original story which seems to emphasize the length of the necks and how it pulls people into discreet locations in order to consume them. So I gave the False Hydra a bit longer than normal reach for its size along with abilities to increase its reach further and actually drag creatures towards it.

Defenses I deliberately gave the False Hydra just below Low AC for its level, as it primarily tries to rely on the miss chance created from the concealed and hidden conditions. High hit points let it survive a bit even if PCs block their hearing to avoid the song, but overall isn't meant to be a creature well-adjusted to a straight up fight.

Offense Continuing with the idea that this isn't a creature well adapted to direct confrontation, I gave the False Hydra low attack and damage for its level. However, it excels it taking advantage of foes who are unaware of it due to its signature song. Both attack and damage improve against anyone who fails a save against its song - since the hidden condition makes the target flat-footed against the False Hydra, lowing their AC and enabling sneak attack to function for extra damage.


My PF1 Kineticist was actually a Magical Girl who reflavored earth blast as summoning magical weapons to throw at the enemy. Didn't get high enough for multiple elements, but probably would have tried to go air to eventually get permanent flight. Because flight + constant throwing around magic blasts sounds a lot more like a magical girl to me compared to the Vigilante Magical Child archetype that gave a transformation sequence (which couldn't be used in combat without taking specific options) and a familiar... and not much else.

For PF2... I kinda want to see a Sprite Kineticist just for the idea of the tiny PC hurling around elemental power.

Granted I'm kinda perma-GM at the moment, so what I really need is to figure out what is good to run for a 4th level group during the playtest period.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
On a more simple point - my point on HP and burn was dismissing the idea of changing it to pure HP damage in 2E. I am well aware of how it worked in 1E but there is currently no mechanism for unhealable HP in 2E and they have deliberately tried to avoid fiddly things like that in the design. So I was saying Burn will likely not be HP damage in any form in 2E.

I think self-inflicting the drained condition would work for a PF2 version of burn. Reducing max HP is functionally the same as preventing you from healing, and it'd fit the theme of pushing themselves beyond their limits.

Squiggit wrote:
PF2 also is very narrow about class options. You get a class feat every even level... and that just doesn't feel like enough space for utility talents, infusions, other wild talents, and normal class feats.

Seems to me that infusions and talents likely would be the normal class feats of a Kineticist (or at least a large part of them). I imagine it'd be similar to how Eidolon Evolutions for the Summoner turned into part of the class feats with a new trait added to them. Overall, the class feat system in PF2 largely seems to be a way to standardize those types of selectable pools of class options from PF1, so the Kineticist talents/infusions would be a natural fit.

I'd imagine a breakdown roughly being something like this:

Basic Class Ability: Burn/Gather Power
Class Path: Elemental Focus which grants the basic blast & either advances or uses a feat to advance for certain things related to that element (i.e. elemental defence).
Class Feats: Mostly Infusions/Wild Talents with element(s) as a prerequisite.

---

What I'd be more worried about PF2 class design is how concerns over page space seem to repeatedly get brought up with classes. I remember hearing that the designer for the Summoner had to really push to get enough page space to actually make the class work. (Personally, I'd consider the PF2 Summoner to be the first really successful pick-a-list caster partially because they devoted enough page space to the class path mechanics to make them really distinct.) With a Kineticist class, it seems like it'd need a significant amount of page space to really work - especially considering how many options would be limited to certain elements (requiring more options overall to ensure each element has enough choices).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because that is a response to saying limited options are bad - and pointing out that many classes have limited options within them which helps those options have a distinct flavor. Every Barbarian need not lean into that specific flavor of their instinct, but it an option for those who do and helps those options feel unique because others can't easily be copied by others.

I'd also note, Barbarians have a niche of "gets really mad and hits things" as a fallback with the whole rage mechanic to help separate them from other martial characters even if they completely ignore anything related to their instinct.

A Witch's fallback is being a spellcaster, which makes them just 1 out of 7 casting classes (or 9 if you want to count the wave casters) with more to come. What separates them from other spellcasters? Patrons don't do enough, familiars aren't difficult to obtain, and hexes aren't nearly as impressive (or even useful) as many hoped. Those are the 3 main points Witches have to establish a unique identity - and I'd argue Patrons are the part that are best suited to receiving more attention.

How different do a curse, fate, and night witch feel from each other? When you pick fervor and rune - you're really just saying that a divine and arcane Witch feel different, which is a result of the tradition, not the Patron. I'd also note that both feel like inferior versions of the Cleric and Wizard - which is the same issue that Sorcerers were frequently accused of. (Personally, I see Summoner as the first really successful pick-a-list caster, because they devoted enough page space to eidolons to give a meaty mechanic that firmly separates them from casters of whatever tradition they select.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
You know entire reason why people wanted a witch class in PF2 in the first place.

There are several reasons depending on who you ask and you might have seen me in multiple threads during the playtest arguing which ones should have been part of the final Witch.

I'd say "Patrons & Hexes" were my biggest takeaways from the PF1 Witch, and I was a particular fan of Blood of the Coven for expanding Patrons to be more than what the default Patron options did in PF1. The fact that PF2 Patrons are even less mechanically influential than PF1 is probably my biggest complaint with the class, as that's been something I wanted more focus on since my very first Witch character in PF1.

If you look at some of Paizo's views between the playtest & SoM, it looks like their biggest takeaway was "Familiars." I'd argue this is a consistent issue with Paizo seeing a familiar associated with a character theme and overestimating how important it actually is the theme (looks at Magical Child).

Temperans wrote:
So no, it has nothing to do with PF2 being a "class-based system" and having unique class options does not at any point require that class options are limited based on your initial choice (Case and point see Fighter, Monk, Bard, Druid, etc.)

I'd note that a class-based system instantly limits your choices based on which class you select at the start, and makes certain builds impossible. Which was part of the argument in the post I was responding to.

But okay, lets take a quick look at the CRB classes and their CRB feats.

CRB Classes:

Alchemist: Class Path in Research Fields. No feats seem to have research field as a prerequisite.

Barbarian: Class Path in Instincts. Count 11 which have a specific instinct as a prerequisite to select.

Bard: Class Path in Muses. Count 17 feats which have a specific muse as a prerequisite to select.

Champion: Class Path in Cause. Count 7 feats requiring a specific cause, not counting those that require "tenants of good." Has sort of a secondary class path in Divine Ally - where I count 11 feats requiring a specific divine ally. Has the ability to expand to a second divine ally with the limitation of spending a feat to do so.

Cleric: Class Path in Deities/Domains, and type of divine font. Count 7 feats requiring a specific font, not counting feats requiring either. All Domain feats are limited by deity in which domains you can pick and which associated spells/abilities can be gained. More feats are limited by your alignment and/or deity or provide specific effects based on your deity which limits you from selecting others.

Druid: Class Path in Druidic Orders. Count 11 feats which have a specific Order as a prerequisite to select, not counting feats which require Wild Shape, which itself requires the Wild Order. Has the ability to expand into other orders, but requires spending 1-2 feat(s) each time in order to do so, providing a limitation.

Fighter: No real class path. Instead many feats have a requirement bases on what type of weapon you are holding in order to be able to use them, or one of those feats as a prerequisite in order to use.

Monk: No real class path.

Ranger: Class Path in Hunter's Edge. No feats with prerequisite of a specific Hunter's edge.

Rogue: Class Path in Rogue's Racket. Count 6 feats which have a specific Racket as a prerequisite to select.

Sorcerer: Class Path in Bloodline. Count 6 feats limited to the tradition provided by your bloodline. 2 more feats have different effects based on which bloodline you selected, limiting you from other bloodline options.

Wizard: Class Path(s) in Arcane School & Arcane Thesis. Count 2 feats requiring a specific arcane school (universalist), and 1 feat which changes based on the which arcane school is chosen, limiting you from other school options.

So out of 12 classes, only 4 classes don't have feats limited based on an initial choice, all of which are non-casters. Out of the casters, I'd note the Wizard is noticeably lacking compared to the others, and was was also the one most criticized during initial playtesting for not having enough flavor compared to other casters. Comparatively, the Witch somehow provides even less unique path options than Wizards get, and also receives criticism from playtest to present for Patrons lacking flavor. I don't think this is a coincidence.

GM OfAnything wrote:

Again, patron themes are not the same as patrons. Patrons are a roleplaying choice that should be mediated with your GM.

Many patrons can share a theme and express their individual identity through shape of familiar and lessons they offer the witch. You and your GM should absolutely collaborate on which lessons are appropriate for your patron.

This is the same as saying Patrons are pure RP to the point of being meaningless.

I can RP a Swashbuckler as learning their martial techniques from an influential Fey and collaborate with the GM on which feats are appropriate for such RP. A class feature doesn't to be written into the class in order to do that.

The big issue is that Patrons are written as being a major part of being a Witch, but the actual mechanics say Patrons are largely inconsequential. This is a big disconnect. Unless Patrons get something more to call their own - this will always remain a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Being open to any Witch means Lessons do nothing to develop the design space of Patrons. In order to do that, they'd have to be limited

Limiting them does nothing except make certain builds not possible. It's not a positive.

It doesn't somehow improve design space or flavor. It reduces it.

Once again, this is isn't an argument to limit Lessons as a general practice. This is saying the unlimited lessons do nothing to change the issues with Patrons or expand the space of Patrons.

Also, PF2 is a class-based system. Tons of options have various sorts of restrictions which makes certain builds not possible. If you want to argue that limitations are never a positive - then I don't know why you're playing PF2 when you want a completely different game system.

As far as flavor goes, I'd argue part of what gives different classes different flavor is they have different options which are unique to each class. Even within a class, most classes have a variety of selectable feats/options past first level which are limited based on an initial class path choice. These all make those initial choices have more impact, meaning, and flavor as those selections allow options which aren't open to every other character. [i.e. A Giant Instinct Barbarian can select a feat at level 6 which allows them to grow Large while raging. This is flavorful to Giant Instinct Barbarians, and that flavor would be diminished if every other Barbarian (or worse, every other martial/character) could select the exact same option at the same time. Meanwhile, the Dragon Instinct Barbarian might be restricted from selecting that feat, but they get their own flavorful option with a feat for Dragon's Rage Breath at level 6 which isn't selectable by other barbarians/classes.]

Patrons, compared to other similar class path-style options, are notably anemic when it comes to anything mechanically unique related to them. 1 hex cantrip, many of which are situational at best. Also, a single rare patron allows inanimate familiars, and a single rare lesson that may or may not be linked to that rare patron option. Currently, that's it. If you want to make them more mechanically meaningful, they need something that is limited based on the initial Patron choice since the current 1 hex cantrip doesn't seem to be enough to fill that role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
I'd be more willing to believe this IF lessons had a prerequisite limiting them to specific patrons or at least a limited set of patrons.
That sounds terrible though. Why would you want to lock people out of hexes?

You ignored the part I quoted and was replying to.

GM OfAnything wrote:
Patron theme is just one part of your patron, though. Your patron can be expressed more fully through the lessons it teaches you.

Being open to any Witch means Lessons do nothing to develop the design space of Patrons. In order to do that, they'd have to be limited, since the biggest missing part of Patrons at the moment is having enough unique mechanical aspects to call their own. It is like saying the existence of [insert school] spells develops the design space of a [School] Specialist Wizard, when any other wizard can freely pick up the exact same spell and cast it exactly as well.

Otherwise, Lessons being open to any Witch is a decision I'm largely in favor of - as I partially see it as a way of allowing a Witch to access thematic "witch-like" spells regardless of their tradition. (Which is why I am surprised we still don't have a major lesson that grants baleful polymorph as a spell so an occult witch could turn townsfolk into newts.)

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing some lessons/hexes limited to specific Patrons as something to help make them unique compared other Witches. Without owning the sourcebook, I assume this is how Lesson of the Frozen Queen [Rare] is meant to work (being from the same book of the [Rare] Patron Baba Yaga) - but Nethys stripped out the context that [rare] feat is meant to be linked to [rare] Patron.


GM OfAnything wrote:
Patron theme is just one part of your patron, though. Your patron can be expressed more fully through the lessons it teaches you.

I'd be more willing to believe this IF lessons had a prerequisite limiting them to specific patrons or at least a limited set of patrons.

While I understand Paizo wanting to make content as open as possible to apply to a number of things - many class paths really need some exclusive options to feel different/special compared to others. When the only mechanical difference between a Curse Patron Witch, a Fate Patron Witch, and a Night Patron Witch is a single hex that you might not even use that much - then the Patron itself really doesn't seem to matter. [Same issue I have with so-called "specialist" Wizards.]


2 people marked this as a favorite.
O'Mouza wrote:
What bothers me is that other than the hex cantrip..the only thing that patrons gives are a bonus skill and a bonus spell.

Yup, you get a hex cantrip, a spell that's usually already on your spell list, and the skill associated with your tradition. Even worse, the multiclass witch dedication reduces your Patron to just the tradition skill and nothing else.

---

Otherwise, Paizo wanted Patrons to be vague so that players/GMs could use "any" concept with them. As a result, patrons became so vague that they're nearly insubstantial.

They also really hyped up the idea of Wiches having the best familiars - which I don't think is what many were expecting/hoping from the class (I still want a class archetype that trades out extra familiar abilities for nearly anything else).


Agreed. The theming behind Fleshwarps really makes them sound like something that fits a Versatile Heritage rather than an ancestry. First thing I did was homebrew them into a Versatile Heritage while adding more body horror style feats. (Anadi Fleshwarp = Ultimate Nightmare)

Alfa/Polaris wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Also no small fleshwarps.
They actually just changed this in errata, fleshwarps can be small now.

When did they do this? I primarily use Nethys, which currently only shows Medium size.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

3 Action + 1 Reaction System. Simple to both understand and run, never results in a question of action types mid-combat or other silly confusions. Combined with AoOs not being a default, also makes combat much more mobile.

4 degrees of success. Really helps a number of spells to have results between "insta-win" and "does nothing." Also love things like Swashbuckler having a reaction against critical fail attacks.

Ability Generation. You don't require your ancestry to specifically give a bonus to the ability score used by your class! Allows for far more combinations of ancestry/class, and even an ancestry that gives a penalty to your primary score can use voluntary flaws to hit the max starting score and be viable.

Versatile Heritages. More interesting ancestry combinations available.

Backgrounds. While not perfect, I really like that picking a background is part of character creation with some mechanical impact. Helps PCs feel a bit more like people that exist in the world rather than cardboard murderhobo#37.

Feat Categories (i.e. Ancestry, Class, Skill) Much easier than PF1 to pick up some thematic skill feat or ancestry-related feat without feeling that you are losing combat power for doing so. Constantly getting different types of feats also helps make it feel that you are always progressing/advancing in some way when you level up even if it is not a strict power boost.

Limited types of buffs/debuffs. Far easier to know what does and does not stack. Less ability to stack buffs ridiculously high


KaiBlob1 wrote:

Summoner: "go save that guy falling off of a cliff"

demon eidolon: "don't you think it would be more fun to let him fall?"
Summoner: "no, go save him!"
demon eidolon: "fine"

Really like this example - especially since my first thought after reading Summoner was to have an NG Aasimar Summoner with a CE Demon Eidolon.

---

Not 100% on Golarion lore, but considering celestials are primarily based on being from a good-aligned plane and no deity seems to have a monopoly on any of those planes, it seems reasonable that there are likely celestials without a tie to any deity.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd view the line of "The GM might add others to this list" as an indication that the GM can have final say on if a staff is themed or not - especially for spells that clearly have a thematic relation despite not having a specific associated trait.

For example, spells like Magnetic Acceleration, Magnetic Attraction, and Magnetic Repulsion clearly have a common theme, but do not have a common trait outside the evocation school. If enough spells themed around magnetism were added to build a staff around, I'd certainly allow a Staff of Magnetism despite not having a "magnetic" trait included on the spells.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Best way I can think of RAW would be to have a Summoner take Shrink Down (Feat 4) and then Miniaturize (Feat 6) to make their Eidolon able to become Tiny and pretend to be a familiar. Then when danger occurs it is a single action to return to their normal form.

If you really want to emphasize the size difference, then take Hulking Size (Feat 8) into Towering Size (Feat 12) so that your Tiny "Familiar" can suddenly become Large/Huge size in the face of danger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I hate to say this... ignoring Expansive Spellstrike lets you basically ignore INT. I wish the class valued INT more, but as long as you're preparing attack spells to use with Spellstrike (ignoring your spell attack in favor of weapon attack) and spells that buff/support (don't need save DC) then the class gains no value from INT and can instead focus on other ability scores (Like STR/DEX/CON for being a martial and WIS for saves).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Laughing Shadow. Teleportation is awesome, and at 1st level you get a teleportation focus spell that rivals what a Conjuration Specialist Wizard can get at 8th level.

Wizard: 1 focus point to teleport 20ft at 8th level, distance increases at higher levels. Action is somatic, meaning you trigger AoOs and grapple can interfere with it.

Magus: 1 focus point to teleport 1/2 speed at 1st level plus get an attack in the same action. Laughing Shadow includes a speed boost with Arcane Cascade, allowing you to get 15ft-20ft teleport at first level. Action is verbal rather than somatic, meaning no provoking AoOs or having difficulty using while grappled. Only downside is restriction on teleporting must be within reach of a creature.

Outside of the rare campaigns that reach very high levels, I'd take the Magus focus spell teleport over the Wizard's version any day no contest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Reason #37 why ABP is superior.

Jokes aside. Yeah, this could be a devastatingly mean tactic as a GM in any campaign not using ABP. You basically cripple a PC and potentially boost an enemy in a way that isn't fun at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see it as the opposite. Compared to the other pick-a-list classes, the Summoner has a much stronger identity compared to Sorcerer/Witch. Eidolons have such a strong mechanical weight that it is impossible to mistake a Summoner for being a variation of another class who shares their selected magical tradition.

As for imagery - the difference between Summoner and someone with an animal companion is that the companion is just an add on, while the Eidolon is part of the main focus (and much more capable as a result). While the ranger pet is there to help them do something else (protect the bear from the traveler), the summoner's eidolon is part of the goal (establish/develop relationship with powerful entity).

1 to 50 of 624 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>