Cottoncaek's page

Y'all know this doesn't force a basic save, right? There's no half damage on success rider on this. You're just comparing your spell attack roll, against a choice of two other numbers. Nothing else changes.

This would result in casters being more powerful than martials.

Hi yall,

I understand not a lot of people have access to the PDF yet, but I was wondering if I'm just missing something - the extra damage from Arcane Cascade Stance doesn't seem to apply to the ranged strikes made if you're Starlit Span.

Have I overlooked something, or is it an oversight?

Hi there y’all,

My table is between campaigns and with some of the great playtests we’ve had from Paizo recently it really struck me with some ideas on how to implement a more 5th Edition style Warlock. I’d love if I could get some constructive feedback on my 1st draft here - don’t be shy, please, I can only improve on things with feedback.

I do caution a few things.

1. This is my first homebrew I’ve put together. Expect imbalance, poor typesetting, typos, incoherence and all that stuff. Particularly the typesetting, my goodness gracious, this has been a learning curve. Expect misplaced bolds, italics, unresolved sentences, all that fun stuff that my writing partner gets frustrated to no end by - in future drafts, she’ll be my editor for the prosey stuff, don’t worry.

2. This is *not* a direct port/conversion. This was my attempt to figure out, probably poorly, the design intent that went into the 5e Warlock, and do my best to try and bring those design intentions to life within the framework of Pathfinder 2e. With that being said, I’ve done my best to bring over a lot of favorites, change names where appropriate, and tried not to step on any copyright-infringement toes.

3. My table plans to play test this in our next campaign, and I might put it up on DriveThruRPG or something if that winds up feeling good and balanced - your feedback here can really help with that

4. The Front Matter isn’t great, it’s just edgelady placeholder stuff, it’ll be better in future drafts. .

Thanks so much for your time, and I won’t waste anymore of it:

Here’s the link:
Cotton’s 5th Edition Warlock Port, First Draft

The construct is straight up inferior to animal companions.

Check your maths, Felicia

" It begins with the same statistics as a level-0 common simple or martial weapon of your choice or another level-0 simple or martial weapon to which you have access"

The Gnomish Flickmace may count as Martial for Proficiency, but it is not Martial for any other purpose.

The Construct Companion is superior to EVERY other animal companion by leagues.

Overpowered. See me after class.

Multiclassing is a variant rule in 5e and not baseline. When your arguments are "look how OP I can be with this variant rule" you're not exactly defending the system

The Stamina System solves a lot of these issues, as does your party not being obsessed with DPR and more focused on debuffing.

See, in 5e, the Wizard is the only caster worth a damn, because WOTC thought they knew better than the classic Vancian Casting that's always worked well. And you wind up Sorcs that are garbagio, Warlocks who're OP as f$!&, and Wizards that are just plain the best casters in the game.

Why would you want to subject your table to that clusterfudge of imbalance? For the first time in forever, casters are balanced.

So...

You just took 5e's spellcasting and called it a day?

It's like if Dex gave damage for anybody else but a Thief Rogue.

Cottoncaek wrote:

Zapp wrote:

Cottoncaek wrote:

Homogenization of all classes winds you up with D&D 5e. If everyone is special, nobody is special.

That is correct.

It is the reason we're trying to boost Intelligence - to make different heroes stand more apart.

Instead of having five abilities to separate heroes, we'll have six.

...by taking the key feature of Rogue and giving it to everyone? Nice 20ft reach there, bruh

you arent taking anything out of rogue. Rogue can as well build with intelligence with all those houserule here and gain the same benefit as everyone else.

the "homogenisation" you try to preach is exactly that: a rogue with intelligence 22 and a rogue with intelligence 10 have the same amount of expert+ skills, exactly because intelligence is the most useless stat in the game atm that does practically nothing.

This is the exact same argument pirates use to justify robbing creators, though; "well I wouldn't have paid for it anyway so I'm not taking anything away from them."

Cottoncaek wrote:

Homogenization of all classes winds you up with D&D 5e. If everyone is special, nobody is special.

That is correct.

It is the reason we're trying to boost Intelligence - to make different heroes stand more apart.

Instead of having five abilities to separate heroes, we'll have six.

...by taking the key feature of Rogue and giving it to everyone? Nice 20ft reach there, bruh

Homogenization of all classes winds you up with D&D 5e. If everyone is special, nobody is special.

I love this so much. Patchwork Dolly seems incomplete?

This really does take away from the Rogue's key out of combat feature, sadly.

Cottoncaek wrote:

Creative Burst wrote:

Battle medicine only uses one action the errata on the website requires you to hold or wear it. Having them in your bandolier definitely qualifies as wear them, so I don't think it will add an action to use them. I do think you need one hand but that comes from the manipulation trait that battle medicine has always had.

The Bandolier allows you to use the tools within as part of the action of using them, so doesn't *add* an action, but it *does* require the suggested amount of hands the tools require. In this case, two.

For an exception to this rule, thus proving its validity, examine the Quick Alchemy feat, which makes a specific exception that it only requires one hand.

To me quick alchemy proves the validity of the other actions/skills not needing to have a free hand, the exact opposite of what you are getting from it.

The Tools listening a requirement of Two Hands, and then a Feat specifying that *in this case* you need One Hand, does not imply that magically you would ordinarily need Zero Hands. Come on now.

Cottoncaek wrote:

The Bandolier allows you to use the tools within as part of the action of using them, so doesn't *add* an action, but it *does* require the suggested amount of hands the tools require. In this case, two.

Battle Medicine is not specified as an action using them, though. It requires you to have them, but nowhere does it say you must 'use' them in the strict mechanical sense.

Remember, PF2e is intended for you to read the rules a conversation, not a law text. If it says you need to be holding them, or wearing them (and the only way you can wear them is to have a Bandolier, which allows you to be holding them as part of the action to use them,) then the clear intent is that you use them and therefore need hands available.

Battle medicine only uses one action the errata on the website requires you to hold or wear it. Having them in your bandolier definitely qualifies as wear them, so I don't think it will add an action to use them. I do think you need one hand but that comes from the manipulation trait that battle medicine has always had.

The Bandolier allows you to use the tools within as part of the action of using them, so doesn't *add* an action, but it *does* require the suggested amount of hands the tools require. In this case, two.

For an exception to this rule, thus proving its validity, examine the Quick Alchemy feat, which makes a specific exception that it only requires one hand.

Ok. I don't get it. What specifically has changed? What is the specific wording that is suddenly causing the hand wringing?

I require a free hand to do Battle Medicine.

Prior to the change, it asininely didn't require Healers Tools and therefore didn't require a free hand. Now it does, and it may even require two hands. Which would be lovely.

Cottoncaek wrote:

I mean, when one feat is something *EVERYBODY* needs to take, that's just as imperfect.

Everybody doesn't need to take it. Battle Medicine can only work once per day per induvial. It says after the HP are healed, the target then becomes immune to Battle Medicine for 1 day, as it says on pg 258.

Boy are you in for a surprise! The target becomes immune to *your* battle medicine, friendo. Everyone can have it, and everyone can use it on everybody, once per day, per person. Four person party? Each person can be Battle Medicined 4 times per day, and if you end up with Godless Healing->Mortal Healing, it gets even more insane.

Cottoncaek wrote:

Bast L. wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Uh...wearing Healer's Tools requires zero hands. So the Feat seems to require zero hands per current errata.

wearing healers tools requires a bandolier to access them, which reduces the need to use two hands to just one hand.

in effect you either need the kit and two hands free to use it or wearing a bandolier and one hand to access the kit on the bandolier.

I'm not seeing anything for bandolier reducing hands needed. That's an interpretation, as far as I can tell, and perhaps a reasonable one, but the bandolier specifically says you draw the tools. Drawing an item is 1 or 2 handed, but if you're using something that's 2-handed, you need to draw with both hands, or use a separate action to place a second hand on it (pg 273, footnote 1 of table 6-2).

This is absolutely correct, and the only applicable RAW. Goodbye, Battle Medicine abuse! Now if only they'd errata it to no out of combat use.

Not really abuse, was pretty much the only thing stopping clerics from being a 100% requirement.

I mean, when one feat is something *EVERYBODY* needs to take, that's just as imperfect.

ikarinokami wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Uh...wearing Healer's Tools requires zero hands. So the Feat seems to require zero hands per current errata.

wearing healers tools requires a bandolier to access them, which reduces the need to use two hands to just one hand.

in effect you either need the kit and two hands free to use it or wearing a bandolier and one hand to access the kit on the bandolier.

I'm not seeing anything for bandolier reducing hands needed. That's an interpretation, as far as I can tell, and perhaps a reasonable one, but the bandolier specifically says you draw the tools. Drawing an item is 1 or 2 handed, but if you're using something that's 2-handed, you need to draw with both hands, or use a separate action to place a second hand on it (pg 273, footnote 1 of table 6-2).

This is absolutely correct, and the only applicable RAW. Goodbye, Battle Medicine abuse! Now if only they'd errata it to no out of combat use.

Lightning Raven wrote:

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

It got snuck in in the last two days. I just checked the FAQ on Wednesday for my game, and there was nothing on it about this.

It was released in a PDF. Now it was added to the website. If you used the Archive of Nethys or the Pathbuilder2e app, you wouldn't notice without previous knowledge.

It was the update 1.0 released 30/10/2019.

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgzq?Core-Rulebook-Errata-Round-1

Linkified

The change to Battle Medicine requiring Healers Tools was absolutely not in this document.

Actually, the Bandolier doesn't reduce the number of hands, either, it simply:

"A bandolier can be dedicated to a full set of tools, such as healer’s tools, allowing you to draw the tools as part of the action that requires them."

Healers Tools require *two hands* to use. That means Battle Medicine now requires *two hands* to use.

Now, Alchemy Tools *also* require 2 hands, but the Quick Alchemy ability grants them an exception stating you only need one free hand.

The point is, it didn't need the healers tools at all before. And by requiring the Healer's Tools, which actually require *two hands*, you inherit the hands requirement.

https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq

Has a change listened now to Battle Medicine. Did they stealth-drop the errata? Battle Medicine now needs Healers Tools and a free hand.

Cottoncaek wrote:

My authorization dropped off my card, does that mean the charge is about to happen?

Banks will only hold funds with an authorization so long. It just means that it's been too long for the bank to put a hold on the funds. You'll get an actual charge soonish. I hope. :)

It says the authorization should have been held until the 20th.

My authorization dropped off my card, does that mean the charge is about to happen?