Delay's page

Likes
1) While not perfect (there are a lot of features I find unappealing or just not worth it), I do like the multiclass system, especially with regards to being able to gain high level spells in a magical subclass if one is willing to make the investment.
2) I like the different archetypes for each class (I'm specifically referring to things like totems or the druid orders, not the multiclass section). It allows decent variety, especially if there are features some players aren't that fond of for their specific character concept.
3) Hero points are okay. I think DM's should have a little more leeway in how they're given out, especially since one of them is almost a bribe, but I welcome the idea as a whole. Although I'd probably just rearrange which Hero Power is activated for each Hero Point spent (like moving cheating death from the cheapest to the most expensive of the three).

Dislikes
1) The rulebook is incredibly convoluted and requires jumping between several sections to resolve some issues that may come up during play. I get that cutting down on words or avoiding redundancy is a thing. However, I'd rather it be redundant and appear in every appropriate section rather than having to flip through several different sections of the book to figure out how things like dispelling or animal companions function.
2) Touch AC was fairly disappointing during the Playtest. It didn't seem much different than regular AC, especially for casters that leave A LOT to be desired in the damage department as it is with how spells scale and interact with the action economy.
3) Handling Animals and Animal Companions seemed a little clunky to me. Not a fan of either.

Honorable Mention) The DM that ran the Playtest for me mentioned that he disliked how Dispelling worked in that you could potentially dispel an effect without knowing what it was. Not really sure how to feel about this personally, although I do feel like having to reserve Dispel at different spell levels to even have a chance to counteract certain opposing spells to be a little punishing (granted, I'd rather have it be based on Spell Levels if the alternative is based on Caster Modifiers since I felt like the monsters had some pretty insane bonuses as it was).

Honorable Mention 2) I was okay with the Resonance Update. I wasn't okay with the item system bandaid that was Focus overlapping with Power Points (Clerics' Domain Powers, Monks' Ki Powers, etc). I feel like the two should be separate, otherwise the Powers seem less like a class feature and more like the character is getting punished for trying to use a magic item, whereas classes like Fighter and Rogue that don't get Powers in the first place seem to just get a random benefit in using magic items over these other classes. I also didn't like that the Focus bandaid was keyed of Cha (if you're adamant on combining them, at least have it keyed off the original modifier; the obsession with making Cha a useful stat here is a little mind-boggling).

Houserules
1) I don't particularly care that Clerics are better at healing than every other class (I may even prefer it considering they don't seem to be very good at much else, although this feels like a discussion best left for a different thread). However, I would have their Domain Powers and Channel Energy consume points from the same pool.
2) I don't like the -4 penalty (or really any penalty at all) to Untrained Skill Checks. I'd remove the penalties AND the proficiency modifier to all Untrained Skills and abilities (essentially making the total Proficiency modifier a flat 0 at all levels). And then I'd have the Trained condition grant a the Proficiency Modifier to whatever it is modifying. This would resolve my conflict with how a high level character that isn't even trained in an ability to be more proficient at something than a low level character that is actually TRAINED in that ability or skill.
3) I would have Players win initiative ties. The game should be about the Players anyway. Not really sure why this system is so intent in balancing itself against the Players. If a competent DM really wanted to kill the players, I'm sure they could find a way to do it without the system doing it for them.

The only case where that would affect something is when a caster doesn't choose 10th level spells. Or am I missing something?

Based on the rule, I don't believe this even matters. A 19th or 20th level character would still be able to cast cantrips heightened to the 10th spell level regardless of whether or not they can cast a 10th level spell.

Thank you for your response, Amaranthine Witch.

That does make a lot of sense regarding the cantrips losing some power without that statement.

However, I feel like a lot of confusion can be avoided if they just went with a much simpler explanation for Cantrips. For example, just saying 'Cantrips are always heightened to a spell level equivalent to half your character's level rounded up' would reduce a lot of the verbiage and make it easier to understand. I also feel like it would eliminate the need for the disclaimer for feats like Basic Cleric Spellcasting and Basic Wizard Spellcasting.

I was looking at the Dedication Feats and a few questions regarding Cantrips came to mind.

For Cantrips, as explained on page 193, it says, "A cantrip is always automatically heightened to the highest level of spell you can cast in the class. This makes a cantrip a 1st-level spell if you can cast 1st-level spells [and so on]. If you gain access to a cantrip but aren't normally a spellcaster, your cantrips automatically heightened to half your level, rounded up." The grammar error in the last sentence is a bit jarring, but that is what it says. But I digress.

1) If you cannot cast spells in the class, can they be heightened? Based on the last sentence of this description, I would presume yes.

2) For every spellcaster in this book, it seems as though the highest spell they can cast is already half their level rounded up. If that is the case, then is there supposed to be a distinction between a spellcaster and a non-spellcaster when casting cantrips? If there isn't a distinction to be made and cantrips are always heightened to half a character's level rounded up, then why does the description seem so convoluted?

For Basic Cleric Spellcasting, it says, "Even though you can cast spells, the spell level of your cleric cantrips and domain is powers half your level rounded up." Another typo, but I digress.

For Basic Wizard Spellcasting, it says, "Even though you can cast spells, the spell level of your cantrips and arcane powers is half your level rounded up."

Neither of these feats mention the acquisition of Cantrips or Powers. So it seems as though there is (or may have been at one point) some distinction between being able to cast spells and the level to which cantrips can be heightened.

However, considering that it seems as though 'half your level rounded up' is the highest level of spell any of the spellcasters can cast, is there supposed to be some distinction here? Also, it once again mentions the ability to cast spells, but in the description for Cantrips on Page 193, as mentioned before, the ability to cast spells doesn't actually seem relevant...???

For Cleric Dedication, it also says, 'You can prepare two cantrips each day from the divine spell list or any other cantrips you learn or discover."

3) What do you mean by 'learn or discover'? Is this specifically only for classes like Wizard and Sorcerer who have to pick which Cantrips they know? Or does this also apply to the Cantrips a druid would have access to from the Primal spell list?

4) If these Cantrips can be taken from an alternate list or source (Arcane, Primal, Occult), would they still be treated as Divine or use Wis as its key spellcasting ability?

5) If there is some distinction to be made for the heightening of Cantrips, would this limitation still be made to the Cantrips provided by Cleric Dedication if they were substituted by a Cantrip from a different list or source?