A little bit of a thread necro, but I totally missed this thread the first time it went by, want to note that this is very much something I'm hoping, even expecting, to see this book tackle.
I'll also throw in my thought that while there may be plenty of GM's and games not wanting to bring in the new Uncommon classes and the new firearms, I think very few are likely to reject new crossbows. Not just 1 new fancy martial crossbow, but several at various tiers...
And this isn't even ONLY from a relative power standpoint, though I think the general consensus is that ALL of the current crossbows are at best weak and at worst an active handicap for the sake of narrative concept, its also about how boring they feel. When you take a glance down the weapon page on Nethys, do you know how many weapons have ZERO traits? Have a completely blank entry? 4, 3 of them crossbows, and 1 being shield bash. From my own personal experience GM'ing I've had players excited to build a character, wanting to use these weapons(with little to no knowledge nor concern for their mechanical pros/cons) just look at the table and ask me if it was an error...comments like "No traits...nothing? All these neat things all these other weapons get, and crossbows have...nothing? Thats boring"
I would agree to that sentiment, my response to the survey was that I didn't mind a limited amount of class features for the higher proficiency, but that the Gunslinger seemed shortchanged even by fighter standards...but am i missing something? While the various proficiencies do scale a little differently there is some obvious equity and give/take there, the obvious analogues for non-proficiency based features are...
Fighter 1- AoO ,shield block GS 1- Initial deed
3- Bravery 3- Stubborn
9- flexibility 9- advanced deed
15-imp flexibility 15- greater deed
And that matches up with Papers' assertions, arguments on the Bravery/Stubborn comparison aside I agree with him that the ways right now don't feel like a even trade off there, especially when in my opinion the weakest deeds are the initial ones compared to one of the best martial reactions in the game - you know, that reaction that many other martials give up 6th lvl class feats for...
As for the other two features,for fighters it is basically an extra 8th and 14th level class feat but even BETTER due to the flexibility in shifting them around based on in game knowledge. This implies that at the VERY LEAST the advanced and greater deeds should be at least as powerful as an extra 8th and 14th lvl gunslinger feat...and I cant say with confidence that is currently the case, possibly ghost shot aside, which is a problem.
Take an Arquebus, but I feel a Crossbow would work just as well assuming final pass gives them a Crossbow Ace equivalent they didnt feel needed playtested.
Takes full advantage of the main benefits of Way of the Sniper in a way that fighter and ranger really cant emulate right now and seems fairly damage competitive while allowing for some interesting turn by turn tactical decisions.
I had a similar thought, and actually really like the main premise of tieing the core schtick of spell strike to a stance.
I also like the somewhat unique twist to the already present universal tag/mechanic of stances, but to make it a much more active interaction where the main benefits are triggered by entering/leaving the stance as opposed to sitting in the stance.
I agree with your specific analysis on most points, and think it addresses a lot of the issues people have pointed out on the boards, though I would add as a distinct downside it locks out magus MC from classes or concepts that otherwise rely on stances such as the monk 'arcane fist' MC they seem to be trying to support.
Not trying to be combative here, but the OP is pretty strong in his delivery and wording, and the OP hit so many topics relevant to me in a near opposite way I felt like I should respond with my own thoughts.
I originally had very little interest, and not a small amount of trepidation, with Secrets of magic as for me personally and my play group the magus and the summoner in particular were very disliked classes in terms of mechanics/design and negative impact at a table for a myriad of reasons not worth really delving into here(Though I am interested to hear if we were unique in this, as my understanding was that fairly universally summoner was pretty much THE singular class GM's didn't allow in home games and hated to see at a PFS table). I say this partly to refute the threads title, as a significant re-design of these two classes was NOT what we expected, but very much happy to see. In a way, seeing a simple copy/paste of these classes between editions would be a disservice to the design possibilities the new edition could give them and I am very happy to see this playtest.
I feel the unique new spell progression is a super interesting and honestly fairly elegant design direction. It may be just right, may need augmented with some king of cleric-esque font, maybe 2/2/2 or 3/3 works out better, but the DIRECTION of this spellcasting progression I love as a way to simulate focused or specialized limited casting.
Isn't saying these playtest versions are 'nothing like' their 1E versions a bit beside the point and odd? Of course these aren't mechanicaly alike, just the same as how the other core classes aren't mechanically alike to their 1E selves, its a new edition built from the ground up on a new framework...and is the point of the test not to compare 1E magi/summoners to 2E magi/summoners but instead to see how these new versions interact with the new 2E system and other 2E classes.
As to the OP's specific points..
1. Your first point is something the playtest magus can in fact do. Magi Cantrips exist, a magus can spellstrike using a spell of his highest known level EVERY SINGLE ROUND all day every day. Not that I agree with the idea that he should- A single, optimal 3 action routine that is always the correct choice regardless of the contexts of individual encounters is tactically boring and flat- in my opinion a bad design. The second assertion is trickier. As presented, a critical weapon strike DOES increase the result of the spell by 1 degree of success, which seems perfectly fine to me. The idea that magus should be critting more often than other classes, or that weapon/spell criticals were key to the theme of the class now or even in 1E I disagree with - the idea that 1E magus was a class Min/Max'd around abusing the mechanic of keened 15-20 weapon critical threat ranges to nova traited/free meta-magic enhanced shocking grasps and arcane marks is not something I would hope people would like to see moved forward. And even if you did, the suggestion that this design would be simple to balance in the frame work of 2E is neglecting to note that critical hit determination works nothing alike in the 2 systems on top of all the other possible concerns. Not liking the direction is one thing, but to wave away this design itteration as 'over-thinking' a 'simple' problem is frankly a little dismissivly rude.
2. You say you want a summoner which is a specialized class that uses a summoned creature....I see the eidolon feature and numerous 'evolution' tagged feats which alter and improve it which seems to fit that bill. I do not see a basis to your argument that the eidolon(a creature with its own statline which grows with you, and a statblock which you seem to suggest it is not), in order to fufill the theme or narrative purpose of the summoner class is required to be
*In any way related to the Animal companion feature - in fact, the less like a familiar or AC the eidolon is, the more specialized it would be to summoner, wouldn't it?
*have a seprate hit point pool
*Independent actions
This itteration is to me actually a very neat way to enhance the thematic link between the the eidolon and summoner while also elegantly dodging some of the more problematic issues with 'pet' classes ie unbalancingly high amounts of 'free' party hit points, avoiding the use of the minion trait while still reigning in the inherent power of multiple actors in a game tightly bound to action economy, providing interesting and class unique tactical movement and positioning concerns and options, keeping the flow of play/real world table time per player in check and others.
All in all my message would be I hope the playtest feedback will show that some of us at least like what we see here -the biggest step into new, unique, and interesting solutions to some complex problems we've seen yet this edition. Please hold your course allowing the themes, narrative space, and character concepts of previous classes to still flourish in 2E, while designing the best game you can now without feeling a need to keep the sacred cows of a previous game alive. Hopefully kinks are worked out, numbers are kiggled, major issues are addressed and we all get something better for having gone through this playtest.
While I get your point in terms of theme and consistency of design when considering your own homebrew items, mechanically I dont understand your statement of 'slots' being more relevant in PF2e. Item slots as a rules term dont exist anymore as I understand it and the only limit is youre investment limit? If a character wants to wear 10 different magical cloaks, while he may 'look' silly, he can.
That was...remarkably non-inflamatory. Sorry that this issue was a deal breaker for you, it always seemed to get people on both sides fired up. Hope when you check back in you find something worth continuing to play.
One of the very real problems is that people are understandably reading in 1e rules into the 2e playtest. In this case there isn't anything that mentions additive logic for item levels or rarity so it simply doesn't work that way.
The other problem is the rules don't make a lot of sense to begin with.
If I create a level 9 character, the wbl give me a level 8 item. I can take a +2 sword, or a +2 ghost touch wounding silver sword (of master-quality) (replace silver with mithral or adamantium if I can get an uncommon material): both are level 8. Why would I choose the former?
** spoiler omitted **
Well, players wouldnt because they cant. And this kind of goes to what was being said about reading in PF1 rules into PF2. In PF1 enchantments were more or less 'hard baked' into the items which they enchanted. In PF2 this seems to be explicitly NOT the case. While the treasure by level seems to make specific exceptions for potency already included in armor/weapons, but in general runes are seperate(though transferable) items in their own right. So in your example, a +2 ghost touch wounding silver sword isn't a level 8 item. Its actually 4 different items; Its a Expert quality silver sword(Item lvl2) + a ghost touch property rune(Item lvl 4) + a wounding property rune(item lvl 6) + a +2 weapon potency rune(Item lvl 8).
Master Chymist for me, the Rp potential is amazing, and depending on what build you were going for, it might even not be too horrible from an optimization standpoint.....bonus points if you ca convince your gm that bomb progression should sub for sneak progression on vivisectionists.
As for the AotB feat question, I for one also found the logic to be rather simple. The class feature is called 'Combat Style Feat' and the style/list from which the feat must be chosen is ONLY selected after you have the ability to gain the feat in the first place. If no feat is available due to archetypes then then no choice of style is needed.
Also, if an ability or feature is 'spun' in such a way as to do absolutely nothing on its own,[such as 'having a style chosen with 0 mechanical benefit or application by itself'] it's likely a safe bet that any interactions with later material are unintentional and best disallowed unless explicitly noted, not the other way around.
As for the implied question of making a shapeshifter/wild rager Ranger, Joe loves Rules has the right of it...it's an illegal combination as both archetypes modify the same thing 'Combat Style Feat' at Lvl 2.
Far as I can tell lycanthropes haven't changed all that much, and there are few limitations to the mixes you can have.
There are only 3 limiting factors that I see:
1. The base creature must have the humanoid type(possibly in addition to any other types)
2. The base animal characteristics applied must be from an animal[as in creature type animal] within 1 size catagory of the base humanoid. So for example, no elven foxwomen[foxes are tiny, elves are medium] but you can have gnomish foxwomen, or elvish wolf-women, yadda yadda re-skin to your liking.
3. Either the base creature(for afflicted) or 1 of the parents(for naturals) must be able to be affected by curses, as this is how lycanthropy is spread....I dont know of any entire race immune to curse effects, but if there is one, it couldnt be a lycanthrope.
But there ya go, so mix and match to your hearts content.
I agree with Wrath, you might be inclined to have any number of the already provided named NPC's in kingmaker have more of an active role just to balance out action econmy.
Also, if any of your players can give you a great RP reason to take it, a small group in kingmaker is a great place to actually allow the Leadership feat without it blowing up in your face.
As for random encounters Benoc has the gist of it; taking 20's and doing VERY careful and slow exploring takes enough time they roll on the table multiple times...for both exploring and for camping out, our group always hit a ton of random encounters.
You might wanna look at that table Kingmaker provides too...some of those are downright deadly regardless of group size...
*grumples about natural invisibility and touch attack rays*...
As I said we will have four players, so I can't guarantee they will be guided by my suggestions. They may have concepts in their heads they have their hearts set on but if I have some good builds in mind I can fill in the gaps. That being said the Sylvan Sorceror appeals to me, as does the OMG FIRE BLASTOR! I am not against Eldritch Heritage shenanigans, however, so those suggestions are excellent.
I'm definitely going to recommend we all take at least 1 blasty-type spell per level and let the rest of our spell selection be divided between whatever's most optimal for our character and whatever's most flavourful.
Just stay away from the Cross-blooded Sorcerer - its almost always a trap.
I enjoy Crossblooded Sorcerer as long as its a Human with its favored ability.
You'll get more known, sure, but ouch - how slowly do you advance in spell levels? 5th level caster before you gain access to 2nd level spells? 10th level caster with only 4th level spells? I just haven't found a bloodline combination worth that kind of power loss...
only place I find it worth it is that it works out all right with Dragon disciple, especially with the more 'beast' builds for DD.
I've had a group do this before starting at lvl 3 going through to about lvl 13/14.
Was a blast and a definate change of pace/tactics from a 'normal' group.
As many have suggested above we found many of the typical 'roles' played out rather simply mechanicly, but we had a ton of fun even with fairly archetypal builds. We went with a group comp that vaguely went like this...
Tiefling Draconic bloodline into DD
Kitsune fey bloodline
human sage bloodline
Samsaran empyreal bloodline
Undine primal bloodline
Then what's the difference between neutral good and lawful good?
A Lawful Good believes in the necessity for order to provide any lasting good. For them it's not enough to simply go out and bash a problem, you build a structure to make sure that things stay better. Lawful Goods also tend to believe that good arises outside themselves, that an ordered hierarchy is the method most likely to succeed in creating the greater good.
Ultimately they think of good in terms of "we". His chaotic good opposite thinks of good in terms of "me". The Neutral Good is somewhere in between.
This, this, and a hundred times this, well said.
In our group this is predominatly how we look at the alignment system. The chaos/lawful axis is much less about the individuals personality, and more about his ideas on society and integration within a society.
I tend to like the more specific meta-magics, since i tend to look at the feat selection as a way of defining the character, and not just sheer mechanics.
That being said, 2 of my favourite metamagics are the umbral/tenebrous/shadow grip spell feat chain, and Rime spell(better with some of the new/OP cold based spells recently put out)
I have done a concept somewhat like this as well and had a blast with him. His shtick was both painting and sculpture, and he was a Necromancer- All those skeletal frames made the PERFECT canvas for him to apply all kinds of...interesting shapes/colors/combinations, and they were pretty re-usable as well as being quite enduring; nothing like skin grafts onto undead for lasting hundreds of years eh? it sure beat paper anyway.
A party favourite was 'Sparkles.' A large cat frame that was bright purple with wings(not usable oc) and a rainbow-colored mane with a unicorn horn. People gave him the oddest looks....
The reason for blade-bound wasnt really put into the backstory intentionally, since the first sign of the class doesnt present itself untill 3rd level, and without the foreknowledge of the Magus, at least as I understood the archetype. I can work it in now if you'd like, but my plan was to hopefully have the appearance of the blade be somehow tied into the game as it went on, likely connected somehow with her linneage, and the exact reason/mystery for her being blade bound being a rp point.
Also, sorry about the delay, saw your post but the knumbskull i am, completely skipped over my name in that list >.<
Aww, too bad, i saw what you were shooting for from the backstory, but some more literal meanings make that particular name[especially since you lack the definite article 'al' in front of 'wali']in the context of the setting sort of a double entendre. Ditto with the camal hehe.
Haven't read Arabian nights yet myself, its more of a persion thing than an actual arab thing. *shrug*
@Ridge: I do not know if you know but Cavalier have a rough time in most of the APs because of lack of being able to use their mount. Want to make sure that you know this.
Mmm, that's a fair warning, and much appreciated. I don't want to be the weak link, so I'll try to come up with another idea.
Assuming of course you didnt want to use a small cavalier, which would normally be ok with a medium mount.
I'll present this for application; as requested mostly backstory and rough overview, number crunch later.
Jhaleed Afseif:
Jhaleed is a strong willed young Suli; though even she doesn't know her heritage for sure. There isn't much anyone knows about her past. All she remembers is the streets of Katapesh, the harsh reality of living day by day as a struggle using every tool and skill available. Whether it was using her abnormal talents to garner what copper she could from street performing, or even less scrupulous means. She wasn't above petty theft, blackmail or information brokering. In her desperation, she had even resorted to muggery and other violent crime, acts that still shame her to this day. And as is usually the case, her past caught up with her- just a little earlier than most.
Due to her young age, the child's life was spared, and she was sold as a slave to a Katapesh family, a merchant named Rajal and his wife. The family wasn't extremely well to do and besides Jhaleed owned only 1 other slave, an elderly maid whos tasks she would take over. The wife, named Haleen, was a kind woman who treated them both extremely well. A devout follower of Sarenrae’s, Haleen disaproved of Katapesh's, and her husbands, allowance of slavery, and instead treated Jhaleed as her own daughter. Haleen was herself unexplicably barren, but she had little desire other than to become a mother and pass their lives quietly in Katapesh, despite her husbands grand ambitions for his buisness.
Sadly, 1 night the house was broken into. Multiple thieves broke in, claiming that the shop was past on its 'dues.' When he resisted, they killed Rajal before the 3 womans very eyes. When the men then approached the woman speaking of the markets and the womans 'worth', something surged in Jhaleed, hurt and rage and also fear of losing the only person who had ever cared for her, coalesced around her arms as a tangible blade of ice, soon stained crimson with the bloodletting she unleashed on those men that night. She herself doesn't remember that night extremely clearly, and Haleen always refuses to talk of it.
The 3 woman left Katapesh that night, taking all they had and could carry to a nearby town and tried to find ways to get on with their life. Haleen had several friends in the village, her hometown. Among them was a Magus of some skill, and as a special favor to Haleen, took the young girl, now officially adopted as her daughter, as a protoge, and began a long process of molding her impressive natural talent with elemental magics along with the basic swordplay she had learned on the streets into a first class Magus, with full control of her abilities.
Jhaleed has recently finished her years of apprenticeship, but it was not a joyous day for her. That same day, the old maid past away; and recently, Haleen had been growing strangely morose and depressed. She and Haleen normally kept no secrets, but whatever was bothering her wasn’t something she shared with Jhaleed. One night, Haleen vanished, leaving Jhaleed a brief note, begging Jhaleed to forget her and to get on with life, but something about the note bothered her—something in the way Haleen phrased her words struck Jhaleed as forced. Jhaleed is convinced Haleen had been kidnapped, forced to leave against her will, or even magically controlled, but also suspects that Haleen left to protect her from something—that was ever her way.
Jhaleed had no idea where she may have gone until recently. Several months have passed since she disappeared, and she has spent those months searching for clues to Haleen's location, and finally found a lead—a mysterious note placing Haleen in the vicinity of an old ghost town named Kelmarane. What she’s doing there and how she came to be there makes no sense yet, but the lead is the strongest one she has had. This and Garavel’s advertisement for mercenaries to accompany him to the region is all the omen she needed. She joined Garavel’s group and eagerly awaits the day she'll be leaving for Kelmarane.
As for rough outline, looking at doing straight magus with bladebound and racial Elemental Knight(ARG) archetype. Not sure what you're looking for in terms of lvl of optimization, but I don't really plan on going to far off a 'normal' build as its my first time trying the class.
I will likely try to focus on a cold/water-specific theme as much as i can as her most 'comfortable' element.
Due to mother's influence has a strong faith in Sarenrae, though not neccisarilly one shared by many in Katapesh.
As far as personality Jhaleed is confident, self-assured, very tough, very headstrong,and not scared to get into a fight but hates those who use their strength to hurt and oppress those not capable of defending themselves. Although she is talented, her stubborn and hot-headed personality have made many of her arcane studies and the calm focus it demands of her elusive to grasp at times.
The theory is RAGE + LANCE + POUNCE + MOUNT = AWESOME.
This plus spirited charge gives you a total attack iteration on a charge of ~+47/47/42/37/32 with damage to castys of ~3d8 + 168 per hit.
You could probably get higher, but why?
Does it actually work?
Mounted combat specifically forbid you to do more than 1 attack if the mount moves more than 5 feet. Even if you take a full-attack action (nothing prevent you from taking a full-attack action during a mounted charge), you can't make more than 1 attack. How does pounce ignore this special limitation?
Not to mention a mounted charge isn't a charge. The mount charge, not you (and as a special rule, you gain the AC penalty, and the bonus of the charge if you attack at the end of the charge). I'm not even sure if a rhino hide (or pounce, or anything) is applicable.
I've brought this exact thing up before, as well as a couple of other issues of not extremely clear rules situations. The mounted combat section as a whole is not the most clearly worded thing. Personally i agree with you, but i can see where they argue how it does work as well. Ans since its more a thought excercise more than anything else, might as well let people gush over it. if anyone seriously attempted to play anything like this in a real game, well...may the DM have mercy on his soul.
Also however, the idea that the mounted combat feats refute this interpretation is silly, since they are an example of specific versus general, and that the phrase "Charging while mounted"-which i read as being mounted while the mount is making a charge action- is NOT Synonymous with 'Charging'-which is a specific combat action initiated by a character.
And in order to stay on topic, No, i dont really think its possible in general for casters to do MORE damage than dedicated martial builds, but as has been mentioned, they dont really need to since those dmg numbers are pure overkill anyway.
I've seen this a couple times before and as far as i can tell PF hasnt changed any of the wording on the SRD that made this unworkable.
The way our group has always seen this there are 2 main issues, one relating to gaining charge/movement effects(Skirmish anyone?) while mounted that don't Specificly get called out as usable while mounted, and the other in the wording of Pounce.
As to the latter:
Charging is a full round action that restricts you to specific movement and a Single attack:
"Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move."
Mounted combat specificly notes that:
"If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack."
These are similar, but NOT identicle restrictions. While mounted, any movement prevents any and all kinds of attacks past the limit of 1.
Pounce notes it can be used to allow a full attack after a charge action.
"When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability)."
This DOES NOT bypass the clause specifly related to mounted combat noting that more than 5 ft. movement has occured.
Also, these differences are made more clear later in the mounted combat section with the further details of:
"If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge)."
This is not the same, as you simplified it to, as "If mount charges YOU charge." Again, charging is a Special full round action, and for a mount to charge its using its actions, not yours. Nothing except what is explicitly noted to work in this case should be applicable to the "PC charges" trigger, because you are not, in fact charging. Mounted combat just happens to note, for instance, you still gain the benefits of lances and mounted feats like spirited charge in this case. The wording would be useless and incredibly redundant if, RAI they simply meant'Mount charge=you charge."
As to the former:
This one is more ambiguous, but Pounce does not make it clear that the ability to make a full round attack indeed makes EVERY attack IN the full attack a charge attack, or just the initial single attack. The 2 possible ways to read it are
1. just as you intended, and the entire full attack becomes PART of the charge action itself.
2.The normal Charge full round action is taken, and the Pounce special attack triggers, allowing you to continue to make attacks as a full attack option AFTER the charge is completed, meaning the rest of the attacks miss out on both the +2 to hit and other charge related bonuses.
Has there been any direct notice on how this was intended?
