If you can’t counteract a slowed condition from a curse with haste then why would you be able to counteract the battle oracles penalties with other effects? Even if you say, “well, obviously armor still counts” then are you equally sure that temporary bonuses still apply?
I am not sure where to draw the line as it stands even if “common sense” (which I am unconvinced entirely applies) would omit some possible issues.
There's also the whole transferring runes from loot onto your nails. It might make a difference in the course of play.
Actually, I think maybe you can do the same thing with handwraps when I read the description on them.
From Nethys: "You can upgrade, add, and transfer runes to and from the handwraps just as you would for a weapon"
An added aside: are handwraps of mighty fists secretly just bandages that you can draw on?
By Nethys, the Max level hand wraps cost 40k; meanwhile, a +3 potency rune costs 8,935 and a major striking rune costs 31,065.
31,065 + 8,935 = 40,000
The Stiking rune does not include the potency rune (if that is what is tripping you up). At least, I am pretty sure?
Lyz Liddell wrote:
The intent here is that you can put runes on your nails, and your hands gain those benefits, but they wouldn't apply to e.g. a lizardfolk tail unarmed attack or a goblin's unarmed bite attack, or any special unarmed attacks from a barbarian. It's letting you use runes without having to invest in handwraps of mighty blows, but with the downside that you dont' get the full benefits the handwraps would convey.
I am confused. Why would you ever choose putting runes on your nails rather than using hand wraps that would also enhance your kicks or whatever?
Is it just for people who have 10+ other items to invest?
Honestly, I think both wizards and witches could do with some kind of mechanic for restoring their lost spell receptacle. Like: maybe there could be some kind of ritual for this kind of thing?
Maybe witches could access the ritual for free but other classes with lose-able spell lists could hunt it down.
Listen: The alchemist sucked in PF1 as well so I'd say that its place in the power distribution has more or less stayed the same. And of course oracle is going to be worse in PF2E; oracle was awesome in PF1 because it was a power/talent class and now ALL classes are that way in PF2 (and there are no longer "real" feats outside of class powers in this metaphor).
That later point is more or less the thing about PF2E that I am most disappointed by.
That said, I think this version of Oracle has neat little niche that is suitably separate from the sorceror.
I would be fine if the current weapon proficiencies for this class remained the same but studied strike had different limitations. Like: maybe they could be limited to 1-handed weapons rather than agile/finesse weapons.
I feel like an investigator with a truncheon (club/mace) or even a arming sword ("longsword") tracks for me even more than something like an elven curve sword or--for that matter--a spiked chain.
Battle Oracle gets better armor proficiency and better progression for their spell DCs/spell attacks. And races can give you weapon proficiency pretty easily.
Life lets you play a full caster with the hitpoints of a fighter. The curse sucks, but you can hold off on using your focus spells for a fight or two and generally be pretty well off.
Fire is probably the worst off of the three mysteries but its curse at least has direct offensive and defensive benefits.
I like the kinds of power that can be packaged in with mysteries that don't really fit in the sorcerer's structure.
The various mystery benefits are pretty neat. The extra health of the life mystery and the armor/weapon proficiency of the battle mystery both make for some very atypical casters. I am not in love with the way those curses work, though.
Still, I think the mystery/curse system opens the door for a lot of neat mechanics.
To be more specific:My assumption is that the amount of monster we will see w/ AoO will decrease, my statistical expectation will remain the same, and nothing to me says that the amount will increase unless this is specifically something that the designers want to change.
Edit to be a fancy boy:
My point is this: players will probably not see AoO triggered by concentration checks any more often than they do now.
So why does it matter that there will be more monsters? Henro/Gaterie's points still hold.
By why would you expect the percentage of monsters with AoO triggered by concentrate actions would increase? If anything, I would expect it to decrease since additional monsters tend to have more niche abilities than earlier monsters as the lifespan of games stretches on and AoO is kinda boilerplate.
To dig down a little bit more, how about this structure:Study Suspect forces the enemy to make a will saving throw against your class DC (which they will make more often than you will fail the current perception check in all likelihood) and if they fail then you "have their number" and get the studied target benefits on your attacks. The move succeeds less often but the benefits are much longer lasting.
Here is an idea that I like past this: let the monster use an action on their turn to make the check again to end the effects similarly to how creatures can use actions to try to end ongoing damage. I think this would make for interesting tactical decisions on the part of the GM/monsters/PVP opponent and also reduce some of the "swingy-ness" of an effect that could last the whole fight.
For my druthers, I would still want there to be some kind of benefit on an enemy's success as well but the designers could tweak the benefits of the effect to get things right.
Edit for further revelations: having study suspect be an ongoing effect opens the door for cool finishing moves that could end the effects of studied suspect. There is a lot of juicy design space here.
N N 959 wrote:
I was unaware of this. That is kinda neat.
Dubious Scholar wrote:
Why does it have to be powerful? The whole point is it's a little thing on the scale of eschew materials on sorcerers.
It needs to be more powerful if it is going to be an entire class feat and I think it would be better off as a class feat. Right now it is incredibly situational. If cackle--as it exists--needs to be replaced with something at all then throw them an extra skill.
Also, regarding no cackle at level 1:
I guess "roll a will save versus your class DC" would be more symmetrical and wouldn't result in autocrits. I just want to use Int to Study Target (or just not roll), instead of Wis.
I feel ya. That would land the investigator in the same trouble casters are in though: monsters tend to succeed their saves
Sara Marie wrote:
Moved this to the PF2 forums advice section. If there was a reason it specifically went into the compatible publisher's subforum, let me know.
That was actually a mistake on my part, but I decided to keep it there since I figured, "well, if there is a 3PP solution somewhere, I guess I'd like to know."
Under this paradigm, do monsters need to make an action to resist the save? Also, what about monsters that are untrained in deception? Are they going to almost always auto-fail at higher levels?
Cackling also strikes me as kind of twee and goofy and maybe something that would be better as an option rather than something intrinsic to the base class. Mechanically, cackle is super niche and it was only a popular choice in 1e because it was actually mechanically good.
So to reiterate Deadman's opinion: cackling should be a feat and it should do more for you mechanically.
I think it would be neat if Witches could use cackle to maintain a hex and a regular spell as part of the same action, for instance.
Ed Reppert wrote:
PF2E has a pretty clear built in connection between check bonus and DC. That said, I think you are right and the investigator would need a couple extra lines of text to make their "studied suspect" operate off their "class DC".
I think the lack of benefit for int is a problem, but if paizo folks really wanted to keep a check in there then they could give some kind of studied strike benefit on a failure.
Do you know what the math breakdown would look like if a failed SS check kept the damage but not the accuracy bonus? Or the accuracy bonus and not the damage?
If the designers only what the check to make things more dynamic (and include riders that add certain effects on a crit success or whatever) then maybe that kind of tweak might work best.
I agree with Ezekieru, You should be able to use Int for Attack and Damage with Finesse weapons, or at the very least let Int be used for Damage.
Int to damage is really not that great of a fix since the difference in % damage will be pretty negligible at higher levels. I also think int-for-accuracy is somewhat odd as well and not really a great solution as it takes away from dex/str's schtick.
Honestly, you should feel free to continue grumbling about that to a certain extent. That said, I think the alchemist is still doing okay comparably due to their sheer supply of alchemical items.
I actually wish there was some real way to get armor proficiency so I can build a strength investigator, though.
I hope the designers go the route of giving intelligence more to do rather than letting investigators choose other key abilities.
To bring up one point re:investigator durability, it seems to me like the class is better suited to ranged combat than the rogue is given that study suspect can be used at ranged but flanking needs to be done in melee. As such, dropping con is maybe not the end of the world.
There was a section of a 4chan thread that a friend showed me that more or less discussed how effectively a player could guess the worst save of a creature just from their description and basic pop culture knowledge. While the discussion was less than scientifically rigorous, it seems like peoples' best guess as to what is the weakest save will often be correct.
That is neat but I still feel like monster saves should be lower, especially considering how it is relatively harder to improve your chances of your spell succeeding vs. making an attack succeed.
Others have given a more measured answer than I offered. Mutagens can indeed be pretty good if you consider them as being primarily a utility tool rather than a combat tool. You can find uses for all of them given the chance. Like: using combine elixir with juggernaut mutagen and an elixir of life can get you out of a lot of scrapes. Cycling that along with revivifying mutagen lets you hold out almost indefinitely.
Still, you are going to want to set aside some resources for bombs if you actually want to contribute to ending fights.
I think the elemental mutagens are pretty good but they are mostly pretty bad. Elemental mutagens are uncommon though so it is questionable if you can even use them in a build.
Well, I have already gone over how most of the alchemists abilities are buffs which don't require accuracy so I really do think the situation is comparable.
And then back again at 15+! :3
How are they behind warpriests?
i dont find a playstyle of 9/10 you miss 1/10 you hit and insta-win to be particulary "fun".
I think it is fine if that is just one part of the class's kit, especially given that it is 7/20ths and you can adjust that through tactics.
Also, Maxastro makes a point and I will also not that you can catch up your second stat at level 5.
If the damage numbers are still big, then that is just more interesting to play at the table. Then the game can become about stacking bonuses and penalties that maximize landing alchemically boosted hay-makers. Quick edit: how often are characters fighting an enemy where the FIGHTER has a 50% chance to hit? CR+3 enemies?
Also, effects on a miss is probably still a more interesting approach than just boosting damage.
Exactly. The alchemist just needs additional damage or additional effects to make its even lower accuracy work out. Perhaps they can get more elixirs that add damage and rider effects to their unarmed attack that stack with bestial mutagen (which would let alchemists capitalize on dual elixir better). They could also get more things that trigger on a miss (making them a little more caster-y).
Like: maybe they can get a feat that lets their elemental mutagen damage go through on a miss or something else they can do on a miss (or maybe the errata can give those kinds of effects to mutagen specialists)? Perhaps they can get an action that lets them follow up a missed martial weapon attack with a bomb attack at full BAB?
One important thing to remember is this though: the alchemist should never completely catch up to martial classes in terms of combat efficiency if only because the alchemist also has a grab bag of other goodies in addition to their combat schtick.
There is some damage increase that can offset an accuracy decrease.
Well, DCs don't matter for buffs and most of the alchemist's kit is buffs and stuff that goes off automatically. I think the alchemist could stand to have their class DC go to legendary, but I don't think it actually matters too much save for where it might help poisoners and other niche alchemical items.
And yeah: on-level alchemical items are weaker than on-level spells and they need to be since the alchemist gets to use a ton of them every day. Balance-wise, alchemical items need to be better than competing cantrips but still quite a bit weaker than on-level spells.
This probably should all be in an alchemist chat rather than a ACG chat though. -w-
Brew Bird wrote:
I didn't say that the alchemist is in an amazing place balance-wise. However, I will say that it is my favorite class in the game though specifically because it is a casting class that uses a fundamentally different and interesting rules system.
I also think the class DC stuff is BS, btw.
More martial-focused mutagens and elixirs are the better fix, IMO.
Ed Reppert wrote:
I would argue that alchemist is a casting class in the same way the psion is a casting class in 3.5 DnD. The alchemist is just interacting with a different magic system.