I get why people want particular Patron flavor, but I really like the idea of working with your GM about your Patron and developing the flavor that way. If you want to not know who your Patron is, your GM can flavor the GM via good roleplaying and basing off of the Lessons selected. And if not, you can work with your GM on the Patron and, as the character, not know but as a player, know it all. Or hell, know who it is from the get-go and have more of a 5E Warlock relationship with your Patron.
There's a lot you can do flavor-wise for the Patron. It's just a much more open conversation with your GM.
Seconding this suggestion. Seems like the simplest solution, when I think about it. Honestly, a lot more of the martials' abilities should be using their Class DC.
Sad to see there's no Multiclass Dedications along with the classes. Would've loved to multiclass into one of them (investigator) in an ongoing game to test it that way.
I'm guessing they wanna make sure the class itself is good to go before allowing multi-classing to be tested out. Maybe they'll allow that in another phase of the playtest.
Lyz Liddell wrote:
For the wording of the first part, how is that particularly different from Sustain a Spell? I'm legitimately confused on what the key difference is.
1d6 vs 1? I thought it was 2d6 on a finisher, or minimum 2 extra damage?
N N 959 wrote:
INT for the main stat, WIS for perception and most of their basic class features, DEX for attacking with an agile, finesse or ranged weapon, STR for extra damage with a melee weapon, CON for more health if they're going to be in melee range a lot. That's 5 out of 6. That's pretty dang MAD to me.
If they focus on melee, they'll need all 5 of those. If it's just ranged, dropping STR and possibly CON would still be 3. That's a lot more than I'd be happy with. They really need to allow INT to be applicable to damage rolls aside from feats. Bake it into the Investigator and Alchemists' class features please.
Except nowhere does it say that the Oracle gets an additional spell to use for a third spell slot like the bard or wizard. They get 2 focus spells instead. One from their mystery, and one from their domain. They do gain an extra cantrip, however.
Plus, under Spell Repertoire, they correctly state it's 2 spell slots to cast per day. It seems clear to me it's a typo or an oversight from copy-pasting the spell description from another class.
Gonna have to agree on the possible fix of at least having INT act as your Perception, seeing as the more basic feature of all methodologies, Study Subject, is based on your Perception, which is based on WIS and not INT.
Being MAD via DEX, INT and WIS is a bit much, especially if you also wanna dip a bit into STR for added flat damage. That's 3-4/6 stats you need to focus in on.
I hope it isn't 5 minutes before the stream, since being able to look over the playtest will help us ask them questions about the mechanics, since I believe they mentioned having a section for Q&A.
I'm still hoping it'll be today. That way we get 2 days to really go through it with a fine-tooth comb and then ask about some things. Especially since Witch is so tied with her familiar and there's still a lot of things that needs to be addressed with how familiars work in Exploration/Downtime modes.
Yeah, not feeling good about the limitations of the familiar having to be some type of Tiny animal, and you having to sacrifice the few precious abilities you have to use to make sure they has all of their natural abilities.
Combining that with the other more vague rules about how they interact in Exploration and Downtime modes, and I really don't wanna bother with them vs an animal companion. At least I know I can leave an animal companion alone and they'll be smart enough to go do their own thing.
Those in charge of the bigger changes in the errata should really re-address the familiar quite a bit. Maybe up the total abilities to 3 so you can have 1 more to accommodate a single required unique movement speed, or just make the need to have the animal have their natural abilities negated by the very nature of their magical selves.
So the errata applied a change to the Deer Animal Barbarian to now get a 1d10 Piercing unarmed attack with the Grapple trait instead of the 1d8 with the Charge trait. It's supposed to put it in line with other 1d10 unarmed attacks. But then you look at the Specialization Ability on page 86:
"...The frog’s tongue attack and deer’s antler attack gain reach 10 feet."
So now the Deer by RAW has a 1d10 Piercing attack with Reach 10, something none of the other Animal's unarmed attacks have.
Was this an honest mistake? Or am I missing something here?
EDIT: Correction, Specialization Ability also increases all of their unarmed attacks via Rage by one step. So everyone's got some kind of 1d12 attack, but Deer has 1d12 Piecing PLUS Reach 10. Seems insanely good to me.
I needed to come up with a Warforged conversion for my 5E game, and this is really good! The changes others have suggested are solid as well.
For the Slam, I think removing the Nonlethal property and gaining Shove would be the most appropriate choice. Maybe add a feat to up the damage to 1d6 and an additional effect, like treating a critical failure as a failure instead?
Flinging Shove applies to either Aggressive Shove or Brutish Shove. So the critical effect must've been mentioned for the sake of Brutish Shove, then.
Feral Chihuahua wrote:
My reading on it, since it says "or a specific set of weapons", I believe that includes when you pick the specific group of weapons to go to Legendary proficiency at Level 13.
Overall, I really like this errata. But as some have note, there's a few issues.
First, the mistakes in the errata, with Bespell and Lesser Elixer of Life being the top spots.
Second, Mutigenist Flashback being once a day is REALLY limiting. If that's the intention, sure, but the other 2 subclasses have a lot more appealing abilities for their kit. Changing it to 1/hour or better yet, 1/10 minutes, would go a long way to making Mutigenist more appealing.
Third, I feel either the Alchemist needs to be able to deal a smidge more damage across all fields, or their Class DC needs to be able to go to Master. As it stands, they both miss more often AND do less damage than the other core classes.
Other than that, it's pretty good. Wishlist of things to look at for the next round would be the above Alchemist issues, an elaboration on how Familiars are supposed to function in Exploration Mode (do you HAVE to yell orders to them every 10 minutes?), and a revist on shields (either bump all their Hardness/HP/BT to match better with Creature Levels, or get Arrow-Catching Shield and Forge Warden better stats, and offer a non-metal Sturdy Shield alternative for shield-blocking Druids).
I believe they said on stream it'll be via a Paizo blog post. They will upload a .PDF there, so you can easily print it out for your players.