I actually disagree. No one takes Quick Draw except for people who rely on thrown weapons. And for those people, Quick Draw basically IS exactly the same as Rapid Reload. It reduces a tax of 1 action (drawing) before you can Strike to 0, and it applies multiple times per round, every round. This is fundamentally the very same thing as what Rapid Reload does.
I don't see any reason the feat shouldn't be worded to do both.
1. No. More specifically, not in the playtest campaign. If it's a homebrew campaign where the characters will be around for more than just a day or two in game, sure, whatever.
2. Property runes are items unto themselves. They can be paid for with their own item slot, or with straight up money.
3. Materials must be paid for with money. However, I would say an item slot of equivalent value suffices, when you compare the price of the material with the maximum value of a permanent item on the treasure table for that level.
I actually reasonably like most of the conditions in PF2. I think a few of them could be more intuitive so you don't need to look them up so much. More importantly, they should probably be at the very back of the book right before the index so they're easier to look up when you need them, which is a lot.
Also, the Hampered and Slowed conditions seriously need to swap names with each other.
Shields do indeed just passively cover and protect a large amount of your body just by passively existing on your arm. And requiring you to spend actions to benefit from protection gives me one of two weird images - the first being that all shields are like collapsible handfans that fold up when not raised, the second being someone just letting their arm hang dead like dragging a body while their primary hand is the only thing they bother raising or doing anything with.
Now, the way that a raise shield action works for me in my head is that if you spend the action, you improve your shield bonus. Maybe by half your strength modifier, and also adding your str modifier or half your str modifier to the shield's hardness for a Block action you take that turn. This would fit with how if you had a weapon there instead you'd be adding str to damage, and would help out str which is still one of the lesser ability scores. Or maybe reserve the str bonus to the block, while the defense bonus from active guard is your proficiency bonus or some other flat bonus.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Vorsk, Follower or Erastil wrote:
I hope they actually keep the updates to Doomsday Dawn Separate from the update document. As someone playing and not running it I am trying to avoid spoilers and i hope the document does not spoil anything for those later 2 parts.
Agreed. I've brought this up a few times now and I would love Doomsday Dawn updates to be their own document. I should be able to just hand the errata file to my players.
These are all very promising! I'm especially looking forward to flat checks when dying (I didn't like assigning a level to Golarion for falling damage), and the magic update. I understand updating all the spells is a huge project and it makes sense to start with the damage spells.
Thank you for the heads up <3
My rule of thumb is that if you cut something's body and something comes out of the hole at a reasonable pace due to internal pressure - be it blood, xylem, insects, fiendish ichor, alchemical battery solution, or whatever - then the thing is subject to bleed damage.
So, most plant creatures would be subject to bleed, but ones specifically made of wood like an animated tree probably shouldn't be since their sap moves so much slower than the liquids in other plants. A skeleton obviously can't bleed, but a vampire, sure. An alchemical golem should bleed even if a stone golem does not. Etc
Here's a separate question. Do Expert, Master or Legendary proficiency in shields respectively increase the AC bonus from raising a shield by +1, +2 or +3? (If not, what's the point?)
What if the shield itself is Expert, Master or Legendary? (I figure the answer here is no, since E/M/L armor does not appear to raise its AC. Here there actually is a point if it doesn't increase the AC bonus, since it at least raises Hardness.)
Between this and what I've seen from prerelease blogs and other posts, what I feel like what we have here is:
* Some creatures being vulnerable to positive but not to good was probably an error, or alternately the Paladin's bonus damage was also meant to count as positive.
* Weakness and Resistance go off at the very end of damage determination, after saves and crits and whatnot have been resolved.
* For some reason, only physical damage type (bludgeoning etc) OR material (cold iron etc) can trigger Weakness, not both. But,
* Physical damage type AND material are considered together to see whether the base weapon damage can get through Resistance.
* Weakness goes off once for each relevant type, with the proviso now revealed above about the weapon.
* All damage subject to being Resisted (because it's not the right type to bypass the Resistance) is summed up into one lump sum, to see what amount of that total (if any) gets through resistance.
* Non-resisted damage is added to whatever gets through the resisted damage to determine the final damage.
* While unstated, if a creature is eventually published with both Weaknesses and wide blanket Resistances, the Weakness is implicitly something that gets through the Resistance.
Does that sound about right?
I'm with Graystone. Special properties that do cool things are what make a magic weapon feel magical. The bulk of actual damage should come from the skill of the wielder, but here the skill of the wielder just means a very small bonus to hit over someone else of the same level. Your paladin probably only has about a +3 to hit over an average cleric of the same level even at the highest levels, and more like only +1 at low levels.
When we get here, I'm actually considering whether or not to just rezz the party after every encounter where they TPK, just to playtest the various fights. Not sure yet whether I should do that, or just have them build characters for adventure 6 at the same time they build for adventure 5, and move directly into 6 when they TPK rather than ending for the night.
1. It is counterproductive and likely fatal to try to fight Whark and invoke the wrath of everyone at the party, a substantial percentage of which will likely be combatants due to being pirates. However, there is technically nothing forbidding it. It wouldn't be playing the adventure as intended, but you could murderhobo the adventure since the primary and only important goal is getting the book, by any means.
2. The kraken should be basically impossible for the party if they are less combat focused, and very tough even if they are. There is "technically" an out in dispelling the binding enchantment, BUT information about this is not provided in the adventure, and moreover the dispel check to remove it is almost impossible since it's a 9th level spell. There doesn't seem to be any way for the PCs to find out about either the kraken or its out, unless they happen to get a critical success on Diplomacy against Whark. There is no DC given for this diplomacy check, but it is probably DC 30 or 31 since their Perception DC is 30 and the errata raised other Diplomacy DCs in the adventure to 31. I guess Bardic Lore might potentially offer an answer, but that's about it.
As such, pretty much the only way to deal with the kraken without metaknowledge or kissing Whark's feet is to not fight it at all, and instead focus on avoiding it and fleeing.
3. The biggest problem with the Darkside Mirrors is not just the summoning of the duplicates, but the far worse consequence that the duplicated creature is removed from the game. If 2-3 PCs are absorbed into the mirrors, it's pretty much adventure over, because it's unlikely the remaining PCs will be enough to defeat the duplicates and retrieve their comrades.
This is an encounter where the only way to win is not to play. The PCs pretty much have to disable or bypass the mirrors before they can start going off. However, there is no warning or information about them short of critically Diplomancing Whark as mentioned above, so they'd better be searching for traps as they proceed.
4. The tables being rigged is irrelevant to the party's mission. If a paladin were to insist on causing trouble about it, they would be playing Lawful Stupid and sabotaging the adventure.
It's not official, but someone did actually put up a version of the Playtest Rulebook online with all errata up to 1.4.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
He's not saying it's bad to bring up your problems with the system, he's saying "It's just a playtest and not finished" is a bad response to bringing up such problems.
That is a good distinction. Obviously there will be more feats, more archetypes, more etc over time. The corebook size is finite, even if I would be happy for it to be the size of something like the Ptolus book. :) But the core system really, really, REALLY needs to be hammered out and working right, to make the game more enjoyable; that way, people are willing to buy in and be patient for that extra content.
Re the crits, I see the bonus damage from weakness as simply increasing the base damage dealt of that type. So if you do 1 good damage to something with Weakness Good 10, you're actually dealing 11 Good damage and it is the 11 that gets multiplied on a crit rather than 1.
But since it's easy to read the other way, they should definitely clear up the wording.
Ah, I see now the confusion is coming from the intersection of the cantrip rules with multiclassing feats.
Page 193 wrote:
Basically, everything in bold should be deleted.
Yet none of that does anything to fix the bland and fiddly "feel" of a +1 bonus. None of that fixes my players' disappointment when they are trying to build a fun character, and spend their time wading through a sea of tiny situational bonuses that give a +1 while twerking under the full moon, and pretty much none of which stack with each other.
But arcane is different than occult. And one is more powerful than the other. A shield cast from your primary class is the highest spell level you can cast. An innate spell or one from a multiclass is about half that.
All cantrips always have a spell level equal to half your character level rounded up, regardless of how you get them.
While the sphere would certainly prevent a grab, I agree that it is very unclear what would happen to a grapple already underway. I would actually rule that the spell fails, following the precedent of all the other repulsion and barrier spells in the game's history that fail when forced against an opponent or when cast across an opponent's space.
1. As written, meld with stone doesn't say anything about being able to move once melded, or about being able to exit in any space other than the one you entered in. It really should say that when dismissed you Step to any open space within 5 feet, but currently, it does not. (It should also have a Heightened version at higher level that gives Earth Glide, but again, currently does not.)
2. Since prepare for battle says "rolls" and not "results" the intent is probably just that it grants the actual raw die roll, with your own modifier still being applied.
"Conditional" modifiers should be solely from conditions.
"Situational" modifiers can be stuff like cover, high ground, being flanked (which should not be the same thing as nor cause the flat-footed condition), and other situations.
"Effect" modifiers can be temporary bonuses or penalties from things like spells and elixirs. But a spell might cause a Situational modifier if it is adjusting the environment and circumstances, rather than adjusting you directly.
"Inherent" modifiers can be more persistent bonuses or penalties from feats, diseases and the like. I would recommend bonuses from Rage and the like be Inherent if they have to be named, so that they stack with the Effect bonuses granted by a Bard.
"Item" modifiers are easy to grok and should be reserved for more persistent modifiers, like from a skill item; the temporary modifier granted by an alchemical item or the like should be an Effect modifier.
This does make me hopeful. Having to have a very specific feat to make an item work at all is weird. But I do like the idea of items having an effect on their own, then calling out certain types of abilities as being further enhanced.
I'd still prefer they not call out actual specific feats though. For example, rather than a trinket that calls out "Flurry of Blows" or "Double Strike" by name, I would instead hope to see a trinket that calls out "If you use a feat or ability that gives you two Strikes, then..." That is more future proof.
Like, take the Bloodseeker Beak. Instead of calling out "sneak attack" it should instead call out "doing precision damage." PF1 demonstrated how Paizo preferred to come up with all sorts of alternate abilities that did the same thing as sneak attack without actually being called sneak attack, and I would prefer the Beak work with all of them.
I mean, I obviously disagree on overcorrection, but I respect the opinion. A one action power that actually costs a daily resource can be as good as or slightly better than a weapon attack. And the general reduction of durations to 1 minute in this edition is one of the biggest problems with it, as called out by far more people than just me. Increasing a duration to 10 minutes doesn't require weakening the power if it was already kinda weak to begin with; it's correcting the power.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I feel a lot of that response may just have to do with the name and how you're thinking of it. If it worked literally the same but it was "Luck" or "Puissance" or whatever instead, and flavored not as concentration on a potion but instead such things sometimes just being better due to luckily getting a really good potion or things just working better for you due to personal awesomeness... Well, I don't believe you'd have the same problem.
So, as a project I decided to go over all of the domains and domain powers! We all know that while there are a few good powers in the playtest book, most of them are… not that great, whether due to being incredibly situational, underpowered, or both. So I wanted to assess all of the powers one by one, and to try giving actual constructive feedback for tweaking or sometimes outright rewriting the various powers that need help.
A few notes on this:
First, I am generally going to try to keep the spirit and idea of the original power the authors chose to run with, even if I’m not especially happy with it, rather than outright replace it with a different idea. There is plenty of opportunity for expanding each domain with additional power ideas in later books. Here, I’m trying to respect the ideas presented, just reshaping them to make them more useful and to form a better baseline and foundation for future work. I’ll only completely replace the base idea if it seems unworkably limiting.
Second, not all the powers will receive major changes. I do think some of them are fine. Others just need tweaks or heightening options. I’m definitely keeping an eye on the trait tags though and fixing them in multiple places, because these are often inconsistent or sometimes outright wrong: Skin of Thorns, for instance, is printed as an Enchantment and Mental effect! Some non-damaging powers were printed with the Attack tag even though similar powers and spells do not have it, and so forth.
Third, a lot of the second tier domain powers are printed with a cost of 3 spell points / focus points. Not a single one of them is actually good enough to be worth 3 points. Other second tier powers are printed with a cost of 1 point. Part of what I do here is just set all second tier powers to cost 2 points for consistency and for ease of learning and use, and try to upgrade the 1 point powers to be worth 2. Note that I am assuming that we will end up with a decent number of focus points in the end product equivalent to the amount of spell points we get now; if not, and it’s actually a very small amount, many powers may have to be buffed even more than what I did here!
Fourth, even though I still very much think saves and other success / failure metrics should be listed in the final book as CS/S/F/CF, I’m going with the S/CS/F/CF standard from the playtest document as published for consistency and ease of comparison.
Fifth, as I have said elsewhere, I believe buffs / debuffs should typically last 10 minutes on a single target or 1 minute when cast on multiple targets… not virtually always just 1 minute as you see everywhere in the playtest magic chapter. This is reflected in my suggestions.
Hopefully this is helpful, especially if any devs are watching. :)
While a bit narrow, this is still a useful power. It covers a rather different niche than a typical charm or suggestion, and can be quite useful against selfish or evil targets – i.e., the usual targets a typical band of heroes would be facing. It also isn’t limited to just humanoids. No changes.
COMPETITIVE EDGE / POWER 2
Pretty good, only one action, and it’s much longer range than the Water power and can trip so it’s okay if the push is only away from you. But I prefer the design philosophy where most things have at least some effect on a successful save, especially since, unlike an Athletics check, this costs a daily resource. Also, why would this be creatures only? Finally, I think magic effects should generally be independent of the caster’s size.
PUSHING GUST / POWER 1
Overall good, buuuuut…. Let’s have this scale and be worthy of having its cost raised to 2 to be consistent with other Power 2’s.
WALK ON AIR / POWER 2
Too situational. Let’s make it something an adventurer could actually use on a daily basis without giving themselves away.
FACE IN THE CROWD / POWER 1
As written, there are entire campaigns where this won’t come up more than once if at all. Let’s have a redo.
WATCHING THE WATCHERS / POWER 2
It’s mediocre, but okayish, except for that last part. It's also directly inferior to the Family domain power.
VEIL OF CONFIDENCE / POWER 1
Well this is interesting in theory but bad in practice. Let’s try again.
DELUSIONAL PRIDE / POWER 2
Very limited and doesn’t heighten. It shouldn’t be quite as good as the actual Creation spell (which should also be better and heighten better), but we can still do better than this.
FABRICATE / POWER 1
This is actually useful, but becomes less so and more punitive / costly as you rise in level.
I’m going to leave the power as is but add a last line to the description and replace the heightening entries:
As a special exception to the casting time, you can cast Artistic Flourish as a free action as you cast the Fabricate power, Creation spell, or other spell or power that creates an object in order to increase the quality of that item.
Actually solid. No changes, except that it doesn’t cause damage so should lose the Attack trait, and should gain the Darkness trait.
Preeeeetty narrow. Let's make it a little cooler.
DARKENED EYES / POWER 2
Pretty narrow, and dependent on Heal.
UNDEAD’S BANE / POWER 1
Actually solid. No material changes, except remove the second sentence that bolsters the target (how many times is a non-PC going to reach 0 HP anyway), and maybe increase the duration to 10 minutes per my general buff philosophy.
You shout of glory and deal additional untyped damage equal to your casting modifier plus your level.
DESTRUCTIVE AURA / POWER 2
At least make it heal a little more. And maybe…
SWEET DREAMS / POWER 1
This could use a lot of clarification as well as some heightening.
DREAMING POTENTIAL / POWER 2
This starts good but falls off against Fire Ray with the poor scaling, especially given that Hurtling Stone targets AC compared to Fire Ray targeting TAC, especially when considering the revision.
HURTLING STONE / POWER 1
Also good! No changes.
Good, no changes.
You and each ally within range may choose to use the highest saving throw modifier possessed by any of you.
Almost worthless. Let’s at least get rid of the failure chance and make it scale.
READ FATE / POWER 1
In most cases in PF2, your chance of failing a save as a player character is actually higher than your chance of succeeding. This power is suicide. We can keep the risk-reward aspect (one of my players LOVES this kind of stuff) while still making it better.
TEMPT FATE / POWER 2
Resonance Test wrote:
The Necromancy tag from the revision is an error. While the revised version is clearly superior, I feel it will likely get revised slightly downward again when they inevitably increase the amount of focus points that we get back to current spell point levels. However, I don’t think they’ll want to get rid of having made it more than just a boring one-off blast, and while the original was decent it still wasn’t world beating by any means, so did merit improvement. So I’m thinking the final version will or should look something like this:
FIRE RAY / POWER 1
This is somewhat solid, especially given the original was 1 SP. The second half of the last sentence is misleading though; per the RAW, enhancements never take effect if all the damage from the primary attack is prevented. So even with the power as written in the playtest book, Flame Barrier DOES in fact stop persistent burn or other such enhancements and conditions if it manages to prevent all the damage of the primary attack. Also, it would still apply to fire damage that is itself an enhancement, e.g., the fire damage from a flaming sword.
Also, we do want to make it worth 2 points for consistency instead of just one. And it’d be nice if it actually helped when being full attacked by fire elementals and the like. So, how about:
FLAME BARRIER / POWER 2
Strike the word “magical” so this has a chance of ever being used, and suddenly we have a good power.
Solid, no changes.
Resonance Test wrote:
The resonance test version fixes one of the complaints I was going to make, namely changing “You cast a heal spell to heal a living creature” to “casts a healing spell” so it works with spells other than just Heal. I’m generally not a huge fan of powers and feats that only interact with a single specific spell, and prefer more open design.
The two versions are significantly different. The first is something that you can lade onto a spell as you cast it for free, while the revised test version is something you have to set up in advance, preventing you from doing a 3 action Heal in the same round that you cast it. The second is given a significantly more powerful effect because of this restriction and can also be used to charge someone else’s healing.
I think my preferred version would be the original, but with the more permissive text of the revision: namely, being able to work with any healing spell. Make this fix, and the original is a great future-proof power.
See above about my thoughts on triggering off only one specific spell.
HEALING FONT / POWER 2
About as narrow as the Cities powers. We can at least give it a minor Heroes Feast effect so it’s useful more than the one time per campaign that the GM poisons your food.
ENHANCE VICTUALS / POWER 1
There is quite narrow, but it can be improved.
TAKE ITS COURSE / POWER 2
Good, but can be tweaked just a tiny bit!
LOREKEEPER’S FORTUNE / POWER 1
Mostly solid… just change the Trigger.
Trigger: You hit a creature with a Strike or spell, or a creature fails its save against a spell you cast.
Come on, why does Light just share the exact same power with the Death domain? Lazy. They could just downconvert Searing Ray into the power for this domain, or alternately come up with a different power.
SHINING MOTES / POWER 1
Decidedly better than the Darkness domain power. Though I will comment I have never seen a 20 ft cone before… 15 ft? 30 ft? Sure. But 20… XD
This is obnoxiously fiddly. Also, considering you only get two choices of bonus in this system other than item, and conditional is one of them, this is never going to come up except at the earliest levels. Let’s make it something simple, easy and fun.
BIT OF LUCK / POWER 1
So it’s a metamagic feat, except you can only use it a few times a day because it costs spell/focus points, and it gives another fiddly +1 bonus, and it has Concentration duration. :|
DIVINE VESSEL / POWER 1
Pretty narrow. As is often my philosophy on stuff like this, where you spent a feat to be able to do this, and that feat had a prerequisite feat, and the ability is only doable a couple times per day – just let it be good.
MYSTIC BEACON / POWER 2
Unlike the successor power, this is terrible. Let’s bring in a bit of the old PF1 version and tweak the duration.
ATHLETIC EXPLOIT / POWER 1
This is actually good.
Kinda over-specialized here. Let’s at least loosen it a bit.
MOONLIGHT GLOW / POWER 1
Why does a moon laser deal fire damage? It should be mental damage, or at least cold. Otherwise good!
This should be the second tier power and can also be improved. Also what’s with those traits? I actually don’t have a problem with the 1 minute duration here because it’s specifically combat focused, rather than mixed use.
SKIN OF THORNS / POWER 2
Make this the first tier power, fix the crazy unnatural Large+ food requirements that fly in the face of reality, and…
NATURE’S BOUNTY / POWER 1
First off, it's listed as a spell rather than a power. Second, you can’t get a critical success or failure on a flat check, so the power doesn't even work as intended. Third, the thematics are completely off – this isn’t what I expect from a “waking nightmare.” Fourth, no one would ever use this power on anyone whatsoever – you have a 50% chance of helping an enemy or hurting an ally.
WAKING NIGHTMARE / POWER 1
What the heck is it with this domain and screwing over the person who uses it? It’s not the Gambling domain. Also it's listed as a spell again.
It’s a powerful effect for a low level power that you can likely spam multiple times, so I can see some backlash potential. But make the current successful save effect the Critical Success effect (caster confused until end of their next turn), while simple Success just has no effect.
This is actually good. Just add casting ability modifier to the initial damage.
I’m not sure this needs a save. Looks fine, I guess, except that the attacker is mostly guaranteed to always save and thus take half of what is already half damage, because enemies in PF2 are overtuned. If I took this as a player, I would happily give up the infinitesimal chance of double damage to just have consistency.
Seems fine. That little bit at the end of the heightening, however, implies quite a lot of things not actually stated in the main power description itself; cut the line at the word “humanoids.” It’s magic, a spellcasting sentient slime mold should be able to make you feel passionate. Alternately, if using this to try to distinguish from just casting charm, move the attractive condition to the main power, give a little bit more of an explanation, and have a higher level heightening effect remove the condition.
More fiddly +/- 1 modifiers. Just make it -2. Also exclude allies.
Might be a little better with text saying you can still do this while dominated, stunned, paralyzed, silenced, etc. Maybe have a special casting condition where it takes mental casting actions, perhaps starting with two or three and then decreasing in number with heightening. But still okay.
This is absurdly narrow to the degree that it will virtually never come up. Just change it to “You fail or critically fail a Fortitude saving throw.”
Seems good. I would say “Redirect damage up to no more than your casting ability modifier plus twice your level.”
Mm. It’s a pretty weak resistance that will get utterly overwhelmed by even weak basic attack damage at high levels, but it’s for a duration and to all nearby allies… bleh.
Since this doesn’t even prevent the use of spells and powers with verbal components, nor does it entirely prevent communication nor does it bestow a curse, it should not bolster its target. With all the limitations on it, the duration should probably be 1 minute on success, 1 hour on failure and 1 day on critical failure.
Consider allowing it to also target objects, e.g., to quiet a squeaky hinge or shattering window. 1 hour is probably a good duration when used on an object.
*just laughs and laughs and laughs*
SAFEGUARD SECRET / POWER 2
Heighten (+3): You can move 10 ft further on the Stride, or 5 ft further on the Step.
This is rather specific, and doesn’t help in normal terrain at all. It also falls off in usefulness at higher levels.
WANDERER’S GUIDE / POWER 2
SUDDEN SHIFT / POWER 1(Abjuration, Move)
Casting: Somatic free action; Trigger: An enemy misses you with a melee attack.
You Step. If the enemy missed, your new position must remain in that enemy’s reach; if the enemy critically missed, you may step beyond its reach.
Heighten (4th): You may also use Sudden Shift in response to a failed ranged attack. If the enemy missed, you must remain in line of effect to the enemy; if the enemy critically missed, you may step into a position that would break line of effect.
Heighten (8th): As 4th, and you may also use Sudden Shift in response to a failed offensive action or activity of any kind, including but not limited to a spell or breath weapon against which you made your save.
Heighten (4th): This replicates a 2nd-tier illusory disguise.Heighten (8th): This replicates a 3rd-tier illusory disguise.
I really want to like this. Maybe it can be made to come up more than just a few times in a whole campaign. Maybe also add the following section:
You may also add Somatic and Material casting to cast this spell as you inscribe a sigil or place a seal to which you have valid claim, as you write up to one sentence of text up to 25 words or fewer which is true to the best of your knowledge as described above, or as you quickly sketch an accurate image of something that you have witnessed. Any person who sees this mark, text, or image knows that you believe it to be true, for the duration of a Sigil cantrip of the spell tier to which this power has been heightened.
Increase duration to at least 1 minute.
This is okay.
This is okay.
Xteenth verse same as the first, it shouldn’t be based on a specific spell. It should be “You cast a spell that restores hit points to an undead creature.” This is narrow and weaker than its healing cousin as it is due to the undead restriction, so maybe it should grant temporary positive resistance as well.
Acceptable because it’s one action to cast.
Failure effect should be success effect, critical failure effect should be failure effect, and the actual critical failure effect should carry an additional penalty like making the target flat-footed. Moreover, the power should specify that creatures with weakness to water have it triggered by this spell.
Double edged sword, but the range and area still make it pretty decent. I’d probably add a line about it trying to dispel magical flames.
This is the only power in the entire book as bad as the City domain powers. Talk about overspecific…
ACQUISITIVE’S FORTUNE / POWER 1
So… it’s the handwave seen in most campaigns anyway, making it a dead power half the time. How about something much more interesting?
MONEY TALKS / POWER 2
This is great at level 1, but rapidly falls away when compared to attack powers that can do considerably more than one die of damage.
Heighten (+1): The effect lasts for one additional attack, and the maximum duration of the power is extended by 1 round.
This is pretty good. It’s yet another power that doesn’t really scale though.
Heighten (+2): You can include an additional ally in the effect. You choose which two targets get to use the highest initiative result after initiative is rolled, and assign the remaining results except the lowest to the remaining targets as desired.
Please consider Feint for Alchemist Bombs. Because this vial is filled with the deadliest acid known!!!
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
-2 to AC would also apply to TAC unless it specifically says otherwise, which the definition of flat footed does not.
This is why one of my suggestions was that they go back to giving bonus Focus each time you get an ability or feat that costs Focus, as they currently do for spell points in the playtest book. It's an obvious fix. :)
This is part of which I don't actually like bespoke potions. I think all the bespoke items should be alchemical elixirs, powders, oils and whatnot. Whereas I actually DO like magic potions as spells in a can. That would give the two items completely separate design space so they feel different and distinct.
Rolling the points together is fine. Item uses and powers can come out of the same pool. The important thing though is that powers then need to expand that pool. When you learn a storm druid power or wizard school ability or ki power, that needs to give you more focus. :)
It's totally fitting for a supernatural character to some days have more item use, other days have more power use, and still other days balance them, depending on need. The flexibility is a good thing.
Wouldn't a Quick Runner's Shirt just be an item you have one of, and spend a Focus each time you activate it? I mean that is the thrust of one of the points made in my post at the top of the page. Get rid of the free 1/day, because doing so both prevents abuse as well as simplifying tracking. Meanwhile, increase the base amount of Focus you get so you don't even need the 1/day kludge.
Whether "item slots" have a name and what that name is aren't especially important to me, they already fixed the big one. But if people want it locked down with a name, sure, whatever. :)
Hm. I both like it and I don't - it's an improvement but I like it more conceptually than in execution. I think my two main issues come down to that you should really have more points (especially with it being shared with class powers), and that in a lot cases the focus effect is really what the item should have been to begin with.
My suggestions for the base would be:
* Make base focus 5 + Cha modifier.
* Each time you pick up a class ability or feat that costs Focus, you get extra Focus.
* Relevant classes like monk can have a feat that lets you substitute a different ability modifier for Cha, and then gives +2 Focus, as a better class version of Extra Resonance. (Edit: Perhaps a more interesting version that feels less taxy would be: You substitute an ability modifier, e.g. WIS for monk, then can advance proficiency in a skill of your choice based on that ability modifier.)
* Do not mix focus and charges. Something uses one or the other but not both.
More specific recommendations:
* Trinkets should have the full effect without spending focus. They are consumed if you don't spend focus as you use it, but spending focus lets you keep the trinket so it can be used again.
* Come up with a more general rule for potions, instead of a bunch of bespoke focus effects, and then set the base item effect to something good. I suggest a universal rule that spending focus on a potion, oil, elixir etc maximizes any dice rolled and doubles duration. There, simple and done. There are a few odd ducks that won't benefit from this, and that's fine! Not everything has to benefit.
* Activated items just cost focus to use. Don't do the thing where you can use it once per day then spend focus to use it more. You just spend focus to use it.
* Spell items like scrolls and necklace of Fireballs just cost Focus to use.
On a final note, Focus is a VASTLY better name than spell points. :) But we don't need Resonance as a name for item slots. Just say you can invest 10 items per day. It doesn't need a name.
On the separate matter of bombs, I've been suggesting higher level bombs for a long time and I'm glad to see them. There are still major improvements to be made, like the splash damage being way too low, but it's a start!
Empower Bombs can then be like Sneak Attack, just bonus dice the alchemist gets to add to bombs instead of a multiplier. The Alchemist should also advance to expert, Master and Legend with bombs. Obviously this being for a bomb focused Alchemist; as I've suggested before, I would still like to see each class pick a path like the druid etc, with the Alchemist having a bomb path sure but also a mutagen path etc. :)
The rules both in the bombs section and the glossary say that "bombs are thrown instead of activated." So if you draw two bombs with Quick Bomber, you should be able to throw one bomb with your second action an the other bomb with your third action. No separate action is required to prepare them once they are in hand.
(Good thing too, because they don't even match up to cantrips, let alone spells; being able to toss as many as you can draw as fast as you can draw them is the only way for them to be viable.)
I see no problem with air bursts. Area attacks have lower damage than single target attacks of the same level, so it's not exactly an optimal solution, just making the best of what they have. And if a clever player or opponent manages to make use of an area spell in a smart way that avoids blowing themselves and their allies up with the enemy, that's great.
Whatever happened with the physical map, you weren't wrong. I just zoomed in on the PDF and each of those tiles is actually 4 squares. So there is actually enough room for everything in the electronic version of the map.
I thought the magic items on the table were always the minimum quality for their effect. So the +2 on the table WOULD be expert. The +3 however comes with Master because you have to have a Master item to accept a +3 bonus.