That's very fair. I guess for me I'm just so happy it exists and is reachable via archetyping, albeit get late game, that I'm not going to complain. But yes it would be a better fit on other classes.
Search Posts
Very cool to get an answer, no matter how we get it imo. Thank you, Maya. Man I'm so worried about you already haha, people are going to be hounding you non stop I think. But I love your vibe so far!
Personally I'm fine with the power curve. I don't think it should be in line with a fully property runes up weapon. But all those situations where you wish you had a backup weapon or you ran out of arrows, needed a light weapon, whatever, it's perfect. I've wanted a feat like this forever. To me, being prepared for situations is better than being stronger in some (even most) situations.
Just wanted to say that I really, really hope osteo armaments makes the cut into the final game. It's exactly what I've wanted for options like mind smith. Not only do I hope it stays in the game, but that this kind of feat (easier access to backup weapons) becomes the norm. It's not going to be superior to a fully runed up weapon, but when it comes up you'll be so happy you have the option to create a new weapon right then and there.
It's a slippery slope for developers to start answering questions, I don't blame them in the least for not being active. Answering one question (especially in a text format where meaning doesn't always go through perfectly) can lead to the same tantrum throwers wanting further explanation or just outrage at the answer. The mindset of throwing tantrums every time you can't get an answer to a specific question is crazy to me, especially when it's directed at the people who make the game we love. We've already had developers quit (I don't know for sure but being underpaid and overworked is probably part of why), adding extra workload and stress to the equation is a formula for a revolving door of developers. I hope people take it easy on Maya too. If they do answer a question or two, floodgates are going to open and they might get hounded by people non-stop.
Yeah I'm not much of a debater but as is, I firmly believe the class does too much single target damage. Keeping in mind you can pre-set runes, the action compression options available, and the current damage output of classes, I just don't see 20d6 runes happening. Maybe, maaaybe if the three main damage runes are the only ones we ever get since they only get you three damage types all against the same save, but I doubt it even then. I know developers want to be hands off while the playtest runs, but in this case I do hope a dev intervenes if the damage is a mistake. People get real attached to nuclear builds.
Personally I hope that runesmith single target damage is reined in and class gets more diverse. More damage types, saves to target, area options, less restricting hand issues, etc.
Personally I hope not, I might be in the vocal minority (that's not a thing) but I like kineticist the way it is. Changing kinetic blasts to act as strikes or other impulses to act as spells would be messy in the way it interacts with other feats. I'm glad we haven't gotten any promises to that effect, sounds like just wishful thinking from people as of now.
I think it's about how Kineticist interacts, or doesn't, with Mythic rules.I probably shouldn't open this can of worms but you keep mentioning this kineticist errata. What errata are you expecting? As far as I know, there isn't really anything that needs errata Ah so not errata for kineticist but errata for mythic rules. Yeah that would be nice. I didn't see that promised anywhere, I'm glad they're looking into it
I probably shouldn't open this can of worms but you keep mentioning this kineticist errata. What errata are you expecting? As far as I know, there isn't really anything that needs errata
I definitely understand (and like) the class as it is now, with different traditions mixed with runes. But yeah I can't help but feel like arcane needs it, needs more niches. And as others have noted, previous rune stuff has arcanes fingerprints all over it.
I didn't even think about runelords, that's another really good point.
I know that magical traditions are a pretty major talking point for some people, and I am far from an expert. But I was thinking about the traditions today when it dawned on me that the arcane tradition kind of gets the short end of the stick. The least amount of unique spells (while having the most spells in general, I know), dragon got taken away from being a more arcane thing, and just mostly kind of bland, imo. What if runesmith was only arcane? Runes just scream arcane to me, all about the study, the language of magic. It's like magic science in my brain. Am I blaspheming of do others feel the same?
Anyone else get the feeling the damage scaling is supposed to be every 2 spell ranks, not levels? Like there was maybe some mixup when developing the class. Honestly each rune doing 10d6 at level 20 seems sort of okay, to me
It works, but as I said above I don't think it yields anywhere near 'twice the output' of a fighter - not even one just using two actions to strike. Just wanted to note that the invoke rune action just activates the invocation effect of any number of runes within 30 feet. So you could invoke two runes that are on a single creature and one on yourself for one action. I think some people are (imo) exaggerating a bit, but the damage is too high I think.
I definitely like the idea of backup runic enhancement, but once per day is a little meek. Good at first level for sure, but I hope we get a later feat to have it be castable at will on weapons you hold/your body. I mean necromancer, of all classes, can do it at will on any weapon they hold, one at a time. If any class should get that kind of ability, I would hope it would be runesmith. I would also love a mystic armor option as well, for the unarmored runic tattoo trope.
So immediately getting into the class (which is wicked) I was picturing a tattoo laden runesmith. But upon reading some of the feats, there are some issues. It might be intended, but there's no action compression feats for unarmed. It might be intentional, but I would love some kind of compression there. Also there are a few things that are specific to weapons that probably shouldn't be. Runic optimization specifies it only works with weapons (the main reason for this post, really), and elemental revision only works on an unattended item or held by a willing creature, not worn like hand wraps.
I was thinking the other day about a body modification style book. Would be right up my alley. Some brainstorm ideas; Class - shifter (with subclasses for beasts, mutant, and machine stuff) Class archetypes - prosthetic innovation inventor, synthesist summoner Archetypes - mutagenist, polymorph/morph archetype (a là captivator), graftcrafter, mutant, tattoo master, experimental pet (comes with aberration pet subject) Pets - mutants and aberrations Items - grafts, mutagens, tattoos, nectografts, elemental grafts, prosthetics,
I didn't have a lot of interest in shifter until I saw the adaptive shifter archetype in 1e. I hope, if we do get shifter, that we get something closer to morphs like that then full battle forms.
Not going to lie I'm a little salty that the thing I've wanted most in pf2e (being able to apply runes directly to your character to empower unarmed attacks or unarmored ac) is tied to a rare class that I don't really vibe with. The monkeys paw curls. Animist is a really cool class and the class archetypes are great. Bloodrager is an awesome new take on the class. Again a little salty that seneschal witch is the only class archetype that's rare and maybe the one I was most looking forward to playing, but such is the rarity system.
I'm mostly okay with uncommon stuff, with the exception of ap back matter (from a different AP than the one I would be gming). Any common options I'll allow, though some I'll ask if the player wouldn't mind picking something else if it makes a lot of work for me (dubious knowledge, investigator, etc). If they really do want to use the common option, I will allow it. I do tend to see how pfs handles things and adopt that stance in games I run, but also characters I play. It feels a lot safer to me to build and get hyped for a character that should be allowed at any table without having to hope they'll allow a specific option. Personally I would be really annoyed if I built a character using only common options and someone disallowed it because they found it overpowered or something. Feels really stupid that we have this rarity system in place, and then people go out of their way to ban even more than that. Pick one, having both is dumb.
Just wanted to note that being large doesn't automatically give you ten foot reach, I'm pretty sure. So if that's the main reason you wanted to be an awakened animal you might want something else.
I looove the idea for seneschal. Was always weird to me that a witch was always dependent on their patron, even all the way to 20th level. If I ever make a witch (I had no interest before)it will likely be with that archetype.
Personally very happy to see class archetypes come into play. They could be an great implementation for a lot of reasons. Making more and more classes means that extra feats per class get stretched very thin. Look at how many core classes get extra feats from aps, lost omens, or other books compared to more niche classes like inventor or thaumaturge. Adding vindicator to ranger means not only do you have less classes to make specific feat support for, but you also have a pretty hefty backlog of feats already available. It saves space in other ways too, not having to add in all the regular text that have to be added to every class. Just pick the things you want to change up and you're golden. As pf2e matures, concepts people pine for get more and more narrow. Not to overly simplify as I know there are some with pretty radical wishes, but a lot of character concepts people want are simple things like 'magus but primal list' or 'kineticist but Shadow' or what have you. The class archetypes in this upcoming book are perfect examples of that sort of wish coming to fruition, with extra paizo flair to make them stand out even more than just 'ranger but divine'.
Damn, all of these sound wicked. I'm especially happy for my good friend who's favorite 1e class is Inquisitor, both the vindicator and avenger sound right up his alley. And bloodrager sounds perfect; can cast spells while raging and get to add damage to them?! Sign me up. Would anyone remind me (if it's been teased already) what other class archetypes are to come in this book?
I feel like there are a ton of people taking remaster to mean a PC/PC2 style rework of the book. Those people are going to be disappointed I think. I hope people aren't upset when it comes out and few things changed.
Main thing I hope for for inventor is to be able to change the material your innovation is. For an inventory to not be able to make their weapon adamantium is so silly to me, for example.
Aww man that's the same time as gencon keynote isn't it? Dannnng
I do hope that there's a clarification on deadly working with bestial mutagen. Raw you still need hand wraps to increase the number of extra damage dice you deal on a crit since it's dependent on striking runes.
A big part of why people want pc3 is because paizo has done such a good job not only with adapting classes for the remaster, but touching up classes to make them more enjoyable to play. In my mind, that is why people want pc3. Lots of people have their favorite class not in the core/core 2 list, and the idea that the issues they have with their class could possibly be fixed (or they just straight up get new toys) is a big reason to want them updated.
Intercept strike getting a bit of movement was my biggest hope! That's awesome. Very excited for the final version! Thanks you Jason
I cancelled my subscription for this month (timing issues mostly) but I think that's pretty lame we were only told a few minutes ago PDFs weren't going out early with physical copies. I'm sure that's part of the reason some people wanted it
Will PDFs be going out for starfinder playtest when the physical books ship? There's some chatter amongst subs that might not be the case
I liked the old oracle but I also think these new mechanics have a lot of potential. I like it a lot. Cursebound reminds me of burn. Stacking detrimental condition gained by powering up abilities or cheating action economy, some abilities get stronger the higher your cursebound condition is.
Welp I'm out at this point. Whatever works for your game, but I hope I don't get stuck with a GM that doesn't simply use avoid notice out of combat and roll stealth for initiative if there's a potential combatant around. Seems so cut and dry to me, a lot of stuff in his thread is needlessly complicated imo.
So is this disagreement about searching and avoiding notice, who is the active roller and what goes against whos DC? And are we in an encounter just because this moment of tension happened? Somewhat, yes. The thread has evolved a bit since it's beginning, but the main question was if I hide out of combat with no enemies around, and an enemy passes by, what happens. If the enemy doesn't search, is there no roll involved at all? And personally I think that rai if potential combatants meet, initiative should be rolled. If the hider wins initiative (and beat the enemies perception dc) they're hidden, so you're free to sneak away, continue hiding until the guard leaves, whatever. Otherwise things get complicated and house ruley.
I'm saying there is no text for searching for creatures because you're always looking for creatures. It's represented by rolling perception for initiative. If the only way to find stealther creatures is the search exploration activity, that's way better than any other option (especially since it includes looking for traps and secret stuff).
This is the first time in a while the rules seem so obviously cut and dry to me and it feels like most people in this thread are crazy pants. In exploration mode, you roll stealth vs initiative. If the stealther wins, they're hidden and begin their round as such. If more enemies enter the combat at later times, they roll initiative just like they would have at the start of the encounter. The only thing the search exploration activity does is find traps and doors and such. You don't need to be searching to spot a stealthing enemy, that's what initiative is for.
One thing that most people might be missing is that the exploration activity 'searching' says nothing about hidden creatures. It is only for hidden doors, traps, objects and such. As others have said, hide is not an exploration activity, and neither is seek. If someone if hiding and an onlooker would come nearby, you'd roll perception vs stealth for initiative.
Yeah there are a lot of holes in that. For instance, your hide roll doesn't matter. A level -1 goblin could roll negative 50 if they hid when no one is around, and a level 20 ranger who is stealthing themselves or following tracks would walk right past. That's dumb.
This, to me is the right answer. Any time there could be a hostile enemy, initiative needs to be rolled. If you were to flip the op's hidden character into an enemy and the seeker into pcs, it's easy to see why.
I mean, Conceal Spell is a thing that could be easily added to ETs. But even then, one of the most common complaints about ET was that the subclass was seemingly built around dealing sneak attack with spells which wasn't worth it because your spell proficiency lagged way behind your martial proficiency, so the most optimal way to play an ET was to use those spells for support or buffs making Magical Trickster kind of a trap option. Paizo could easily switch stuff around to make it work in the other way; using a spell on someone leaves them off-guard against your attacks similar to how most rackets allow to target off-guard more easily. In the long run ETs would have the same problem they currently do because spells would become very unreliable, but it would allow for a playstyle in which rogues would go for an attack + a MAP-less spells as part of their rotation. Even conceal spell, raw, doesn't work well with the hide action. The only things you can do are step, sneak, hide, or make a strike. Some gms may rule have rules otherwise for spells that are concealed but raw, casting spells after hiding doesn't make your foe flat footed to the spell attack.
My guess is that it could be because of how casting spells doesn't interact well with being hidden. I wouldn't be surprised if players were frustrated they couldn't hide - cast cantrip and the enemy be flat footed to them. Adding more rules text to fix that issue would take up even more space so it was nixed. Just my theory
That's awesome and thank you for sharing. Hopefully that makes you feel a bit better too, Zoken. I really think some people in this thread could do with a lot less 'mmm sounds like blank' instead of yes and-ing some more fun concepts.
For what it's worth, Zoken, I've wished for (I think?) a similar thing to what you're proposing. Something similar to a monk in style, but instead of punching things they hurl ki blasts and such. Monk having a bunch of (really cool) focus spells based off of qi is great, but I would love to have a class that is closer to a caster with Qi as it's focus, though maybe not with actual spells (a la kineticist/thaum as you say). That concept doesn't really work with a monk, Qi spells supplement the rest of what the class can do but even if your sole focus of your build is Qi stuff, you're still going to need to do other monk stuff. That being said I can see where others are coming from in that it's a pretty niche desire, even if I agree with you that there are too many people here that tend to shoot down ideas too quickly.
I could see shifter as a mix between the build a bear-ness of an eidolon and the branching out and picking of themes (and ideally at will-ness) of kineticist. A shifter could pick the type of creature they can change their body into, then at later levels add in more creature types. At the beginning of the game you might pick aberration and be able to grow tentacles or turn into ooze, then at level 5 or what have you, you branch out into angels and can grow wings or a halo. Just full on chimera in the craziest ways.
While I would love the geniekin consolidated into one versatile heritage, talos and ardande being published in RoE makes that a little wonky since RoE is ORC ready already. Otherwise I would love a single heritage for them all. Personally I would like to eventually have most major types of creatures depicted with an ancestry and a versatile heritage. Animal - Awakened animal for ancestry, beastkin for heritage. Plant - leshy, conrasu, ghoran for ancestry, maybe an argument could be make for ardande for heritage but I think it could use its own. Undead - Skele (and a bunch of options from book of the dead but not sure where to put those) for ancestry and dhampir for heritage. Elemental - I would love a straight up elemental ancestry, and we have all the geniekin for heritages. Dragon - A dragon ancestry would be cool (an official, 1st party), and we have dragon blood heritage on the way. Divine - I'm not super sure if we have a pure divine ancestry really? Maybe something upcoming, not sure. But we have nephilim for heritage, as well as ghanzi, aphorite, and duskwalker. Giant - Now that large ancestries are a thing, yeah it would be cool to have both an ancestry and heritage for this category. Aberration - Fleshwarps for ancestry, and count me in for wanting a heritage for Fleshwarp as well. Construct - Android, automaton, and poppet for ancestries. I kind of feel like android would have been better as a heritage but oh well, yeah we need a heritage here. Fey - Gnomes and sprites for ancestry, no real heritages. Shadow - we have kayal, but would be cool to have a shadow heritage. I feel like that's most of them, though arguments could be made for other creature types. But those are my main hopes.
I know this is a thread for classes, but I would love a set of archetypes modeled after a remastered version of captivator. An archetype that gives slightly better progression than a multi class caster archetype but is limited to spells with certain traits. I imagine a remastered captivator will be limited to illusion and mental spells. I could see a similar archetype being based around detection, prediction, and fortune, another based around summons, another around polymorph and morph, etc.
Only thing said was that Wrestler was being added to the archetypes in PC2, and some archetypes would not be coming back due to the OGL stuff (Dragon Disciple being confirmed on Discord as one of the said archetypes). Aww man no dragon disciple? That's too bad. Hopefully we get something cool in it's place. Maybe with some archetypes being removed there is a chance for captivator and such at least.
I've heard that wrestler is going to make it into this book (yay!) and was wondering if captivator and/or spell trickster were also in the running or if wrestler was the only extra archetype added from the og apg? I remember hearing a while ago that those three archetypes were originally slated to be in the apg but had to be cut for space and so ended up in grand bazaar. I really like captivator but with spell schools gone it needs a remaster update. If not in apg then hopefully an errata. |