HeshKadesh's page

There is no benefit stated for taking multiple of the same Ability. If you take Fast Movement twice, you don't get two speeds increased to 40ft, you use two options that provide the same benefit to the familiar.

Starlit span Bow Magus for the martial abilities it brings and ability to just make those attacks hit home; the prepared casting is nice, even if limited for when you want utility.

I'm starting playing in a non-Free Archetype game soon, and have decided on a Hold-scarred Orc for 12HP with a Plant Eidolon, starting at level 1.

Is it better to invest in Grapple or Trip? I'm still awaiting feedback on what the rest of the party chooses and I'm not overly invested in anyone in particular so if they choose trip I'll go grapple and vice versa.

I'm leaning on a personal level towards Trip; it can be used with Tendril Strike, Reflex tends to be easier to target, and Weighty Impact is available at 10th while the
Grasping Limbs needs 12th, clashing with Towering Size so one will need deferring until 12th. I'll need to choose whether to delay but open to suggestions as to investing instead on Grapple also. If I do go Grapple, I'm assuming Large with Gran is better than simply Huge with Grapple?

Also, I'm not exactly sold on any of the Level 1 or 2 feats; they kinda feel just "there" making up space rather than significantly contributing, but also happy to be proven wrong.
- Alacritous Action is nice I guess to put itself front and centre and earn flanks for the rest of the party.
- I don't know what enemies we're facing to know if Energy Heart is useful.
- Extend Boost, just generically nice for action econ
- Ranged Combatant - I'm going for reach; I'll probably get more out of increased movement, otherwise I'd find a different creature to be a ranged turret.
- Expanded Senses - Being able to see is nice if it's dark, but again, just feels a bit feat taxy when I'm one of the few characters with enough limbs to just carry a torch.
- Magical Understudy - I like that I get more than 5 spells known eventually, but all my feats are largely spoken for until 14th, and I'm not sure if there are primal cantrips to make it worthwhile until then as they have to defensive or utility. Glass Shield and Guidance maybe?

Feat Progression is 2nd (Open), 4th Shrink Down, 6th Eidolon's Opportunity, 8th Hulking Size, 10th (Trip Feat/Open), 12th Towering Size, 14th (Open/Grasping Limbs).

Given I have limited opportunity to expand further than the dedication, are there some decent other feats? Sentinel > Armor Prof, then dump Dex and invest instead in support skills?

Thanks!

There are two things which are needed to rectify the Gish-Necro. Bind Heroic Spirit needs to be available sooner, so that you can scale it, and the minions need to be able to aid so that they're not adding to your MAP.

Focus 3; +1 Status, Free Thrall on Crit
Focus 6; +2 Status, Free Thrall on a Hit
Focus 9; +3 Status, Free Thrall on a non-Crit Miss.

I'm just hoping it's a totally-not-incarnum, whatever it is.

BookBird wrote:

Is this the same as the Infernal Dragon from 1e's Bestiary 6? If so, is there a possibility that the rest of the planar dragons might make an appearance eventually? I'd be over the moon for an Edict dragon. If not, is the Infernal still canon, or has it been written out to make room for this new one?

CorvusMask wrote:

...Wait so what about infernal dragons?

Is this literally just planar dragon infernal dragon renamed for some reason or did paizo accidentally come up with same dragon twice?

While the two are similar, they are meant to exist as separate entities. Hell is a place all about hierarchy and order, so look forward to see where diabolical and infernal dragons fall within that structure.

Due to very limited space with 1E's Bestiary 6, there wasn't really a good chance to explore the stories of infernal dragons, which might be contributing to why they feel so similar at the moment. (Mind, there are a lot of similarities, since both dragons are derived from Hell!) If and when we get a chance to bring infernal dragons over to 2E, we'll be making sure that both dragons have their roles obviously carved out.

Are any dragons being cut from this content/not making a first pass through of the dragons already released to 2e? And are there going to be relevant sorcerous origins - i.e if I want to emulate a primal dragon, say a Cloud Dragon, am I going to have abilities appropriate to that?

Thank you, I've passed this to the DM as it seems a little uncharacteristic he gave use a challenge that we could simply take downtime and spam Remove Curse on.

Out of personal interest though now, what options are there for booting the Counteract modifier, and is it a skill check that Aid can assist with?

Hi guys, hope you can help. Finished a session this evening, where we've been hit by some bad news regarding a friend of the party and quest-giver; an Adult Cloud Dragon aided us about 6 in-game months ago in a battle against a Cairn Linnorm.

He dealt the final blow, and became subject to its Death Curse; as well being Enfeebled 2, it ages supernaturally fast, aging a year for every day that passes. It has been a great source of joy to us and he that this has resulted in him gaining immense power as he is now considered Ancient, although a weakened one, due to the nature of the curse and how quickly it has occured rather than naturally.

We sought out stories on how to reverse the Death Curse of Linnorm's and found ourselves investigating a Dragon Boneyard; where we learned that Dragons are not immortal dying only to battle or illness, that they can die to Old Age; with either Dracolichdom or Ascendancy being the two options if unable to Cure.

Ascendancy is a bit of a non-starter the horde is too small and to the time it would take to get there is too time intensive. Dracolichdom is a no go; this leaves us Remove Curse.

We've worked out that we have to hit +34 on the counteract for Remove Curse to Crit Succeed with an 8th level spell.

I get 8ths next level, but am struggling with the bonus. As a master caster with 20 Wis, I'm at +26.

1. Does Aid work with counteract if I have another Master Caster for +3?
2. Are you aware of any +2 or +3 bonuses for untyped, item or status for Counteract I can make use of?

This can get me to +34, and then as long as I have enough supplies take some weeks out to cure him.

Thanks

This thread becomes too confused so let's go back and ask you to concept of hostile action since from beginning?.

If a caster becomes invisible (spell lvl 2) and starts to heal his allies is hostile or not?

How could you differ that healing his allies as hostile intentions (allowing your party to keep fighting) from just keeping them alive? Remembering that other players action is out of your control

There are some who believe that experiencing sensory feedback (seeing things while Invisible) is considered a hostile action so I dont think you're going to get much of a conclusive response here.

As for those worrying about being invisible with an immortal companion being too broken, you dont need to be invisible, just be distant, take appropriate feat and have party members slam healing potions/spells/medicine into you whole you solo your Eidolon through dungeons.

Bleakwind, [Air] Stave: Evocation, Primal/Arcane/Elementalist lists
Cantrip: Gale Blast
1st, Gust of Wind x2
2nd, Elemental Zone (Air only) x2
3rd, Unseasonable Squall, Wall of Wind
4th, Elemental Gift (Air only), Elemental Zone (Air only)
5th, Unseasonable Squall, Wall of Wind
6th, Elemental Zone (Air only)
7th: Gust of Wind, Wall of Wind
8th: Whirlwind, Punishing Winds

Some of the spells appear to be missing from the OP's document, as some spells can get variable traits based on decisions made when casting: by defining those decisions, this widens the eligibility also for various spells: in particular the elemental spells which are often thse same spell with 4 or more options to choose from - whether is conjuration or transmutations.

Worth bearing in mind that some spells listed are Uncommon, but as you need to consult the DM to craft it in any case, and they fit the theme, it was a very reasonable assunptikn to include.

This exanple above is a little schizophrenic: it is mostly a battlefield control staff for a Storm Order Druid, but works I think reasonably well for a Magus, which can get access to Whirlwind if you took elementalist dedication.

And how would you determine if the summoner commanded it? Let the DM pick the targets? Let the DM run the eidolon? How do you go about that within the rules text?

Ask the player.

If your concern is the player taking the most powerful option for cheesing the game, then why are you playing with them, and introduce specific examples or make a ruling call as a DM as to whether something was instructed, mentally or otherwise, or whether it was a tactic that the eidolon used themselves.

This is not about flavor roleplay text. Within the rules text the eidolon and summoner share actions. When the eidolon acts the summoner is acting and vice versa. Act Together is a tandem action.

Yes. And Act Together specifies what it does: 'Either you or your eidolon takes an action or activity using the same number of actions as Act Together, and the other takes a single action'.

Just so we're clear, this is what Act Together says. None of that alludes to what you are suggesting, though? The Eidolon (another creature, with its own statblock) takes an action, the Summoner takes 1-3 actions or vice versa.

The Eidolon is a different Creature from the Summoner, and its actions are its own, regardless of where that action was granted. A spellcaster that casts haste on another creature, and then gets Invisibility'd wouldn't lose Invis when the other creature acts hostile. Nothibg in act togrther or tandem stats outright that it's the Summoner.

Your argument is based on the predication that the Eidolon is entitely under the instruction of the Spellcaster, and yet that is blatantly not true.

You could let the GM run the eidolon and I could see a GM allowing the claim of independence in regard to hostile actions. I would allow that if I chose the targets and played...

Why would you limit independence to GM control? If you cannot trust players, or your players are going to cheese the best possible result for them all the time, unfortunately that is the cost of playing RPG's with defined rulesets, but wishing othereise doesnt make it mahically RAW.

If invisibility is broken on the Summoner because the eidolon's actions are actually the Summoners actions, then just Invis the Eidolon because they are never taking a hostile action themselves. Seems like a logical extrapolation of the arguments for losing invis so far.

For those who state that opening a door to intentionally release a monster is considered a hostile action, I like to point out that is not actually RAW, rather it is inferred from that unintentionally releasing is RAW non-hostile.

I do not dispute the premise that releasing a monster intentionally, whether mundanely or magically with the intent to do harm is hostile, the creatures actions are the creatures action, s, but there is a difference between Rukes as Written' and there being no actual writing which says that 'intentionally releasing a monster to do harm is hostile'.

The class description makes it clear the eidolon is its own creature; that you Share MAP and Action Enconomy is different from the creatures actual actions: the Summoner would not trigger opportunity attacks if the Eidolon triggered it despite the shared actions for ex. If you specifically instruct the Eidolon to take action, that breaks the Summoners invis, but if the eidolon indepently selects? Then no.

That said, you might be invisible, but you also have a big glowy sigil that points out wherever you are, obviating much of the benefits of invisibility anyway, regardless of how this is ruled.

I'd like to try and use Expansive Strike to go into melee combat as a tank, attract enemies around me, and then pop off a great big fireball or something, but there doesn't seem to be a way to protect my allies short of;
- Using Spells which Target their Strongest Saves
- Using Spells which they Resist Damage types of
- Asking them to simply stay out of range
- Not using big AoE spells when they are nearby.

Now, while this seems like a fair amount of options available, I'm not sure if I'm missing anything about if there is a way to otherwise protect them? I also not that particularly fond if the answer is "choose a different spell to cast" - in a class with only 4 spell slots and likely a defined theme around said spells, this only punishes them.

Thinking about it (not played a caster, and not played alongside Blaster Casters yet), are there any other ways of including allies in AoE spells without hurting them even if I can't Spellstrike+Metamagic with it?

Just noticed this while trying to make an Elementalist Magus summoning Tornado's with their Expansive Spellstrike.

Now, with Whirlwind being a 3 Action spell it won't work with Spellstrike (sad face), but I spotted that it didn't have any specification as to what kind of area it is, only that is was a 15-food radius, 80-foot tall Cylinder.

Cylinder is not mentioned to my knowledge within the Core Book as an area type on page 456-457 (despite a number of spells, like Flame Strike, Punishing Winds, Reverse Gravity, Volcanic Eruption in the same book having these wordings). The CRB lists these types of areas in a way that makes them appear as the 4 finite ways of describing area, so how are Cylinder's represented, as without being either Burst, Cone, Line or Emanation, it is effectively non-targetable.

For reference, I'd houserule it as a Burst, with the exception of the vertical aspect raising to the height of the cylinder, rather than hemispherically upwards. Am I correct in this, or are there rules I've not got that clarify?

How/When is the highest damage from multiple sources of the same Persistent Damage Calculated?

Do you just roll all of the same damage type persists at the same time? We couldn't get a clear answer last night: our Fighters new Flaming Rune dealt a Crit in the radius of the Flames Oracle's Incendiary Aura against an opponent who had Fire Reisst 5.

Incendiary Aura ignite rolled 9 damage, which was lowered to 4. The Fighter asked if he could roll the 1d10 Flaming Rune Crit, and on double checking couldn't find anything to help us determine it. Table ruled for 'yes' which was beneficial: although he only rolled a 6, the resist bypass meant it dealt more damage.

Hence the question: do you roll damage for each source of Persistent damage, choosing the highest of each unique Persistent damage type, is there another way to determine?

Thanks!

HeshKadesh wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

HeshKadesh wrote:

what kind of character is expected to make use of this?

Probably a class that doesn't normally have those proficiencies, like a high Strength Wizard wanting to wield a Bastard Sword.

A High Strength Bastard Sword Wizard can definitely make use of it. No-one is doubting that, but for there to be no benefit other than dead level feat taxing Improved Knockdown for none Fighter Martials is rather ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous?

Spend a feat on practically nothing if you're already taking a baseline build in it is ridiculous.

We've advanced from 2nd to 6th level in 4 months of gameplay. Spending 3-4 months with no additional benefits is ridiculous.

You're having to build contra to the Mauler's archetype benefit to get the most out of it, which is such an insane design choice. Being unable to effectively wield a 2HW in combat until you take the Dedication is a very strange decision they made.

HeshKadesh wrote:

what kind of character is expected to make use of this?

Probably a class that doesn't normally have those proficiencies, like a high Strength Wizard wanting to wield a Bastard Sword.

A High Strength Bastard Sword Wizard can definitely make use of it. No-one is doubting that, but for there to be no benefit other than dead level feat taxing Improved Knockdown for none Fighter Martials is rather ridiculous.

I'm in a game where one of my players is considering a 6th level feat. After a bit of discussion, Mauler dedication came up, but on looking at in more depth, what kind of character is expected to make use of this?

The only really interesting feat is Improved Knockdown, and the dedication benefits duplicate the effects of pretty much every primary martial - only Monk and Ranger don't, and they benefit most from Agile weapons.

For example, a Barbarian Mauler is two thematic names, and yet the only thing it does is give early access for Knockdown (4th) in exchange for a dead feat (2nd; Dedication does nothing until you're Expert - which you get at 5th, except Brutality grants you Crit Spec anyway.

I don't particularly care much for the idea of bringing a bow in, Xbiws aren't well supported so this could be there time to shine.

Long with the name change, divorcing the 'Uncommon' class from its 'Uncommom' features would be preferable.

Something like a Desperado could fit?

The issue is that the Gunslinger is a bit of a sacred cow name that does its own marketing to casuals regardless of how accurate thst is.

To be fair, gunslingers don't have any way to actually generate bombs outside of downtime crafting, just the ability to achieve some good proficiency and a couple of feats that can make unique use of them.

Very fair: although I guess that makes it especially egregious that the actual Bomber class is wallowing so far behind a class who has so little other support.

I agree that adding a Strike would reduce the Action Cost, but it's still a bit cof a weak feat, especially when Reloading Strike is pretty much a requisite for all Deeds at that level.

Two thoughts: having it scale with Medicine so that: perhaps Expert Medicine auto succeeds, and Master/Legendary could even get you a small amount of Temp HP for a short duration, as the 'pain' of the Cauterization offsets that pain of a monsters attacks.

Alternatively it forms the basis of a crafting skill based 'Natural Medicine': however it would need to specifically qualify (even if one Prof less) for Medicine prerequisites so it remains useful.

So, Gunslinger gets access to Bombs and uses them better than Alchemist. It's not a problem they have such effectiveness but why an Alchemist of all classes doesn't have martial proficiency scaling at the least with Bombs is now just embarrassing.

That the Gunslinger muscles in on Fighter's Legendary Proficiency 'niche' is not a bad thing, but it is an unacknowledged change of pace from the typically under-proficient playtest offerings. If it is intended to bring the bell curve closer to fighter, please don't forget to add support for other classes to at least get access to that Legendary Proficiency that Weapon Expertises tease at - the Monk esoecially, who could at least get justification for Legendary Unarmed.

Uncommon Class. I really dislike that that this class is limited to being Uncommon. I get why: it is all about firearms. However, as the Firearms themselves are uncommon, this, and only the feats that relate only to firearms should be uncommon. I inventor, sure. That is something that could definitely be uncommon, but a class that is functional without firearms shouldn't be made uncommon simply for those purposes.

Dual Wielding seems the red headed stepchild. There is no way I can see to reload your pistols with dropping one immediately after firing it. I completely understand the aesthetics of trying to juggle full hands reloads, but Reloading Strike allows this for 1H+Pistol, and a Legendary Pistolier who can't reload his guns without dropping it is just going to feel awful to play.

The Drifter: by far my favourite Deed, and immediately after a playthrough of a Pistol Shooting Katana using Cyberpunk character, that capstone is right up my ally. Small issue is that the capstone doesn't allow you to reload during the action. This limits the support you gain from feats like Sword and Pistol, which are the basis of your Fighting Style: sure, you get to strike 3 opponents, but only one with a pistol. Those 3 opponents (1 Pistol, 2 sword) then trigger sword and pistol: but you can only make use of that effectively with Drifters Wake again, but you can only ever now make melee strikes, so only get one opponent to benefit from it. Drifters Wake at least should reload the firearm, if not allow you to make an interact to reload once or more. It is especially disappointing for Drifters Wake to be left behind by the fan the hammer style gameplay of Dance of Thunder - available the level before - except again, the Dual Wield aspect of the Drifter is outclassed by pistol/Unarmed.

Perfect Readiness - Snipers should get the ability to Interact for Unsteady Weapons.

Tripod: as above for Perfect Readiness, but there needs to be more information on what it takes to change aspects about the tripod. There is nothing that makes it 'not set up', and there are no limitations on its use while set up. You might as well set it up during prep, and never change it.

I hope that there are some runes or at least Talismans which can turn reload 1 into reload 0.

Also, one thing kind of interests me is in make a 'pet class' that makes use of traps and similar. Films like 'Shooter' or 'Day of the Jackal', and numerous other sources of games, ranging from unmanned Warhammer Space Marine Tarantula turrets, Runescape Dwarven Cannons, or Path of Exile various Ballista Totems have been fond memories. I can only hope that some use of this is considered as another Deed, way of the Sentry, or similar, who capstone could end up as being able to release some autonomous Siege Ballista. Hopes and dreams.

There also appears to be a lack of 'Tacticooling' your gun. Yes, I do want a torch that I can blind enemies with, or perhaps I do want a crystalline sight that gives Darkvision and when aimed down increases the range increment distance. Yes, I do want picatinny rails that allow me to attach a bayonet or an underslung bomb launcher/shotgun/flame thrower. Yes, a Silencer would be incredible to allow a weaker/non guaranteed Ghost Shot effect. Yes I do want to tinker, and learn how to make a Magazine so that I can fire 3-6 shots without reloading. Yes, I do want to pick up Mastercrafted Percussion caps which reduces the effect of a misfire to only a failure (e.g with Glancing Shot feat etc)

It would be nice if there was possible interaction for feats outside the class: can a familiar help reload your gun? Are there going to be way to support Swashbuckling Panache: perhaps by using one kf the Deed feats, I'd gain panache. Unfortunately the action economy would curtail my enjoyment of making a Scimitar and Pistol pirate.

I know one of the guys I play with is going to be playing a Fighter and making use of the Firearms.

I have to say that I am much more positive about the Gunslinger than I was either Magus or Summoner. They seem less mechanically broken and none functional (dual wield pistols aside) than those play tests, and I do like that there is an Xbow using variant options - although, I would be very happy to See Uncommon removed from the class as above, and have the firearm only aspects made uncommon.

Primeval Mistletoe will provide an item bonus to Nature, but I think that zero chance of failure is not going to happen, as intended.

That's a bit of a shame - rereading Primeval Mistletoe (sadly, the +1 Item bonus on the normal does nothing due to the +2 Item of the Druid's Vestments), it appears to change from a +1 Item Bonus to a +2 Untyped Bonus.

Am I reading that correctly?

Are there any Item, Status or other untyped Bonuses Nature and Wisdom? I'm trying to get a guaranteed success for Control Weather (DC43) - potentially even guaranteed Crit (DC53), but I'm currently capping out at (Expectedly - I'm only level 12) +34 at level 18;

Legendary Proficiency
20 Int//22 Wis, including Apex Items
Ritualist Dedication = +2 Circumstance to Primary (Nature)
Druid's Vestments = +2 Item to Nature
Voyager's Pack = +3 Untyped to Survival

Currently, I've got a 35% Chance of Failure, and only a 15% Chance of Critical Success, which I'm not too happy about.

I've taken some roleplay abilities which might help me learn of suitable places on which I can summon my Tornados from (Skill Feats; Terrain Expertise, Consult the Spirits, Influence Nature, and Commune with Nature Ritual), but they may not be reliable or quick (despite the 4hour cast time).

Any help's appreciated :)

Sorry guys, I don't have faith that you can pull this off.

I really dislike the design departures and have no confidence in your release of the post playtest notes, and the fact that you have both confirmed that you have no real support for it (60% in the Magus playtest disliked it, and "plurality" in the Summoner) and are still going ahead with it just strikes me quite frankly as non-sensical.

A Magus who cannot Spellstrike often, and a Summoner who cannot effectively summon in combat are the logical results of your Aftermatch post.

Beyond disappointing.

HeshKadesh wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Samir Sardinha wrote:

Really nice! I can have skins for my eidolon! That have 0 interaction with the game, NOICCEEEE!

Multiple limbs never have any inherent interaction with the game in this edition. Eidolons are not special in this.

Please can we avoid shutting down discussions with 'just refluff it'?

It is a playtest document, and concerns of one of the playtesters/readers is that the ability to 'build a bear' is massively reduced and homogenized.

One of the issues with 5E is that everything was so homogenized, and straight jacketed from level 1-3, there was no real customization to have or manipulate later, and any discussion involving expanding mechanics was shutdown by the hordes of people clamouring for you to refluff.

That would be a concern, but you actually need to show that you can't 'build a bear'.

Beast Eidolon. Jaws Primary, Claws Secondary. Dual Studies (Athletics), Acute Senses (Scent), Climbing Evolution.

That looks like a bear to me. That has function like a bear to me. That is significantly different from the water scorpion example I had above despite using the same base.

At later levels, I could make the bear a flying, medium sized Intelligent-max spellcaster that can shoot fire out of its mouth for a ranged attack, or a Huge physically dominant melee attacker with tripping attacks. Those are very functionally different to me.

Can you push functionality as far as 1E after 9 years of splatbooks? No. Should you be able to? Hard no. But there clearly are options, and the cosmetics are even more varied than 1E at its end. And yes, that matters to some people.

Equally that 'bear' can be a treant, t-rex, mimic, and apart from the mini/token/description, and have no discernable difference outside of that.

Say if one want to create a Final Fantasy Summon Bahamut, I can do. I can do it in a number of ways to represent those abilities. But I can equally just slap a name on it, and call it Mewtwo, or a YugGiOh or a Beyblade or something, and is functionally no different.

No-one is even hyperbolically suggesting that a decade of splat material be rewritten and integrated into the base class: it is in bad faith to essentially strawman that.

There is a midpoint between here, where we currently have this Stat blob represents a Giant Centipede, Treant, Wolf, Earth Elemental, and a Mammoth, and having individual entries for every possible permutation. At the moment, there is the former, and the idea is to move further right along the scale of permutations to have more representative Stat blocks.

I am grateful to have the differentiation between Beast, Dragon, Angel and Phantom already, but would appreciate more 'worky bits' that at least would give some illusion of choice and customization, and 'feeelgood' that comes from your characters abilities actually synergising more than "oh i've got flying fire-breathing bear - or maybe dragon".

Now, P2E and DnD are entirely different games, but the one thing that was common was that there is a degree of spell slot economy.

2E seemed to have it right with the mix of spell slots and focus spells, but this new one needs more of a playtest.

Long duration fights punish these limited slot casters: half their abilities are either useless as they either need to conserve their Spellslots, or have none remaining after splurging, leaving them working as a lesser fighter. It favours a nova, and less time adventuring: the sooner a fight is over, the less risk to the party.

So, you are limited to Striking Cantrips, which I suppose is fine, but then at that stage, just be a generic Caster with better ranged cantrips and better ranged spellcasting in general.

This is rather egregious in time limited situations.

I can only hope that the playtest is serving as a point at which the designers have said 'this is intentionally low, so we know where to build it to' and doesn't encourage the mentality of posts with 'it was this low in playtest release, so stay low in full release'.

The magus with their second stat, and low progression means that they are going to going up, hitting something, using one of their rare resources and flunking it against boss types, which is when you really want your big spell slinger's to be hitting the homeruns.

Stuff like the Dragon Eidolon has poor progression on their spellcasting and therefore the breath DC, which combined with potentially awkward shaping is going to be cutting into the damage. Add in that you can't boost if you use Synthesist...

At a first glance, some options have such a number of concerns when combined together that I'd be concerned about their efficiency, and lead to annoyed players who chose that playstyle to be underwhelmed, because of undertuned numbers.

Low Spellslots matters less if you can guarantee they hit well and hit hard - sniper mentality. But if you have lots of Spellslots, and actions with which to use them, but they individually have a lesser chance of fully succeeding, it is less bad. At the moment, the Magus is stuck as low spell slots, low success, for the reduced chance of critting with spell and strike to make up for it, while a full Caster can stay at range, and launch more spells doing more damage.

Samir Sardinha wrote:

Really nice! I can have skins for my eidolon! That have 0 interaction with the game, NOICCEEEE!

Multiple limbs never have any inherent interaction with the game in this edition. Eidolons are not special in this.

Please can we avoid shutting down discussions with 'just refluff it'?

It is a playtest document, and concerns of one of the playtesters/readers is that the ability to 'build a bear' is massively reduced and homogenized.

One of the issues with 5E is that everything was so homogenized, and straight jacketed from level 1-3, there was no real customization to have or manipulate later, and any discussion involving expanding mechanics was shutdown by the hordes of people clamouring for you to refluff.

Now I feel a potato, I specifically checked that. Thanks for the prompt answer for point 1 :)

1. If Counterspell can only be triggered if a spell you know or have prepared (or in spellbook) is being cast, but this takes the same reaction required to Recognize a spell - if you do not know what spell was being cast, you can never meet the requirements for Counterspell's trigger, and if you use the reaction to Recognize, you will use the reaction you need to trigger Counterspell.

Even with Free Action Recognize's, you cannot take a Free Action when it's not your turn, so that doesn't help unfortunately.

Some have said that you automatically recognize spells that you know/have prepared/are in your spellbook, but I've not seen this rule written, but that may just be me being blind. I have however seen abilities which make it more difficult to recognise spells you are casting (Bizarre Magic etc), but if Bizarre Magic hides the actual spell being cast, it doesn't make sense that someone having a non-bizarre magic spell known can instantly recognise it either.

The below assumes that there is a way for you to recognize and counterspell;
2. What happens if you mis-recognize a spell (as per a Critical Failure), that the DM advises is a different spell?
a - Can you use your reaction to attempt to Counterspell Reaction?
b - If so, do you expend the spell slot?
c - Do you automatically fail even if you have expended the spell slot?
d - Further to c, there is no specific requirement within the Wizard Counterspell to expend a spellslot with the prepared spell within it - is this intentional?

Is this addressed in any faq/errata/other books etc? I only have core and apg, sorry!