HeshKadesh's page

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.