Conceptually, in both cases the existing Creature Creation rituals are 'constructing' an entity or in one case 'awakening' one and thereby potentially making the caster be able to make it a minion. What sort of concerns would one have with the idea of creating a Conjure Elemental ritual patterned off these, which could call up an elemental of the given power in the table.
Elementals are such a staple of Conjuration and Summoning it feels like it makes sense for such a ritual to exist. I'd probably plan make it tied to Arcane and Primal, instead of Occult or Divine Traditions/skills but is there something inherently problematic about allowing Elementals to be longer term minions of a character if they have invested resources in them?
I imagine that the Success result for such a ritual would probably be similar to the Create Undead ritual, making a guess.
I'm proposing an addition to the Swashbuckler Archetype to make it more mechanically satisfying and better aligned with the design philosophy of Pathfinder 2E. Here's the new feature:
Stylish Combatant (Archetype)
While you already have panache and are in a combat encounter, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to skill checks with the bravado trait. Additionally, while you have panache, you gain a +5-foot status bonus to your Speeds.
Design Justification
As written, the Swashbuckler Dedication grants:
Training in one of two skills based on your chosen style — a weaker benefit compared to most dedications, where a skill training is typically a bonus on top of a more defining feature.
The ability to Gain Panache — which, by RAW, is functionally empty unless the character spends additional feats to do anything with it.
This second point is my biggest concern. Granting the ability to gain panache without any accompanying effect is essentially like giving a character spellcasting but no cantrips, spell slots, or focus spells — just a label with no substance. This feels contrary to 2E’s design philosophy, which generally avoids "empty" abilities and feat taxes.
On the New Feature
Initially, I considered omitting the circumstance bonus to bravado checks. But after reflection, I decided to make it conditional on already having panache. This design:
Encourages the archetype user to engage in bravado-style actions to gain and maintain panache.
Preserves a distinction between archetype users and full Swashbucklers. The class Swashbuckler gains their circumstance bonus to Bravado skills even before they have panache, giving them an edge in gaining it in the first place.
Helps archetype characters maintain panache longer and gain modest combat utility from it, without overshadowing the full class.
It’s similar in spirit to how Archetype Barbarians get a weaker version of Rage — they get the flavor, but not the full power.
Potential Concerns – Looking for Feedback
Is the +1 circumstance bonus to Bravado skills while in panache too strong? I don’t think so, but I’m open to hearing why it might be.
Is the conditional +5-foot status bonus to speed too much? Again, I feel this is fair. The Swashbuckler class gets a higher bonus and can invest in feats to increase it further. The archetype's speed bonus is locked behind having panache, and future feats are still required for improvements or for gaining Precise Strike and Finishers.
Class Swashbucklers get:
Panache that grants Precise Strike, access to Finishers, a movement speed bonus, and passive bonuses to Bravado skills.
Higher-level upgrades to that speed bonus, including a passive portion even when not in panache.
By contrast, this archetype version:
Provides only the speed bonus while in panache and a minor bonus to Bravado skill checks, and only when panache is already active.
Requires feat investment to unlock even a weaker Precise Strike or any further increased speed benefits.
I believe this strikes the right balance: flavorful and functional, but clearly a watered-down version from the full class. It gives panache meaning for archetype users, without stepping on the toes of full Swashbucklers.
Background Context:
I’m running a Free Archetype game, and one of my players picked Swashbuckler. Up until now, I’d only let them benefit from the speed bonus while they had panache. Going forward, I’m planning to also allow the Bravado bonus whenever they already have panache, to give it a bit more utility and feel like the archetype choice is paying off.
Thoughts?
I'd love feedback from others. Do you feel this adjusted version is too generous? Too conservative? Does it align well with other archetypes in terms of power and feel?
I'm exited to see the book, but have to say when seeing the item pop up in my inventory, when I saw what was in it I must have had a pretty sad and confused space.
I understand... why it is that way... but I still had to share it was a moment of excitement... followed by a moment of sadness.
Exited about when my asset will eventually get updated. ;)
Is it true that Will-o'-Wisps are not corporeal, they are just invisible glowing physical creatures, fully susceptible to all non-magical damage?
And they are immune to all magic. Obviously, magic weapons do damage to them, and do extra damage. I feel confident to presume that a spellstrike done against them does no additional magical damage from the spell, due to their immunity unless the spell used happened to be something they were susceptible to.
I also felt like it made sense that spells boosted attacks in obvious magical ways, (adding fire damage, etc.) would be something it is immune to. So as an example the spell Envenom Companion. It would seem the poison was magical/spell related so it would be immune. But then as I consider, you could argue that runic weapon spell which replicates making the weapon as it has a run on it temporarily, could be ruled as not applicable, and then you might go further and say that weapon runes don't apply, but it seems like that is a given to not be true. (I think this is either based on having read specifically, or based on having read that in a no-magic zone, weapon fundamental runes such as striking continue to have their normal effect.)
However this made me start questioning, if they would only be immune to direct effects, and thus something like Envenom Companion would work because it is buffing the valid target of the companion to boost its attack, and then the attack is normal, save it now also has poison, but is otherwise the same attack. This seems like a very legitimate interpretation of it, but I'm not certain if that is the intended interpretation.
Been running a game for the family and my son has been playing a Magus. As we have looked over the changes to Magus through the remaster and Errata, I started looking at all the various schools and was trying to ask myself if there was something missing that might make sense to exist.
In the end I came up with the idea of a martial summoner who focused on fighting with teamwork alongside ephemeral summons rather than an Eidolon.
The first issue was most summoning spells would be prohibited from leveraging Spell strike, so I figured the School should change that. Next how to balance what Spellstrike and Arcane Cascade gives you. Trying not to make it too powerful, but should remain worthwhile and hopefully flavorful.
Then trying to come up with a Conflux spell that adds to the style of play, but wouldn't been too strong.
At least so far, it seems like the following seems to do a reasonable job of being worthwhile, but not overpowered.
Synchronic Summoning Homebrew Content SourceHomebrew
Your connection with the ephemeral summons you call into being is much more attuned than most. This timing allows you to coordinate your minions initial attack with surprising accuracy.
When you use Spellstrike, you have the additional option to make the spellstrike a three action spellstrike and cast a three action spell with the Summoning trait.
When casting a summoning spell in this manner you can designate a target. The creature you summon has to be placed in such a manner that it can use one of its actions to attack the target you designated the round it is summoned. As part of the Spellstrike you can make a Strike of your own, which can be either unarmed or weapon, and can be melee or ranged, as long as the target is within the first range increment of your ranged weapon or ranged unarmed attack. Your minion uses this roll to strike the designated target, which must be the first attack it makes.
When casting a three-action summoning spellstrike in this manner, this activates the Magus’ Arcane Cascade at the end of their turn.
Whenever in Arcane Cascade stance, if casting a summon spell, or when sustaining a summon spell, the magical energy from your Arcane Cascade applies its bonus damage to spell’s minion’s attacks until the start of your next turn.
Synchronic Strike [one-action] Focus 1 Homebrew Content Uncommon Concentrate Focus Magus SourceHomebrew Cast [one-action] verbal; Requirements You have a summoned minion requiring a sustain action. You tune deeply into the energy tying yourself to your summon using the magical energy to charge for your next Spellstrike. Designate a target within range of a melee strike distance, or a ranged strike within the first range increment. You sustain your summon spell giving your minion actions as usual, but one of its actions must be used to attack your designated target. If the minion does, you get to strike the target. Multiple attack penalty applies to both of these attacks (your and your minion’s) as normal.
So, to summon a Jann would require a 5th rank summoning spell.
Summoned Trait says that if the creature attempts to cast a spell of equal or greater rank than the spell that summoned it, it ends the summoning spell.
So the Jann, under spells lists Truespeach (5th) listed as a Constant spell.
Does that mean:
[1] You simply can't successfully summon a Jann until you cast it as a Rank 6 summoning spell? (it should be removed from the list of spells for that rank and moved to a higher one)
[2] You can summon a Jann, but it will be unable to access that ability which would be normally natural for them?
[3] Since it says it is constant, they didn't cast the spell, so it doesn't interact with the summoning trait and they can use the effects as per the spell ability since it is constant effect.
[4] Some other interpretation I haven't thought of.
I'm inclined to simply make it #2, as #3 seems to0 powerful a precedent, and #1 seems to0 limiting seeing the summon spells list it in Archives of Nethys, making me think the intent would be for them to be able to be summoned.
I was looking through the Rival Academies book and surprised a bit that it had fewer Wizard Schools than I had thought, sporting some options for Witches and Magus, etc. above and beyond Wizard Schools.
However, looking over the Schools and Curriculum spells which they did have, it occurred to me that schools should often have uncommon spells, that are only 'common' to members of their school. Of course any spell common to any wizard, whom has to study the spell from his spellbook would of course become relatively easily taken, by someone getting a hold of some individual's spellbook. So it might make them notably less exclusive than one might otherwise think.
However, what if due to the nature of the core curriculum some spells are covered so much that a wizard does not need their spellbook to study any spells that they know spells from their schools major curriculum. This would help 'secret' spells to remain secret, as written copies might only exist in school libraries and in rare cases potentially on scrolls, made by a member who felt they needed extra castings.
It is a minor extra boost to what you get with your curriculum. (spells you could prepare, even if you lose your spellbook, for instance)
I also am contemplating potentially allowing any wizard to swap a prepared spell for another copy of the spell they have prepared in an appropriate School Slot as an option when Focusing. Basically notably weaker version of the ability that the Runelords have where they can swap any prepared spell for any appropriate curriculum or sin spell, not just their currently prepared one.
Summoning a creature such as Vegetable Lamb, it will daily grow a 1d4 flowers that have the ability to heal creatures. Are they intended to be summoned with such flowers, or would you have to have the creature for a day, i.e. 1 minute won't cut it. and that ability is not intended to be relevant when in play via summoning.
I know that summoned creatures can't summon other creatures, and can't cast magic of any magic of equal level that created it, and are basically prevented from using any reactions. (which may drastically affect usability of certain creatures)
A second level spell a second level spell giving you 1d4 x (1d6+4) healing is not super extraordinary. A second level heal spell cast 3 actions could easily out do it, so it 'might not' be too good to be true. However, if the number of flowers rolled is high, the single target healing capability would see pretty good as a secondary effect. And perhaps rather than comparing it to a second level spell, we should compare it to first level spells when trying to decide if it is too good or not.
I would presume the vegetables picked off such a creature would vanish if they are not consumed prior to the Summon being dismissed, so you would have to pick them and use them in the span of up to a minute of sustaining a summon. A minute compared to a day is downright nothing, so I don't think you can use it to stock up on consumables to use through the day.
When first reading, I assumed they were intended to come with the summoned creature, but I began to wonder if it might be too good to be true.
Some others have pointed out that some of the class, while having some interesting and definitely unique mechanical aspects, which tangentially touch on some view of some necromancer implementations, but others felt like some of it was only loosely tied back to the necromantic powers and source materials.
This made me step back and suddenly realize that while right now, it only has a few choices of themes for Thralls, the concept really seems to have less to do with Necromancy than it does have to do with Horde-management.
As I was thinking about it, and started to think of what other necromatic themes one could build up for the necromancer, it suddenly occured to me that if it were not named Necromancer but Hordemaster, Hordeweaver, Hordearch, Swarmcaller. You could have the given subclasses with specified types of thralls... but that it could be open to additional types of thralls with very similar mechanics but different structure. Specifically it occurred that thralls could easily represent swarms of insects or other vermin which the caller could pull together to surround their enemies. This actually could then very easily be used to fulfill other common fantasy tropes for characters.
I still need to go further through the class, but I thought it was an interesting concept that maybe could turn into a bonus for the class having less tying it entirely to only necromantic flavor, that perhaps its scope could be widened and then certain subclasses, with certain chosen thrall types could link the class to certain other subclass abilities/options which would tie them closer to a particular flavor.
For instance, an insect swarm Hordemaster might be Primal instead of Occult? Someone mentioned Undead Master archetype as a means for a Necromancer to get more necromantic flavor. Maybe picking a zombie, skeleton, or ghost thrall type, unlocks the feats in Undead Master archetype as non-archetype feats as long as the companion is of a similar theme as the Thralls they can create. A insect swarm master might have a similar archetype it could consider part of its class that might grant a swarm companion, or an option for a 'giant' insect companion.
One thing that might help present the Necromancer or Hordemaster portray a greater range of related stories might be an option to let them 'manifest' or call a companion if they have invested in one, 'out of' a Thrall they have manifested. Thus they could leverage placement of thralls as a means of getting their companion placed where they may want. Helping to tie separate but thematically related investments together.
Lots of people have complained they felt the remaster hurt spell schools for wizards. Others point out that there is an implied flexibility that GMs can allow other spells not on the list to be considered part of the school list. Others point out that GMs always have such flexibility and that it not being in the rules, means people can assume they won't get such flexibility.
I think one easy step to insure that they get some usability out of their school curriculum would be to allow any wizard to when they advance to being able to cast a spell of a new rank, to be able to pick one wizard spell they already know of their old highest spell rank(or maybe option for lower) and add it to what will be referred to their personal curriculum (or could be called minor curriculum) and gets to be treated as a curriculum spell.
Next, have 'alternate' casting versions of at least one of the cantrips and 1st rank spells in each of the schools curriculums that are in line with the Spell Trickster Archetype. I'd even suggest having some higher level spells as well, but allow the wizards to cast the spell the normal or variant way when prepared. The wizards would automatically learn a new curriculum from their school at specific levels.
The other fun part, is that variants would also be content that the Spell Tricksters could poach from, but would be paying feats for them for the liberty to grab ones more independently.
Other thoughts that come to mind would some variant spells be 'uncommon' spells that could be picked up by other casters, but in such cases they would have to learn them as an independent/separate spell.
This makes me also wonder, is Glass Shield actually a variant of Shield that expanded out to the Primal tradition as a separate spell for instance.
With that in mind, you could potentially even create 'related-spell' combos, that a particular curriculum, that the wizards can select the combo, and would be able to at time of casting select either of them.
For instance, if there were a Necromantic school, a school meta-spell might be Circle of Life, which is defined as a choice of Heal or Harm chosen at the time of casting.
I think such a meta-spell could be defined for each school potentially. But I think those would probably be more powerful than variant spells so wouldn't be available choices for Spell Tricksters to poach.
The specialization allows them to use melee weapons for their abilities, and strength for their key ability.
The text says they may like to use their fists, etc. it says you may be a martial artist. However, the text seems to not enable unarmed attacks unless they get treated as melee weapons in Starfinder.
Are strikers prohibited from using their abilities with unarmed attacks. Is that what was intended? Or were they intended to allow agile melee unarmed attacks?
My daughter thought she could convince her brother to try a vesk striker operative with natural weapons, but if they can’t use their natural attacks with their abilities, he probably would not want to play that.
It is clear that the Archetype doesn't grant the precise strike class feature, right away, and if they use a feat to buy it later, it isn't the 'same' as the main class version. It is also true that they gain a Style, but don't get any specific benefits from that style other than access to choose that skill to advance, and have its action gain the Bravado trait, to be used to gain Panache.
What seems unclear is, do Multi-class Swashbuckler archetypes gain the Stylish Combatant feature. As a sibling ability to Precise Strike (which we know they don't get) it seems believable they might not get it if not mentioned.
It says the only thing you get from your style is 'access' to choose advancing your style skill, and you gain the Bravado to Tumble Through, and actions listed in your style. But Styles is after the definition for Stylish Combatant, so not part of things you don't get because of Style.
The Dedication makes it clear that you gain the ability to gain Panache. However, as far as I can tell Panache does absolutely nothing without Stylish Combatant, and it also is tied to what Bravado does. So I'm feeling like by the rule indicating that the Multiclass Swashbuckler is supposed to have access to Panache and Bravado, the basics of Panache and Bravdo rules are supposed to be applied. And that Stylish Combatant is a part of that base rules.
I then went through the feats for the MultiClass Swashbuckler Archetype and saw the swashbucklers speed feat. This grants a +5 speed (which first thought made me think opse, maybe they don't get it) until I note that is when you don't have panache. Then it says your bonus becomes +10ft speed bonus when you have panache. That would be very consistent with the concept that without the feat, they could easily be expecting them to have the +5 to their speed normally when they have panache, and this ability boosted the speed, both while having panache, as well as the when they don't. While not absolutely cut and dry, this does make me lean towards the belief that the intent is for multiclass swashbucklers to have Stylish Combatant.
Otherwise, it would seem like paying a feat to gain the ability to gain Panache, which does nothing for you would seem to break expectations. It would mean the dedication granted nothing more than a very restricted skill feat advancement, and open a potential for you to gain abilities later. I think it would be very akin to saying you gain the ability to do the Cast a Spell action but not granting them any slots for spells or even cantrips. That seems inconsistent.
I think I have suddenly realized something that I realize has gotten lost over the version edition changes that might be something that actually been helpful.
It used to cost to advance in level. It could be flavored as paying a trainer, paying for materials used in training or a variety of things, but it gave a bit of a cost at level up.
One of the reasons I realized this was lost was looking at how for wizards they get to write free spells into their spellbook at level up. But normally writing spells in the spellbook requires expensive ink with actual cost/expenditures, but you somehow get some free ink simply by 'inspiration' on level up. Granted, some of that cost, easily half of it based on the Learn a Spell activity and its critical success might represent use of expensive materials to test your understanding, so some of it might represent the cost of failure to get it right the first time, and thus 'inspired writing' (100% correct) might cost significantly less ink used to write the spell. But it seems like it should still cost.
However, by there being no actual expected expenditures, for leveling up, we can't as easily (without compromising story here or there) count that ink as materials gotten in the process of leveling up. If leveling up always had an 'expected' expenditure, getting and using the ink could simply be a part of the expenditures for the training.
Such a full expenditure wouldn't have to be hardcoded to paying a tutor... it could be flavored according to the class, and might even involve upgrading their expected equipment.
For a fighter, the player and GM could agree that their 'training' costs go towards buying new, better weapons, or upgrading the quality of the ones that they have. A sorcerer buys magical trinkets to help pull their power out of their bloodline, or might even be allowed to be spent towards magical consumables who exposes their bodies to more magic helping it to further develop.
Monks may spend it on incense to help their focus, or demonstrate their dedication by finding and donating things needed by their order. (or a drunken order monk might spend it on really top tier booze to elevate their experience)
I suppose, with the way the game is defined to work by default one could argue the training costs are simply tied to WBL table and all investments counts as progress. But I think in many stories, actually dedicating some expenses/investments towards 'training/improving' actually could seem like a real benefit.
While these could be chosen to only apply to wizards, or might work for other prepared casters. Obviously one shouldn't implement all of these as that would break things. However some of these might ring a certain truth for your view of your campaign if you feel like these casters are suffering.
I personally liked the old historical rules where a prepared slot could be left open and filled by later preparation even if it isn't as efficient then. It was a simple and elegant solution for people who knew they were going into an situation with some definite unknown. It cost immediate availability of resources early on and a little time to help insure you had a more tailored resource in the future. However, as that isn't the baseline any longer, so I'm trying to work from there and think of other ways to help prepared casters. I'm also trying not to simply give away the substitution thesis, although I'll confess the potential of someone feeling like this treads on their area of expertise. I still think these items don't completely destroy the flexibility that the Substitution Thesis could grant a wizard, even if one of these other rules in play. Some might even strengthen the flexibility of the Substitution Thesis.
* Re-preparation Exploration Activity
One of the ideas is to allow the approved classes to have a 10 minute activity that would allow a prepared caster to re-prepare a spell they had prepared earlier. They would select a different spell of appropriate rank that they still have prepared, and it becomes un-prepared, in order to re-prepare the first spell again.
* Casting a cast spell from their Spellbook metamagic/spellshaping
Another option would be to allow a wizard to preform a 10 minute activity [perhaps a new form of metamagic/spellshaping] using their spellbook that would allow the caster to immediately following, cast a spell they had prepared earlier in the day but have already cast, using up one of their other spell slots of appropriate rank instead losing preparation of whatever spell was in that slot.
* Wizards Signature Spell feature
Another option. Give wizards a signature spell feature. A wizard's (prepared caster's) signature spell for a rank is chosen when they get their extra spell for that rank. They can choose to spontaneously cast a signature spell from any appropriate rank for that class, using up the prepared spell in that slot.
Specialists might likely be limited to picking their signature spell from their curriculum. Or it might only limit the highest level signature spell, but the bonus slots, if limited to only curriculum spells might still be limited to only being usable for signature spells if they are curriculum spells, leaving an advantage to keeping most signature spells in the curriculum.
This actually seems like something that could help give the Wizard class and even individual wizards additional flavor, which sounds like a good thing.
* Prepared casting duplicate preparations feature
People seem to mention signature spells as being strong for spontaneous casters, I could see an option allowing a prepared caster (any prepared caster potentially) to slot the same spell more than once, the spell becomes spontaneously available from any rank the spell was slotted in.
So a wizard slotting Dispel Magic into two first rank slots and a Magic Missile in the last, could cast Dispel Magic up to three times if they chose to use their Magic Missile slot to cast Dispel Magic. If they go up in level and slot Dispel Magic in first and second ranks, it would allow them to cast the spell using any of their first and second rank slots. (starting using their original assigned slot, but can use up other prepared slots of the designated ranks)
While this steals from some of the spontaneous caster's strategic strength, but doing it is inefficient (so has strategic cost) since it uses up extra prepared slots. However, in cases where a wizard is already knows they may need multiple castings, this lets their preparation in that respect get rewards by committing to their choice. Honestly I sort of feel like if you do this, one should allow it for all prepared casters, but that's my feel on it.
* Extra preparation selection feature for prepared casters
You could also simply allow prepared casters, or prepared casters limited to by spellbook/familiar, to prepare one more spell than slot. When you have used the last slot in that rank, you can no longer cast spells from that rank. (i.e. you have so many memorized, but only so much 'strength')
If people feel that prepared casters, in general are hurting due to their need for preparation, you could grant all prepared casters an 'extra' preparation for each rank, and that the casters that are limited by spellbook or other mechanism to subsets of their lists and grant them up to two extra 'preparations'. I'm not sure I really like the idea of two extra's but it was a potential thought.
Ok, I bring this up because in large part I'd mentally categorized them in the two obvious categories which have different names. The obvious divisions.
Spontaneous and Prepared are the ones I think people would immediately come up with. Also, not long after thinking of those, I think many people will be able to come up with Focus casters as another somewhat distinct from. Another might be Cantrip only casters, and we might potentially include impulses as another form of magic.
There are also, an a different axis (how many spell slots and what distribution) that could include the list of normal, wave casters, multi-class archetypes for instance as well.
Well, I want to go back to the first two for a couple reasons. One because I always found it ironic that Spontaneous casters were always singled out for being so flexible, and prepared casters' players would complain having to pick their spells at the start of the day was too hard, because they didn't have enough information.
I couldn't help but notice Spontaneous casters had to pick their spells at character creation (or level up for their progression). It is absolutely true that being able to re-use those spells within a day is an advantage within a specific encounter, so in a way, I can understand how from an encounter-only perspective, if they picked well (at creation), it could be a distinct advantage.
However if you consider a campaign can be played over several modes of play, the spells might have to be selected and divided up between encounter spells, exploration spells, and downtime spells. Prepared casters get the choice to rebalance each day to better optimize for whatever mode of play they anticipate that day.
Some of the most vocal complainers about the flexibility of spontaneous casters was always the wizards, and I saw the list of spells they started out with and would shake my head, realizing that advantage, that and the theoretical ability of them to easily add new spells easily to their spells known, I would get frustrated by their complaints. However it has sunk into my thoughts recently that I could see how if GMs did not really bother to have wizards be able to uncover enemy wizards spell books in the party's travels, or allow them to buy scrolls of spells they don't know, I could see how as they leveled up, that flexibility would absolutely diminish over time if kept very constrained.
This also made me think more about the other prepared casters whom simply 'Know' all the spells. This actually bothered me a bit from early on. It bothered me that with each new book, or even adventure, some casters were suddenly instantly upgraded with new choices. So I actually like one of the early 'rulings' that eventually got reversed, saying that those spell casters knew all the common spells in the core rulebook, plus whatever rulebook they came in, not necessarily all the rulebooks automatically. I honestly wish that there were uncommon spells in the Divine and Primal tradition that were unlocked by certain classes or deities for instance.
But let me continue forward some. It becomes clear that there are more than one 'branch' of prepared casters. Some are limited in the spells known, to specific ones they have encountered and collected. Namely the ones with a spellbook or spellbook like mechanics. They have to go out and specifically come to know any spells they need to prepare, and those spells have to fall into their list. The others simply gain access to all of them in their spell list if they are common.
Wizards are in the group of that greater limited selection of spells to choose from. Presumably this was due to a combination of items. One the history of the spellbook concept, and spells known. I'm sure that was a significant factor, as history and flavor are important to people naturally, and it was obvious that while pathfinder second edition tried to clean up a lot. Historical things that they thought they could still keep and balance well, they tended to keep. The other aspect I'm sure was that in keeping history for what types of spells the wizards had, the Arcane list had lots of spells, and they probably would have balked at the idea of opening up that entire list to any prepared caster. Any prepared caster for the Arcane tradition would be forced to have a gatekeeping mechanism. (we see it for the arcane witch and magus, for instance)
I can see how that gating mechanism is treated by a GM or campaign, could vastly impact the effectiveness of a prepared caster being able to build an array of useful spells to be able to prepare in their slots, in the varieties of play modes.
I'm trying to think through all the shared aspects that cross all the spell-casting spells, at least with respect to spell slots to try to keep in better mind aspects that affect their play.
They all start with a spell list which is based on a Tradition, but is gated by Rarity (for access, but not usability). Many classes have mechanisms, normally be feats or other class choices, which allow your to pull additional spells across from other traditions into yours. These increase your list size, impacting what magical items you can use, in addition to what spells you can learn, and these feats sometimes give you the spell in question as a spell known.
Next spellcasters have a Spells Known aspect. Some classes like Clerics and Druids, you simply know all your common spells from your tradition, plus the additional spells from your feats that expanded your tradition. Others have to collect the spells and pay to learn new spells and add them to you spells known. I think this cost, while not prohibitive, is definitely of note when compared to the classes that simply know all.
Now is where things split out more, based on slots granted.
Prepared casters daily make a list of what spells they are preparing based on the slots they have available, selecting out of their known spells. So these are their prepared slots.
Some prepared casters have swapped their normal prepared slots via a Flexible archetype for Collection slots. Their collection slots they pick spells out of their known spells and they can cast them as many times as they have usable slots for them. They populated these each morning as their preparation.
Spontaneous casters have a Repertoire of spells they build at character generation (and upon leveling up). These spells can be cast as many times a day as you have an appropriate slots for them. Signature spells allow you to heighten a spell using spell slots of other ranks than the rank where you have it slotted, increasing the usefulness of your spell slots for that spell.
Really, focus casters are sort of like a form of spontaneous caster advancement, as they get the ability to cast that spell with their 'focus' slots, but they aren't dedicated to that spell, and the focus slots are always at current max rank.
Wave casters can be either prepared or spontaneous, it just affects how many slots they get, and which ranks they keep. Perhaps further looking could be put into how the feats that give back limited use of lower rank spell slots for utility casting, but I'm not sure how much that helps this retrospective at the moment so I'm going to skip it right now.
Arcane Evolution is certainly a powerful option for sorcerers allowing a sorcerer to actually have flexibility on a daily basis with at least one spell. I would point out however, that it makes the spellbook, similar to a wizards spellbook, but writing all your naturally known spells becomes free. Yet adding spells costs the same as a wizard writing a new spell into the book. I kind of wish there was a small cost to write spells irrespective of if it were new or not as the implication is that writing spells into a spell book requires rare and magical materials. I wish there was a separate cost of learning and practicing a new spell. You had to know the spell before you could write/copy it into your book. It is a slight different, but I think it makes things more clear. It would also allow wizards to make smaller travelling spellbooks for their most used spells, etc. Things/ideas that are worthwhile concepts details for such stories.
While going through these comparisons, it really makes me feel like the Animist, in the new playtest, should really have its Spontaneous spells be described as being a Collection, since flexible spellcasting Collections are built entirely based choices made during your daily preparations. So your choices of apparitions during daily prep would fill out your Collection for the day.
I also want to point out that all normal cantrip casting is spontaneous, as you don't lose the cantrip (unless from a feat that is 1/day) after casting. So when comparing spontaneous and prepared classes, and their access to cantrips. Prepared casters get to choose from a wide selection of cantrips, based on what they expect the day, but the spontaneous casters are stuck with a static set which is normally the same size as a prepared caster. I think that over time/levels, spontaneous casters should learn new cantrips, so they can build some versatility over time.
I also think there should be some room for Cantrips which have a Minimum Rank to know/cast. These could even be things that would help prepared casters, as they could be VERY useful if you know you are going to need them, but might not always be powerful enough to invest in as a spontaneous caster, unless you get it free from your bloodline, for instance. Which that might even be the 'flavor' origin of some of these cantrips, as advanced bloodline cantrips (or witches advanced cantrips) that other arcane casters eventually learned how to reproduce.
What if you expanded an existing concept that already got codified in Pathfinder Second Edition.
They made distinct Modes of play, introducing Encounter, Exploration, and Downtime. All of these three are integral parts of all play as part of a core assumption of the game, although theoretically a GM could completely ignore one or two parts if they so chose to without necessarily breaking the game. (gladiatorial battles, or exploration and roleplay, or even a potentially rather weak economic story that might focus more on roleplay.)
What if these Modes of play could be expanded and seen as default scenes or backdrops. This sort of already exist with the idea of chase rules for instance. But what if when you open the game up to a new backdrop/scene type, it may expand the game, and player creation a bit.
Adding the aspect to the game may include an option to help reduce the strain of splitting resources for your player. Something akin to how SoT gave everyone Free-Archetype for one of two multi-class archetypes.
So Playing with Starship backdrop/mode may add some skills that are needed to make starship combat and navigation work that would otherwise just become handwaved details. So there might be an optional rule allowing each player to pick a starting role, which gives them a list of a couple skills (like one of the new ones) that they get to advance to trained. There could be feats with a [starship] trait, that you can hand out for free at some interval. Some of these feats might also have traits making them class feats for some classes if they want to invest in them as a class investment.
If you aren't going to bother with ship encounters (other than settings for your personal encounters) you don't need to touch those feats, skills, or rules. But if you do, you have a way to expand your characters into it while giving them some choices.
To clarify, I'm not saying that you are hard-coded required to only be able to do the job you selected for your 'starship' background. But by having one for free, it helps you insure you have some competency to fulfil that role if need be if you aren't otherwise invested in other resources making you good at another role.
This could also be used to leverage modes/backdrops for mechs and other vehicles, or even more appropriately, if they wanted to introduce a mode for netrunning/grid/matrix universe style adventures. Ensuring that any player could participate, no matter what class they are playing. [yes, this is also presuming they would all want to]
An obvious option for dealing with someone who plays a 'barbaric warrior' character whom is considered primitive, and not able to use technological systems, who doesn't want their character to participate in 'crewing' the ship, because they feel it is out of character. One alternative is simply to have them switch to playing an individual that is different and normally and NPC during those scenes.
But the concept being that the new mode of play, expands the game, and in doing so, may expand the options/choices selected in building their character. It goes along well with the concept of Opt-in complexity. It could be that base rules might include the skills, but it could be that in most cases there would be no need to invest in those skills, so the baseline skill allotment doesn't need to account for people picking them. However in a NetRunning campaign, you might need to accommodate for everyone being at least trained in computers, so that might become a 'presumption' in the baseline when that decision is made, and everyone starts with Trained in Computers in that setting.
Guidelines could exist to deal with how to enable the game for multiple extra Modes (say you want to have, Starship encounters, NetRunning encounters, and Economic encounters/subsystem in your campaign). Recommendations might be given how to best incorporate multiple baseline assumptions from the new modes, while perhaps limiting the free feats to pick one from one of the modes, not getting a free one per mode for instance to keep people from getting overwhelmed with keeping track of the choices they made, while letting people chose some roles to excel in.
I'm running this for my family, but I am trying to make sure I'm not missing anything.
They had fun in the first part, but the starship combat has been much rougher.
Some notes being, it seems like only one of the characters had piloting... sort of trapping one player into having to be the pilot. The engineer has done really well, but the gunner is having horrible luck with almost always missing. None of them have great Dex, so the gunner only has a +3 to hit... vs an AC14, so is needing an 11 or higher to hit, which he consistently is failing to get. (he's hit twice in 10 to 12 attacks)
The Nova Witch's gunnery officer having +8 doesn't help a whole lot to the feeling of the situation.
Am I wrong in calculating the players Gunnery modifier. (BAB or Piloting ranks + DEX) Correct?
I've encouraged them to try shifting things around a bit. I let one of the non-pilot Skittermanders turn over the flying to another one and let them make a Dex check as long as they are just doing the Fly maneuver. That let them try being captain and doing an Aide to help the Gunner, but it still wasn't producing hits.
I can tell the PCs ship has more HP, so it is probably expected to get hit more often. I guess looking closer, the Goblins hit I believe on an 8 and the PCs would hit generally on an 11. really that isn't a 'giant' difference. But it has in practice be a drastic difference.
Yes, they have gotten hit a couple times and they have had trouble doing too much damage, so I could have the goblins make a run for it and end the encounter. However, I want to make sure I'm doing things right, and want to figure out what the players are expected to be doing.
I also leaned it was no fun realizing the only character with piloting, was being played by the player that gets choice paralysis. I'd say that is worth noting as a very real factor in who should play the pilot in starship combat.
[And yes I know Starship Combat is often considered a weaker part of the game, fun-wise. But I want to understand how it should/could work.]
Ok, I hear about people complaining about builds being problematic because of being too MAD making some people feel the build no longer is functional. I don't always feel like things have to be optimal to be functional, but will acknowledge sometimes builds can feel hamstrung by choice limitations.
One thing that I have to admit I have found a little problematic was the concept that if I wanted to feel really good at a skill, I had to up the attribute associated with it, but that investment in the attribute was a very 'wide' investment and affected lots of other skills and aspects. What if I really just wanted the investment focused in that particular skill.
This led me to a thought, and I'm curious if people would feel like it would enable more builds, and more variance, or if it would somehow curtail variance by creating some circumstance that would be too good to pass up.
My idea is that as part of getting "Trained", "Expert", "Master", and "Legendary" at a skill, you gain a 'Minimum' Attribute bonus that gets applied to the users proficiency calculation. At Trained it is +1, at Expert it is +2, at Master it is +3, and at Legendary it is +4.
This means if a user is trained at something with and INT of 10, instead of the calculation at fist level being +0 (int) +1 (level) +2 (rank) = +3, it would be +1 (min attribute bonus) +1 (level) +2 (rank) = +4
Granted, that only impacts someone with a 10 INT, as anyone with a 12 or higher would already have the minimum bonus. However, it makes placing a skill rank in a poor attribute still relatively viable.
As a clarification, the Minimum attribute bonus, I would imagine would always apply as an attribute bonus. However, it would not stop an attribute Penalty from applying. So if the above individual was trained in a skill, they would apply the +1 proficiency bonus provided as a minimum due to being trained, but would also apply the -1 penalty due to INT penalty. This means it would end up being +3 from being trained instead of +2. Not a giant difference, but it actually makes shoring up a weak point with skill as a relatively viable option.
My thought being to allow this to apply to Skill rolls. I could even potentially see allowing it to apply for Attack rolls if we wanted to allow it to apply to weapon and spell attack skill ranks. It would not affect any other values like extra damage determined by attribute value (from spell attacks, or melee attacks, for instance)
While I suspect most individuals whom would get Legendary in a particular skill, will probably have more than +4 attribute associated. On the other hand, I can imagine someone potentially having a 10 in an associated attribute and having a skill at Trained or Expert relatively easily.
If it can apply to Spell Attack proficiencies, it might make people concerned about MAD aspect of some classes, bringing the FLOOR of their strikes up somewhat even if their attribute isn't invested. I'm not completely sold on making it apply to Attack rolls, but it seems like a possibility, but I'm not certain I know all the ramification. I'm inclined to say the minimum attribute bonus would not apply to DC calculations, to still encourage the investment in the attribute in most cases. But this method would give some extra options for having characters with significant investment into a particular skill/proficiency that their natural attribute isn't that good in.
I loved the idea of teamwork feats, but I think they ran into an issue that it frequently required two people to coordinate their builds from the start to make them useful. Alternately, having a class that could grant them, or could override requirements via Solo Tactics.
Combine this with how some of them we probably rather niche in their effect, most people probably discounted them quickly leaving it unlikely you would get to work with someone else who would have happened to chosen the same feat.
My idea is that rather than requiring a Teamwork feat to be had by both characters, the teamwork feat would be unlocked by one member having the feat. There might be something special that might get unlocked if both have the feat to start with, but don't 'require' it to be able to make use of it.
The initial idea I have, that I'm trying to consider. A character with a Teamwork feat keeps an eye out for a condition that makes him and a known ally in a specific condition (an ally is attacking an opponent you attacked during last turn, who is flanking the opponent with you). The individual with the teamwork feat spends their reaction, granting their ally the reaction in the feat.
So if we reinvented something a little akin to Precise Strike, you could do the above.
Enable Teamwork Precise Strike [reaction]
Condition: (an ally is succeeds on an attack against an an opponent that you attacked during last turn, and that is currently flanking the opponent with you)
Effect: the ally gets access to preform the following reaction Execute Precise Strike to modify their strike.
Execute Teamwork Precise Strike: [reaction]
Roll 1d6 and add it as extra precision damage for that attack (only to that specific opponent)
So net, one feat would allow two teammates flanking an opponent, if one has the feat to each spend their reaction to add +1d6 precision to a successful strike.
I for instance consider would it be too powerful to allow an ally you have trained with recently (shared morning preparations, or spent a certain amount of exploration time training as a group) to allow activate the Enable Teamwork reaction when the person with the feat could get the reciprocating use. (The individual with the feat attacks an opponent whom they are flanking with the other individual, who had been attacked by their ally.
Basically, 2 Reactions for +1d6 precision damage in a given circumstance.
And at least, potentially I'm considering would it likewise be too powerful to say if both individuals have the feat, the enable reaction becomes a free action, and only the one doing the Execute is the only one who has to spend the reaction to get the Execute reaction's effect?
(would in the given explicate circumstances, and both having invested the feat, to get the bonus damage for the cost of 1 reaction.)
Other potential examples:
Enable Teamwork Scuttle [Reaction]
Condition: you end a movement action/activity next to an ally.
Effect: the ally gets access to preform the Execute Teamwork Scuttle reaction.
Execute Teamwork Precise Strike: [reaction]
Effect: Executing ally gets to preform a free step.
Enable Teamwork Outflank [Reaction]
Condition: You get a critical hit on an enemy which you are flanking with at least one ally.
Effect: any allies which you are flanking that opponent, are treated as if they have the Attack of Opportunity reaction for this event, and your critical counts as a trigger to provoke an Attack of Opportunity from them. (they do not keep access to the reaction, it is only available to potentially resolve this event)
Enable Coordinated Maneuver [Reaction]
Condition: Your ally is preforming an attack maneuver against an ally in your range.
Effect: You grant the ally the Execute Coordinated Maneuver [Reaction]
Execute Teamwork Precise Strike: [reaction]
Effect: Make an equivalent attack roll as per the same maneuver, and treat it as an Aid action you had prepared for your ally, potentially granting your ally a bonus to their roll.
I'm trying to think if potentially two reactions is too much for the effects, for instance. I'm also considering if sometimes it might make sense to have the 'granting' action be a premediated action such as a single action and have it grant the reaction to their allies, which for instance would leave their reaction for other usage. (for instance some classes might really be forced into not being able to use teamwork feats, if they have conflicting reactions they need available) So maybe by default, it might be that you can use a reaction to grant the reaction, in a circumstance, or an action to grant it to your allies during your turn and they have it available until the end of your turn.
Another complication I've considered, is what if you wanted a teamwork feat affecting Shield Blocks. Since they are already using their reaction, so generally they can't 'pay' a reaction. So in those cases would it be ok/necessary for it to be niche enough to rely on it only costing the allies reaction to help? Requiring a setup action, especially for something shield related would be really expensive, since it already costs to raise a shield, unless you simply give them a different setup action, but then it really isn't really costing extra action, it would just potentially make it not work with things that work with other raise a shield actions.
Basically, part of the idea is to make teamwork feats include an aspect of their sharing as part of the feat itself, so it doesn't 'Require' people taking the same feat. I'm curious what others think the benefit of coordinating and have overlap should be. (reduced action cost, such as down from two reaction to one, like suggested) or if people both have the feat, having it have a 'Heightened' effect listed that is a bit better in those cases.
Thinking about another question about lances and reach from Large creatures, and the recent discussion about Tiny riders and small mounts, made me contemplate a potential resolution that might be relevant for both situations.
Riding large creatures reduces a riders reach by 5' make a medium rider on a large creature with a lance have less reach than a small rider with a lance on a medium creature.
Other than that specific situation, the purpose of the rule doesn't seem that hard to fathom. You are after all on something that requires a little extra reach to reach out of your immediate space, so reducing the space seems a little reasonable.
The other situation that seems troubling is that small creatures and large creatures can wield swords to hit adjacent creatures when mounted. However, Tiny creatures are expected to cohabitate the square to attack someone with a sword or other similar melee weapon.
However, Tiny creatures on Small creatures aren't allowed to cohabitate with small or medium creatures an longer, meaning they lose the ability to strike them from their mount at all, unless they have a reach weapon.
What if 5' of the reach lost by wield a reach weapon from a large (or larger mount) could be bought back by the mount spending 5' of its movement moving towards the other square, but not entering it. Allowing the attacker to treat their next activity as if their weapon had 5ft (normally all) of its reach restored for the purpose of a single target.
This could even be potentially used to solve the Tiny issue as well, if you allowed the small mount to spend 5ft of movement to move to the edge of its square, and allow the rider the opportunity to complete one activity as if a single target was within your reach.
I say an activity, but maybe it should only be one attack, but I said activity because I felt like it was worth asking, why not allow a double slice, for instance.
I think that this helps the issue of a small rider on a medium mount having more reach than a medium rider on a large mount, but it doesn't eliminate there being a cost to using the larger reach, but 5' of mount's movement seems like a reasonable investment into getting that reach back.
Anything obvious on how doing that would destabilize the balance of things worse than they are now?
After listening to Jason Tondro's Fly Free or Die Developer Diary series as far as it has gotten, he talked about the meta-universe effect of the sort of publishing standard of placing new spacecraft on the back inside cover of adventures, and how it has created fat, flat spacecraft being the defacto norm for many adventure, and how he'd like to see things switched up a bit.
Certainly, you can make the effort to make them sleek and slender and/or push them to be two story and find a way to split up the page to put the multiple floors on it. You can also push for less symmetrical and more bizarre designs for the uniqueness. But I know that all could have impacts their sort of informal standard (a page for the starship), and likewise would have other impact on page counts and layout for instance.
However, I'm also wondering if in some cases a basic design could make a ship feel far more two dimensional by doing even some minor things on a normal map. Such as the dotted lines on the Oliphant that was intended to represent the greater storage due to the new technology equipped on it.
I'm also thinking what would stop you from having a corridor with staterooms off to each side, pictured as a single map, but show how the main corridor's hall to the stateroom splits, one portion heading up steeply and the other down steeply. With a pair of basically identical staterooms stacked on top of each other than one is a half-floor down, and the other half-floor up and the doors are offset a bit in the horizontal. This can even include having a corridor opening into a area (science lab) and have clues that show this portion of the ship/chamber or system is much taller, potentially showing an upper catwalk, or coloration to show it is labeled as a 3 story tall cargo bay, with tether points on the walls etc.
I guess my point is, I don't know that all levels have to be separately mapped in all cases. Having important parts mapped, and somehow showing there is a layer of storage accessible at 13 points above the main floor that range in partial height to almost double height at certain spots might be enough to help give a more 3-dimensional feel.
Also trying to remember give a lateral view of the ship on the map might help encourage them to be less 'routinely' a fat, flat, symmetrical wedge. (with a corner cut out for both the compass point and the legend)
Even encouraging it to be build with a sort of split level, where technically not more than one floor at any one place, it would help the design be more 3 dimensional and varied, and things like engines and other infrastructure of the ship can explain other depth not otherwise being specifically mapped.
For some designs, what is wrong with instead of a traditional flat map like a blueprint, it is a map with labeled components representing the ships rooms and passages or other rooms/components with arrows marking where this bulkhead is the same as the one there. Where that design lets you have doors in the floors and ceilings reasonably depicted and used, without worrying about flipping pages or counting squares. You have the components that are nearby one another depicted nearby. Especially if much of the shape or surrounding space is not character accessible anyway, so you don't have to have it on a flat 2d blueprint grid type map.
I love the idea of some more varied craft designs, but I'm wondering what are some ways to open up and display these new designs that would be easy to interpret, and use in adventures.
At first I liked the idea of Cantrips that could have better effect via the expenditure of a focus point. However, it seems clear that the intent is to not make them as powerful as your 'average' Slotted or Focus spell, both by the effects they give, and by the fact that they started the Psychic out with 2 Focus points dedicated to Amping their cantrips.
I thought that was kind of new and exiting. However I started to wonder about how that might cause problems with scaling issues for expected Focus point costs, and might cause additional problematic interactions with multiclass archetypes based on different scaled expectations of focus points. This concern seems visible in the wording that seems to insure that if you used a focus point for something other than Amp purposes, you can't recover both your focus points. Someone mentioned the way the wording for it seemed kind of rough, and was suggesting some simplifications, but I kept wondering if it was a good precedent to set, jumping to 2 focus points right away at 1st level.
I began wondering if you could instead have a focus point be able to be spent to AMP a cantrip, and would leave you with an Amped condition (similar to Panache). While Amped you could expend your Amped condition to make another cantrip you cast become Amped.
You might even be able to apply a bonus +1 status bonus to psychic spell attack rolls while Amped to represent an heightened attunement and awareness. Refous activity naturally removes the Amped condition. I imagine unleashing Psyche's would also unset the Amped condition.
That sort of leaves you with Amping sort of effectively costing a half a focus point to cast. And would also be available for free once a round if you accept a penalty of some sort from an Unleash that would normally be available later in any fight.
The potential of Amped condition being something that could boost spell attack rolls. Would be similar to a stance available early in combat, but at the cost of a focus point, and action(s) to cast a cantrip. Maybe the bonus to attack rolls wouldn't fly with the Amp condition, but I was trying to think of something small, but meaningful that might be worth tying to the state. I'd probably have the bonus apply to both the cantrip that powered/started the Amped condition, as well as the one that expended the Amped condition, if there was any question about that. But again, I'm not certain how that sort of bonus would be seen as affecting the balance.
It seems with fewer spells, higher reliance on cantrips (but slightly strengthened) that a slight boost on hit might be viable for them, in one mode of play.
I'd also liked the idea of potentially having slotted spells potentially count as one slot level higher (up to normal max spell level for the caster) in terms of incapacitation checks. That would allow the Psychic to have fewer spells, but more of them being potentially significantly useable for incapacitation spells if they chose to use them. That would seem to be a flavor advantage, but not enough (because of it being combined with fewer spells base) to be overpowering. It also wouldn't make a 1st level slot/spell powerful enough to take down a 10th level character regularly, but would give them potentially 4 spell slots that could be seen as seriously competitive options for expending for an incapacitation spell. And it does seem like there are several effects one might associate with several flavors of Psychics that might have incapacitation effects. Would that be something that could be triggered for spell slots cast while in an 'Amped' mode?
I know that ostensively, the per adventure/AP Background choices are supposed to fill the role that campaign traits used to fill.
My issue with that is that to benefit from that, you have to reduce all your available backgrounds down to the ones provided for that AP, meaning all the core backgrounds and other books' backgrounds are competing with integrating your character into the story.
It is kind of back to the same problem when the equivalent of skill feats and combat feats were taking the same resource pool. Backgrounds are pulling from AP specific (giving you a tie in) competing against a background you read in a book you got that inspired you to make a particular character, but now have to decide if you complete that character with that background, or change to an AP specific on so you are better lined up with the story.
In the end, actually, from a wider rule standpoint, it occurred to me that we already have a system in published rules that can, and would fix this.
PFS uses Boons. If APs and Modules had a list of Slotted boons that each player may choose one. It can grant them some minor benefit in the particular adventure, and more importantly, it can define some sort of connection the player will have to the plot of the adventure.
They can use established boons for establishing acceptable power/scope for these boons. Limited use abilities that may grant a bonus in certain circumstances a certain number of times. Or a niche granting of a particular skill in certain circumstances.
For instance, perhaps a boon could involve growing up in a particular town, and knowing everyone in it. This allows the individual to be treated as they are trained in society when using the skill in relation to those in their hometown. (or if they are already trained they get a circumstance bonus in the same set conditions)
Another boon gives them downtime access to a skill check of a skill they don't know, by having a friend. That friend can be defined in the boon and can be their tie into the story.
Some boons might even have a 'hidden' (but logical) effect in the adventure allowing certain challenges to be automatically succeeded by a person with a certain boon. Someone with the Local Socialite boon might auto-succeed a skill challenge to get invited to a local party or auction party. Because of who they are, they automatically can succeed. Otherwise someone might have had to make a hard DC check of some sort as one of the methods to access that encounter, for instance. Likewise, being the local shop-keeps friend means you start out friendly with them and get certain information automatically when you stop by to visit and ask. Otherwise someone may need to mention the right thing, or get some appropriate Diplomacy check to get the needed information.
These Boons could be selected even by members of a party who just left a different AP, potentially having used that first AP's background. The APs specific starting boons could be listed out and each player select one. It gets slotted for the duration of the adventure and helps define the tie for them in that particular adventure. Their boon in the first AP may have defined that they grew up in that adventure's town. The second 3-part AP might have a Boon available that indicates you had a cousin who moved to this town, and you haven't heard from them in a surprisingly long time, so you are investigating.
They even become something you could give out as rewards for certain achievements during an AP or adventure. You just saved this caravan, and the merchants. You have just unlocked the 'Merchants of Venison Friend' boon that gives some effect for you if you choose to slot it.
Basically it is leveraging rules that already exist, just not ones being used by the core rules. Instead it is using mechanics tacked on to support the Society Play, but could easily be leveraged to help insure characters get hooked into the storyline, for starting characters, as well as higher level adventures where the characters may have been originally created for an earlier adventure.
This is something I've tossed around in my mind a bit for a while and decided to actually try writing it out.
We have the standard: Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary Ranks
I'm proposing a new "occasionally" used Skill Rank: Familiar (Untrained, Familiar, Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary)
It falls between Untrained and Trained.
Untrained is 0 + no level + attribute; Trained is 2 + level + attribute; Familiar falls in between with 0 + level + attribute. Standard statements which talk about giving skills at trained level, do not change, they continue to move Untrained to Trained, skipping Familiar. It is otherwise, sort of a helf-rank skill.
A skill with a Familiar rank can of course use any untrained use of a skill, as would be expected. They also can preform Aid checks to assist in Trained uses of the skill for someone else whom is skilled. They can also preform Trained skill actions, if they are supervised by someone whom is at least trained in the skill. (basically enables a Follow the Expert, from a guiding individual whom is at least Trained.)
How do you get a Familiar rank skill?
You may trade in one unrestricted Trained skill choice for 2 skills at Familiar rank. (I might limit this to one trade off like this per person, but I'm not absolutely certain on this) You can't trade a Trained rank in a particular specified skill (or even a subset of options) for 2 Familiar skill ranks, the original Trained rank needs to be unrestricted in its selection choices.
Other ways you might get a Familiar rank skill. The GM may grant certain skills as a boon at a Familiar level due to campaign setting or role playing due to your characters exposure to the skill use. You might also get certain ones based on your character choices.
For instance, the GM may give any character a free Lore skill in their own Ancestry or primary cultural identity with which they were raised in. The same, they may be granted Familiar with the Lore specific for the Locale in which they were raised. (while this may slightly, but only slightly) reduce the value of the "Ancestry" Lore line of Ancestry feats, they already granted more than one skill, and you could allow them to choose to choose a free alternate LORE at Familiar level if your feel it discounts it too much.
[additionally, you might consider giving anyone who learns any particular living language, a free Familiar ranked Lore skill related with the specific ancestry or Culture, as frequently knowledge of the language includes at least a bit of understanding of the underlying culture in the wider sense.]
Spending 1 Trained skill choice you can advance 2 Familiar skills up to Trained. Or can move one Familiar skill to Trained and adopt a new skill giving it rank of Familiar.
This options is relatively simple rules addition. I don't imagine it is likely to create any situations that are really unbalanced, and allows starting characters a wider range of potential investment in starting skills. It also allows you to get an extra skill that would maintain your level bonus to any uses, from the start. (albeit without any +2 for being trained)
Anything right off the bat anyone sees that this sort of option would break?
Anyone feel that limiting splitting 1 Trained rank into 2 Familiar ranks is too limited and should allow you to do it more than once? If so why?
Anyone feel that offering the 'follow' the leader like function following Trained individuals, enabling the use of Trained actions without being fully trained is unbalanced?
I know there are other feats that allow adding level to untrained skills, but I feel like this still has some use, especially at the lower levels, so I don't really feel like they prohibit each other from existing.
Anything else it would be appropriate for Familiar ranked skills? Any other guildelines for when a GM might grant them?
Taken from a non-hombrew thread that inspired the thought.
Davido1000 wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Improved implementation of summoning spells. I want to be able to summon creatures that are useful in boss battle encounters.
Better attack roll spells useable with [i]true strike/i].
Incarnate spells are probably the closest we will get to that. But i would love to see a spell that cuts close to the summoner/eidolon where you can summon an on level to you monster but with the severe drawback of it being lifelinked to you or it takes all your actions to control it.
Inspired a variant for summoning as mentioned.
Convoke Instrument [metamagic]
[Free Action]
Modifies Summon creatureType spell cast immediately after it, but raises the level of creature that can be summoned by 2 levels. It also changes the summoned creature from being a Minion, to being an Instrument, meaning it loses the Minion trait, and gains the Instrument trait.
Instruments must be maintained every round or they are unable to react on their own, leaving them flat footed. If they are left unmaintained for two consecutive rounds the summoning spell ends, as if the summoned spell was not sustained.
Instead of Command a Minion action, controlling and sustaining an Instrument takes the Command an Instrument activity. The activity can be done using one to three actions by the caster. If done as the three action activity, the caster gets to either stride or step once for free themselves during the activity. If it is done as a two action activity, the caster can instead take a single step action themselves for free during the activity.
If the caster does not have any action left, after taking the Command an Instrument activity (excluding the metamagic to start it, and the potential free stride of step granted by the activity), then the caster is considered flat-footed against attacks.
Doing the Command an Instrument activity gives the Instrument the number of actions that the caster used in your command activity.
At the end of your round right after you would have taken any persistent damage, if your instrument took any damage, reducing its HP since the end of your last turn, you must make a basic fortitude save vs the DC of a standard DC for your instrument's level, or take 1/2 the number of HP your instrument lost to damage since the end of your last turn. This damage is however considered nonlethal. If the Instrument is ever brought to 0 HP this damage transferal happens at once, with the fortitude save, and the spell is terminated. If the caster failed the save, they also are stunned 1.
Like minions, Instruments cannot summon other creatures or cast spells of the level of spell used to create it. By default, you cannot activate reactions of your Instrument.
This would make the summoned creatures much more powerful, but puts the caster in a much more precarious position relying on it. I'll admit I questioned if it should advance the level of the creature by 1 or by 2. But was concerned the serious nature of the risk on the caster, seemed like it might have potentially merited a +2.
I didn't have access to my usual note-taker, so my notes may not be as good as I hoped.
The Cast, A Human Drifter, and a Lizardfolk Sniper, alongside a Kobold inventor riding his Clockwork Dragon, and an Orcish weapon inventor with a modular bastard sword.
I had the Courier kobold out with his friends delivering a package to a rural location. Directions get messed up and they find themselves approaching a set of buildings that doesn't match their endpoint, but they aren't positive.
Approaching, when the Drifter and Orc approach the building, I have the first goblin zombie is revealed to be in the doorway, and call the roll for imitative.
All the PCs to notably better than all the zombies. One zombie came close to the PCs, but not enough to even beat the lowest PC.
The Drifter does his free draws, and moves forward for free and gets a critical on his attack against the zombie in the door. (a critical miss to be more specific)
I made the mistake of letting the drifter reload with their hands full, after which they struck with their rapier. The zombie, being flat footed as not having moved yet in combat, was down by 2 AC so the drifter missed a critical by 1. Did 3 points of damage to the zombie.
Next the Kobold got to act, it was riding its clockwork dragon invention, so he controlled his minion, and had it walk forward, missed with his attack, and casts shield to follow up.
Now the orc moves forward. He triggered his overdrive successfully, one from critical success. Then, he was too far from the foe for one move to get him all the way to the foe to strike with his last action. Rather than putting himself next to the zombie with another move action, he chose to do a recall knowledge, and rolled a 1.
Now the Sniper Aimed, fired and reloaded. They of course, missed a crit by 1 point even with the zombie being flat-footed. In any case, they were able to do 13 damage with it at least.
Now Zombie 1 swings at the Drifter, missing by about five, and follows up with a nat 1.
The other zombies were back further in the building and the current zombie was in the way of their moving one move to get out, so they all moved up near the exit other than zombie 2 who came out and stood next to its companion and was able to just barely strike the drifter.
The Drifter is grabbed, so decides to break free and fire, getting a critical again! This time an actual critical Hit, doing 11 hp to the second zombie after crit and fatal. He then steps back behind a wood fence.
The Kobold then commands their minion, narrowly getting a crit, doing 17 damage to the already damaged zombie 1. The zombie explodes doing 3 points of fire damage to the Construct, 1 to the kobold, and 3 points to Zombie 2, and Zombie 3 just inside the doorway behind it, despite partial cover, crit fails its save and takes 6 points of fire damage.
The orc moved forward and although I missed getting the notes on it, I can tell that is when the next zombie #2 had to have taken a hit and went up into a puff of smoke.
The sniper missed shooting at the zombie known about in through the door.
The two remaining zombies lumber out into the smoke and strike out at the Orc and Kobold. Missing The heroes miss striking into the smoke and decide to move away.
The third zombie then follows the kobold out and gets a hit on it. doing 4 damage. We forgot to keep track of the grab, not that it mattered much.
The drifter managed to hit the foe fighting the Orc, doing 8 damage.
The Kobold has the clockwork dragon tried to claw the zombie, but it misses twice. first time if I recall because of concealment, the second just a miss. The Kobold decides to breathe fire rather than deal with MAP. Goblin crit fails its save and takes 4 more points of fire damage.
The orc managed to hit its zombie and did 11 points of damage, leaving 1.
The Sniper managed a critical hit on the Zombie but rolled 1s on their damage die and poor on the fatal, and the zombie was still standing.
That was when I realized that I had not taken account of the damage for overdrive on the Orc's strike, so the zombie that was down to 1hp should have been down, rolled and found it collapsed in a puff of smoke.
The Zombie didn't fare well on its attack, and the clockwork dragon did enough damage to destroy it, and it exploded into a spray of acid doing d3 acid damage to both the kobold and clockwork dragon. Both were able to relatively quickly scrape the acid off and prevent further damage.
Most memorable moment, when we realized that the distance was just right to have the clockwork dragon run forward one movement and then do a explosive jump forward to bring it to the enemy zombie.
Rolling 1s on critical die damages with low fatal was however quite painful.
Overdrive, I found hard to keep track of, I had it listed as an ability on the character sheets, but in part because it doesn't always adjust the damage the same amount, it wasn't listed with the weapon, so it was easier to forget.
For instance, I noted Firearm Ace having +2 hp damage at end of gun stat block if loaded this or last round.
I forgot to make the Drifter have a free hand for reload. The mechanic of reload/free hand seems potentially cumbersome. What if weapons could have an attachment that enables being treated as having a free hand for purpose of reloading a specific type of firearm? I know there was a conversation how some of this sort of gets handwaved at higher levels via feats/abilities.
Their next encounter was going to be higher level, Badlands Ambush, but time didn't work out on our side.
Hope the information helps, and yes we made some rules mistakes, and zombies might have been able to fare better tactically if they'd gotten out quicker. But I'm less worried about that fact since they are supposed to be mindless.
If we'd had our normal recorder, I probably would have better notes, and we might have been less likely to make some of the goofs we did. Maybe next time.
Reloading a weapon obviously generally involves both hands, but it doesn't obviously involve both hands starting on the weapon.
Is it acceptable for a 2-handed weapon that is held in one, to take a reload action with it, and as part of that reload action, to end your formerly free hand as holding the two-handed weapon?
This seems reasonable, but isn't specifically called out as far as I can tell. In a way it almost seems necessary, since reloading in theory requires a free hand, using a 2-handed weapon, it makes sense it would start by 'dropping' a hand (always free) to make it a free hand for reloading purposes, and then ending with a free adding hand back to the weapon after reload.
It doesn't just affect firearms, but would be relevant for crossbows and such too.
Ok, I will admit that when I first read the spacecraft rules, I found the Escape Pods and Lifeboats as being an expansion bay, and it being something that frequently ships would not be able to maintain enough capacity for a normal crew capacity.
With that in mind, I though, we needed some form of homebrew device to allow some better safety for space travelers that wouldn't invalidate current rules.
I decided having an emergency 'life-raft' could make sense as a type of technology that could be standard frequently aboard spacecraft. Something that who's existence could make lifeboats and escape pods more of a luxury than an expected safety requirement.
Interesting thing was as I tried to start piecing together similar items to base them on, I found that there was something that in Raw may very well work for this, even though it is not specifically advertised as being usable for that purpose.
So I will start this Homebrew suggestion with a strictly raw suggestion, and then move on to what I'd probably do to make it specifically cover the given use case.
The raw, base item is interesting enough Tent, Mobile Hotelier this is a powered 'tent' that provides the same environmental protections as armors. Armors provide vacuum and other hostile environmental protection for a while, so this means this tent provides similar protections.
So I see this as an emergency pod you pull out from a wall, activate the first step, it opens up allowing someone (or a pair of people) to climb into it. You then activate it the next step and it fills the bubble up. It is a tough enough bubble that it should not 'Pop' because of hitting objects in the ship short of shrapnel issues from potential explosions.
As I see it, the 'sales lines' for this product suggest that even if a ship is 'destroyed' that the shell of the ship is a better protection, than being in a small tin can outside in space. The life bubble keeps you in a tolerable environment, and the ship's hull provides continued physical protections from stray asteroids or meteors.
What it lacks, that seems like a bit of necessity would be an Emergency Beacon, which is of course another raw device, so you should be able to bundle it. (and I imagine a few oxygen candles, potentially some rations would make sense for other items to have packed away inside the pack/bubble.
So my suggested combination/bundling of these items into a combined product would be something like this:
Emergency Life Bubble
aka: (the Void Life Raft or VLR)
Source: Forums (LoreGuard Industries)
Category: Starship Emergency Equipment
Level: 1; Price 200; Bulk 2
Description: This specialized disposable emergency vacuum hotelier tent, is constructed to provide up to 2 medium creatures a safe environment in the case that the ship they are on suddenly loses pressurization. Although the bubble is relatively tough and resists general rupture, it primarily relies on the existing ship super structure for physical protection from larger threats. However, the bubble can in theory survive in the vastness of space outside of the shell of any spacecraft for as long as its resources survive, and the bubble picked up by a rescuing craft either through a craft bay, or airlock. When the survival bubble is fully activated, it also activates an emergency beacon which is enclosed. The harmonics of the beacon are such that when multiple beacons are operating within range of one another, the general range of them as a whole is amplified by the number of beacons operating within each other's normal range. (so if some 20 life bubbles were activated within a derelict ship, their beacons would effectively be operating at a 20x range) The pack normally includes a pair of oxygen candles, and a package of about five field ration meals. The bubbles are designed to support both occupants for about 5 days. A single occupant in a bubble, will last about twice as long. The lower power the beacon has, the longer time period between bursts it gives, insuring full powered bursts when they trigger.
Does Drift's prohibition on magic that allows things to be brought into/out of the drift prohibit the use of Null-space items. They describe the items as opening a pocket dimension and you place the item from your current space/dimension, into the pocket dimension, so that would seem to indicate it is transporting something into/out of the drift in the process, leading me to think it might not be allowed. (similar to how null-space items aren't allowed to be activated within null-space items pocket dimensions)
If they still exist, are Portable Holes and Bags of Holding actually early applications of null space items, and do they no longer cause dimensional explosions when introduced to one another. [and it turns out the gap was caused by someone placing three items into each other all at the same time, so the gods that survived the explosion got together and changed the rules about how they worked, making them deactivate their effects rather than exploding and taking out worlds.
For instance Breaching Pods can hold twice as many souls as a bay with a Lifeboat (and it says the Breaching Pod can act as an escape pod).
Then the Drop Pods can hold twice as much as the Breaching Pod can. While originally, it was implied that all Expansion Bays were the same size, it becomes apparent that isn't really true when you look at the Shuttle Bay and Hangar bays obviously represent a larger space than a small craft's 25 ton expansion bay.
With the Breaching Pod holding twice as much as a set of lifeboats, I'm wondering if it was supposed to have a minimum ship size. Then with the Drop Pod (and Colossal Drop Pod) were those supposed to have minimum ship sizes as well that were larger than small. I wondered if perhaps Colossal Drop boxes were limited to colossal ships, and the limitation was edited out of descriptions as it seemed redundant or obvious by the name. However, I'd argue it is not obvious at all, as it is more likely representing the size of the creatures held by it.
Have I missed something else in the book? I confess I haven't gotten through it all. (for instance I haven't read details on the orbital weapons yet)
The Colony Ship Framework feature is basically:
For an extra 1/4 the cost of a Large, or larger framed ship, you can make it a colony ship. Support 10x the max crew size from a habitability standpoint. Triple the number of expansion bays, but the additional ones, can only be used for civilian purposes. Additionally, it gets a discount for adding one orbital weapon on it.
Unlike the Space Station Framework, which clearly hurts the pilot check, maneuverability (-1 pilot, turn 3), and speed is quartered, round down, there is no mention of any impact to the maneuverability, speed or other limitations to the Colony Ship. (other than limitation on what you can do with the extra expansion bays you get)
It seems like some sort of limitation, or drawback should probably exist other than a probably minimal BP cost to modify the frame (and extra BP to populate bays).
What would for instance stop you from taking a Bulk Freighter
Lets say a Hivonyx Titan Hauler design as a basis, and make it a colony ship framework. It now how 20 extra expansion bays, which we will simply fill in with cargo bays, which are 0 PCU/0 BP , or use some of them for Passenger seating if you can sell seats ferrying people with this thing. It would go from having 5 cargo bays, to having 25 of them. For the cost of perhaps half of a tier's worth of BP
Or just compare the frames as a base. A heavy Freighter frame with the Colony Ship Framework, give you better maneuverability, cheaper defenses and engines, and gives you 24 expansion bays, vs 10 if you'd paid 5 more to get the bulk freighter frame. (Granted the Bulk Freighter frame doesn't insist that you have 2 civilian expansion bays, but I suspect most Freighter frames you are considering this will want at least 2 cargo bays, so that won't really be a significant limitation.
Was it intended to only have the minor limitation of costing a little more, or was it supposed to impact the speed of the craft and/or other things such as cost of armor/defenses/shields and such?
Would it be possible to start with the option to have a large construct companion at 1st level.
It could sacrifice a little for the option, but would enable builds involving riding the construct right away.
My quick suggestion, make large construct have the following changes.
+2 STR, +2 DEX replace their base attributes. (basically a -1 to each)
The bludgeoning unarmed strike stays the same, but the slashing/piercing option drops a die step.
Note that although the construct has a lower STR, it should technically be able to carry more, as the bulk of medium and smaller items is reduced.
The choice of base can be retrained later for free when Advanced Construct feat is acquired. (so the penalties can be retrained out of, when their construct's frame more easily supports the large size natively)
It came up in the welcome thread, but I felt like it might merit its own thread.
The suggestion suggested the same thing I thought of immediately, why can't an invention explode and be powered by electricity as an option instead of by fire? They also mentioned acid, which occurred to me might be something driven by a connection to the elemental plane of earth, and would that mean that some construct driven by the elemental plane of water might have the potential do cold damage explosions?
The last one for me is harder to imagine, but I think for more science related issues than ones that would be relevant to Golarion. But it made me even consider, although RARE options, I could imagine even constructs that might even be driven by Positive or Negative energies. What if Frankenstien was an Inventor and he managed to (thinking he was using just lightning) had actually created a construct built of organic components, that was powered by a bolt of positive energy that connected it to the positive energy plane?
Not that NPCs need to have representation in classes, but I could see tons of options for enemy Inventors whom aren't magicians but are building an army of negative fed constructs that some people might mistake for true undead.
At present, we have the base power produced by the innovation being fire, and have a couple options that can produce lighting, but would it be better to allow more variance on what energies you can choose? Potentially provide a bonus if you choose a special attack with the same type of energy (a synergy) bonus, but allow someone to pick other energies as well.
So you could have an electrically charged construct or armor, and have an ability to produce a fan of fire instead of a lighting bolt. Or be able to spray a line of corrosive fluid. At higher levels you might unlock access to additional energies to pick for your chosen attack feats. (even things like positive or negative, for instance)
Ok, I thought this was an interesting line in the playtest document. For whatever reasons, in my first reading it was one of the things that stood out to me as part of the core concept for the class.
After saying this, I want to point out that it seems like this is actually, sort of Inventor's weak spot. Their perception starts out trained, and they only advance finally at 13th level to expert which is where Investigators, Rangers, Rogues, Barbarians all start out at first level.
If one of the common elements of many investigators adventuring is to gather data about their inventions, wouldn't one expect to see their perception be a bit better?
Honestly, I'd think something like the ranger progression, or even the Barbarian progression, which starts good but doesn't advance for some time.
And, yes this is based on feeling based on reading the advancement, not based on specific playtest data.
Anyone else feel like the inventor should be better at noticing details around them?
I love that the class was built to include the option of being able to use Crossbows as well as Guns, to allow the class to function even in an alternate setting that doesn't include guns, and will allow most features and many feats to remain viable.
I have to ask however, did we miss another conventional weapon that might have made sense for the class to be proficient with, either as a choice, or by default? Obviously bows are powerful enough out of the box, so I'm willing to toss them out of consideration.
However, I really think my answer is yes, either just slings, or even potentially the whole slings weapons group.
The sling is generally a weak ranged weapon, given, but it does offer propulsive to get some strength bonus out of it, and offers bludgeoning in a non-firearms world. It might provide some actual viable flavored capabilities. Might need some feat support such as Stone Ace letting someone boost its effectiveness some. Some of the feats and targeting abilities seem like they could be fun for a slinger.
It also opens up the generic name of `Slingers for the class, which of course could be more individually referred to as Gun-slingers, Bolt-slingers, or Stone-slingers. What if Slingers got to choose 2 groups, amount Firearms, Crossbows, and Slings? to be proficient in?
Or might Stone-slingers could be a Class Archetype that trades out firearm access and proficiency out for the equivalent proficiencies and access to slings group?
I was kind of assuming that when the Summoner's HP hit zero, they go into dying state if the hit that caused it was lethal.
However, is that specifically expected? If the strike wasn't to the summoner but the Eidolon, the Eidolon goes pop ceasing to be manifested. The shared HP hits 0, but it is a reasonable question if the Summoner is just unconscious, or if they are dying.
If the Eidolon gets taken to 0HP with a negative damage effect, does it kill the summoner outright, or would it only do that if the Summoner was in the original effect? It seems obvious that if it was from an area affect and both were in there, it would be obvious any effects would effect both. But I'm not certain it is obvious if an effect that would take place on the target because of going to 0 hp would naturally also impact the other target who was forced to 0hp as well, but not in the direct line of effect, but instead a sort of collateral damage.
Does a successfully disintegrated Eidolon kill the summoner? Does it make them dying, does it make them unconscious. Or if some effect technically doesn't take them to 0 hp, it just kills the target (say the Eidolon), does that leave the summoner alive?
Sorry if this has already come up, but if you are required to make a flat check to attack due to concealment or due to being restrained, do you have to make the check for both the discharging strike, as well as the subsequent spell attack roll separately?
I would hope/feel it shouldn’t be necessary, but I’m not sure that is clear or that it was intended.
Since you can’t trigger the stoned spell attack Until you have hit, it makes sense it relies on the first attacks flat roll to target. If anything the discharging strike is almost like a second targeting requirement that is more skill based.
I really feel requiring an additional flat check would be horribly cutting their effectiveness in such situations down to where they would be largely unable to function. I’d hope that wasn’t desired.
I’m fine with being grappled potentially interfering with casting the spell, but feel if the spell is already cast, and they succeed in making their strike, the grapple shouldn’t normally make them have a chance of not being able to release the spell.
I believe that should be -10.00 instead of -3.48, correct?
Or is something strange happening with the shipping since it looks like the subscription shipment has gotten split in two pieces for some reason?
BTW: I was expecting to see a backlogged queue, but wow you've gotten things caught up. Others have congratulated you, and I'd do the same, but will do it here rather than a separate post. :)
Not sure what level it should fall on, but reading a few other posts, I was inspired to think that a really flavorful Reaction for a Magus would be the following
FEAT ?
Retributive Parry Strike [reaction]
Trigger: You are struck by an enemy using a melee strike with a weapon or unarmed attack, and you have a Striking Spell stored.
You seize the opportunity to allow your Striking Spell to be triggered by the attacker. Treat this as if you had succeeded in a physical strike such as an AoO. If the spell requires a spell attack roll, roll your spell attack roll, as if you'd succeeded in the weapon strike. If the spell only requires a saving throw, have the target make the saving throw. The weapon itself however does no damage, only triggers the spell.
What if, while a Magus is charged with a Striking Spell, and successfully hits with a physical strike. They roll a spell strike using the same MAP as the physical strike (be it Agile, etc.).
The difference being give the Magus has a new Free action (with the following trigger):
Succeeding with an physical attack during a Striking Spell, but getting a simple failure on the spell's attack roll.
Effect: The magus holds the charge, of the Striking Spell. The spell attack counts towards their future MAP as an attack, but the Striking Spell is still prepared for a subsequent strikes. (this does not extend the timeframe past the end of the round after the spell was cast however)
This would mean that the Magus, when using spell strike would be trading the ability to make a spell attack only dependent on one roll, to one being dependent on a prerequisite physical strike hit, but would allow them several attempt to get the combination of of hits on both they physical and subsequent spell strikes to land the spell. It think this ability to re-roll misses in effect would give more of a reason for the ranged Magus to use this ability, rather than simply casting the ranged spells outside the Striking Spell envelope during the lower levels.
This would not stop them from ever losing a spell, as during a spell attack roll if they got a critical failure, but gives them a chance to try again on simple failures. And yes, for some reason something very similar to this was basically listed as an 18th level feat(second hand strike) although that covered crit saved saves, immunity to the spell, etc. as well. But is this really that giant a boost (or more importantly unbalanced)? It doesn't seem like it to me, but on the other hand it might be enough to make spell strikes give an extra edge, even if on average the magus might miss on more spell attack rolls than your average spellcaster. It would also help conserve the four spell slots they have, helping them to get a higher percentage of them to stick, than their raw spell attack roll proficiency numbers would normally allow for.
If this was viewed as too powerful an ability, it could either be turned into a reaction, which would basically make it only usable once per turn and would eat up other potential uses of your reaction.
Another option for limiting it would be to have it be that if it has been used on a particular cast spell to enable another attempt, it could be that any critical on subsequent physical attacks, might not provide the normal boost of effect for this spells instance.
Again, the Magus would be taking longer to actually hit with their spell strikes, since they are taking their actions to cast the spells, and taking actions to make strikes, and only they strikes that hit become chances to roll their spell strikes, and when those miss, they have to make more physical strikes attempts to hit, to trigger yet another spell strike, potentially missing from not landing another blow. I.e. Magus's have a tendency to miss more overall, but the misses are less impact to their spell-casting resources, and they keep swinging, and it isn't uncommon for them to get some of the more spectacular results from the diligence.
I.e. they wouldn't really be known particularly for their accuracy, without potentially magical aid, but would be known for their perseverance and periodic results.
This I imagined only affected spell attack rolls, but if people were concerned about spells where the target makes saving throws, you could have the Hold the Charge be an 'option' if the target makes a simple success on the saving throw. (they would still lose the charge on a critical success, and the Magus could choose, for instance to accept the half-damage, or hold the charge, hoping to get more next time) Personally, I'm inclined to stick with it affecting only the spell attack spells, but this would be an possible take.
Ok, it makes sense that Spell Striking is sort of designed to be a Dual-Slice of the weapon/spell situation. A lot of people are clamoring and concerned about how frequently a magus will be able to successfully get their spell to hit.
Unlike Dual-Slice, Spell Strike requires the first attack to hit, for the second attack to be able to be rolled. This seems to make it weaker in use, since it is a significant weakness/requirement.
Granted, the fact the charged-state remains, so it isn't lost first try is important, and appreciated. Without that, it would seem like it was vastly under-powered and ineffective as it would be extremely hard to get it to trigger. The combination of it remaining on a miss, and being usable up until the end of your next round are important.
So the whole question aside of what percentage of time you would successfully get your spell off, I have another perception to point out.
I loved the Investigator concept, and while we went through a playtest of all the playtest classes going through a conversion of the Lost Star and Black Fang's Lair, I saw how frustrating it could be with the investigator having to make two rolls to get their 'combat' thing to work. I was the GM, but I saw the player frustrated when they tended to only succeed with one of the rolls (generally the first) and frequently enough to get a critical success on that roll. But almost invariably failing to hit with the followup attack. About the only time the second roll was a hit, was after failing the first roll.
So I was exited when the new devise a Stratagem mechanic was revealed. It reduced the number of rolls, and made the rolls you made more meaningful.
So here is a couple questions, is the second 'strike' roll absolutely necessary? Would making it be tied to the first strike hitting acceptable, while allowing misses a chance to still be reattempted with another strike?
If we still need to test the spell strike being a hit against the opponent, would it be impossible to use the same roll used for the physical strike. (just add the other set of modifiers to resolve the spell strike) Could even offer the option of the attacker to re-roll its own roll, but allow them to use the same roll. It would reduce the required number of rolls, and would help a good roll carry through.
What if on a successful physical strike, the spell strike is considered by default a hit, but the attacker can choose to roll a separate roll for it. On spell strikes the attacker chooses to roll, the spell strike roll determines the hit. (i.e. can be a hit, despite the physical attack hitting) If the physical attack was a Critical, the result of the roll, if made, is improved one step. (so a hit becomes a critical hit, a miss becomes a hit, etc.)
If it has to be a fresh roll untied to the physical strike, what about having it have a MAP penalty of 0, or bypass MAP for purpose of resolving the spell strike. Meaning that even if it took you 3 physical strikes to land your spell with the weapon, finally getting it to hit, the spell strike has as good a chance to hit as a fresh strike. (after all you already hit your opponent to trigger it, why not allow the strike without MAP) Go ahead and consider the attack an attack after resolving it for the purpose of calculating MAP for other attacks, but don't apply MAP to the spells attack roll itself.
Yes, making the die roll for the physical attack determine the status for the spell attack roll alleviates a die roll, but that doesn't resolve spells that are based on a save, however, since it is a different person making the roll, I find the number of rolls required is less important when shared between individuals, but as pointed out might make attack roll spells preferred over save spells.
It seems like pulling off the spell being cast through a physical attack is the main thing for a magus, so I'd hope that it would be able to be pulled off relatively often, and hopefully would not require tons of rolls each time. [requiring lots of rolls, typically make it hard to succeed at all of them, but also can feel cumbersome, even if the rolls end up being relatively easy]
So I'm going to say, I'm hoping you hit us with a new mechanic like you did with Devise Stratagem that carries the flavor, but makes it more fun, and less work to do a spell Strike.
How unbalancing would the following change to Cackle be?
Leave cackle as a base, as is, as a free action with a verbal trait, that sustains a single spell you've already cast.
What if at the end of the effect, you added the option that the Cackle spell can be sustained in future rounds via a sustain a spell activity, with the concentrate trait replaced by the verbal trait. Sustaining the cackle this way, sustains the original spell the cackle targeted. (this doesn't permit sustaining spells that have expired for some reason)
I'd even thought about allowing the cackle while in effect, allow replacing the all uses of sustain actions to replace the concentrate action, with the verbal one, as long as one sustain is made each round. The first round without using some sort of sustain, the cackle effect ends.
I imagine witches that cackle, not giving off one laugh in a key moment, but laughing throughout the encounter. This seems to encourage it. But does this break things?
Ok, I've felt there are some issues with shields, and shield blocks and the sustainability of higher level magic shields. While I discuss a method of feeling better about trying to limit painful the metagame process of skipping destroying a shield that your character would have tried to block with, because you know the game can't withstand the lose of the wealth of destroying your shield, I feel like there are viable ways of cutting this danger down, without getting rid of the potential of items being broken, and thus unusable for some defined length of time. (either break and repair, or longer downtime requirements).
I know there are plenty who say that nothing should change. I don't really need to hear that, and it won't help me. I've actually thought about this for quite some time and tried to list the Axiom's that I'm trying to follow below. So ideally, I'd love some feedback on if I'm forgetting specific situations that would make the game broken if this was applied. [maybe a spell that makes this suddenly too powerful, or an item that would then seem broken, or a class ability I haven't considered] I'm very open to input, just don't tell me that you should loose your GP investment in a magic shield because you chose to block with it to stop 6HP of damage the first block with it.
Tell me if something creates a situation that you think breaks one of my axioms. Tell me if you think you have an improvement, and tell me why you think it is better. Tell me if one of my arguments or suggestions seems worthwhile but the other(s) go to far, and say why.
Some Axiom’s I’m trying to keep in mind with this set of suggestions.
Axiom 1: Sturdy shields should continue to represent the best blocking choice at that level in the Steel shield format. Most notably, it being able to stop the most damage, the most frequent number times before breaking.
Axiom 2: Shields with other magical utility should be limited to being less than a sturdy shield, by how much, depending on its utility.
Axiom 3: Special materials were intended to be usable to create both non-magical and variants for many of the magical shields. Determining their final stats should be spelled out and relatively simple.
Axiom 4: Druids should have access to a reasonable option for blocking shields if they so choose.
Axiom 5: Undamaged magical shields should not generally be able to be destroyed by an on-level creature in one hit. Magical shield destruction, should be very rare. Same probably would apply for special materials as strong or stronger than iron. (special materials softer than iron/steel, destruction in a single hit might be understandable, if used that way)
Axiom 6: Normal shield block reaction, the wielder chooses to block after hearing the damage
Ok, I was going to list it as Axiom 7, but it occurred to me it didn’t have to be an assumption, it is important, but might need to be weighted against other factors, so I decided to instead call it and the next as a Goal instead of an Axiom.
Goal 1: One shouldn’t be a big incentive to generally skip blocking critical hits because they do twice or more of typical on-level damage.
Goal 2: Keep shield damage and block resolution relatively simple if possible, if we change things.
Ok, some quick steps through the axioms looking at things such as RAW and one example of a suggestion I decided not to pursue and why.
Spoiler:
Axiom 1 test: The Indestructible shield has lower Hardness than a similar level Sturdy shield, and its HP for a single blow is smaller than the sturdy shield, although it never takes actual damage that sticks past the effect, it is either destroyed or not. I’ll consider this a success as it is primarily less effective as a blocking shield than the sturdy shield but does have an advantage of longer (almost infinite) life, but blocking less damage. This seems like a good and reasonable axiom to step forward with.
Axiom 2 test: will prohibit Sturdy from being a rune that could be applied to any shield to bring its statistics up to a sturdy shield. We don’t want to allow a sturdy spellguard shield, based on the axiom. That seems reasonable to me, some might disagree, but I consider it a reasonable axiom I will go forward with.
Axiom 3 test: RAW non-magical items are clear, but of questionable value. It is however, not at all clear how specialized shields could be made from special materials, although implication was they could be made of them. In this case the RAW rules seem to fail my intended axiom. I still consider the axiom reasonable and good, leaving a call for modifications.
Axiom 4 test: It appears that sturdy shields are by fluff defined as always metal. So as RAW rules appear to fail on this, but it might be that Darkwood might be a viable material for druids, and might thus be a viable option for sturdy shields, if they don’t have to be steel. Only requiring being as strong as steel. This isn’t clear for sure what is intended. This axiom might be contrary to the desire of the developers, but it really seems like a reasonable axiom.
Axiom 5 test: This appears that many higher level shields in the core rulebooks RAW could easily fail this axiom. It has sounded like some of the shields in the APs are being made stronger, but this might mean the original intent was for most of them to be less likely to be quickly destroyed.
Axiom 6 test: More of a statement of my understanding of rules. One I’ve heard some that GMs don’t follow, that drastically changes the viability of shield block reactions. I'm stating it because I want people to know I know that rule, and I know that outside of a seemingly broken shield mechanic like Arrow Catcher shield, that in theory the player has to choose to willingly destroy their shield by raw.
Testing Goal 1: Based on the fact that many shield can be destroyed from full on a single hit, this makes blocking critical hits even more foolish frequently, failing this test by raw. The intent behind this Axiom it to reduce the number of times one would have to choose to have the character not use the ability, because it would destroy their shield, when it makes sense they would at least try.
So, I was, for a very short time, in favor of Sturdy being a property rune. However, if pursuing that, then shields should only be able to have one property rune, and sturdy would take that (or would need to be split into multiple runes, of which sturdy as a whole took it up). While it might be possible to replicate sturdy shields with property runes as well as potency runes would be possible, it would likely require reworking everything to be rune effects for everything. Not going to go there, I’d rather try to come up with something closer to what they have now in basis.
First, let’s deal with shields being easily destroyed with on-level attacks.
Spoiler:
Perhaps the simplest solutions is to never have shields be destroyed. They simply break and you have to fix them. However, I’ll admit that I’m ok with rare instances of shields being destroyed, especially when they started out badly damaged, and were subjected to an attack from a significantly greater level adversary.
So simplest adjustment, shields don’t get destroyed. But any shield at 0 HP has to be re-crafted by someone with an appropriate crafting tier (level and rank) based on the shield’s crafting level, as well as the necessary tools to craft. There would be no cost, other than time. Effects like disintegrate that destroy any remains of an object may be destroyed however. But effects that simply do HP damage do not completely destroy shields.
If I wanted to allow shields in truly rare circumstances to be able to be completely destroyed. I’d say simply, if a shield was undamaged, before the hit, it requires taking a hit that would exceed its HP by its max HP. If the shield was damaged to begin with, to be completely destroyed, the hit must exceed the shields remaining HP by its normal BT.
Both of these rules don’t really impact any one encounter at all, is merely might allow a shield that would have been broken to be re-crafted for the cost of time crafting, and capability to craft. I don’t feel these are problems with Axioms 1 and 2, since Sturdy shields are still by far the best for blocking, and doesn’t change the outcome of any individual encounter. Axiom 3 it might make some material shields less of a questionable investment, but probably not enough to make people satisfied, but shouldn’t break anything. It doesn’t really affect Axiom 4 in my view. Axiom 5 is of course where this shines, largely eliminating the core issue with it. Axiom 6, in no way broken by this, but when a GM doesn’t follow the Axiom, it actually is less traumatic in this case. Goal 1, this helps a little bit, if the critical hit remains under the damage threshold that would destroy the shield outright because it exceeded the existing HP, but not enough to get past the BT or original max HP if undamaged prior to being hit. Goal 2, the added complexity is relatively simple, dividing destroyed into destroyed and completely destroyed 0hp = destroyed; exceeding remaining damage by BT or Max HP nets completely destroyed.
Next let us take a look at special materials.
Spoiler:
Shields have three basic attributes that they are compared against one another in combat. These are Hardness, BT and HP (or max HP). I am fairly certain in all normal instances BT = ½ of Max HP, unless I’m missing something. (Indestructible shield for instance has not BT, because its special blocking utility is it doesn’t get broken, it only gets destroyed in certain circumstances) With this in mind I suggest the following clarifications on how special materials would be applied.
You take the higher of the material or magical shields hardness. The magic shield, and the material both have their own defined/shown multipliers. For a magic shield of a special material use the greater of the two multipliers.
This clarification seems like it could help significantly. Of the existing materials in core, only Silver and Dragonhide have lower hardness than steel, so those two would have exceptions in their block, stating how to calculate hardness. (such as take the lower of the two)
I’m going to recommend however that all the shields made of special materials with Standard Grade, rather than low Grade materials, should have their multiplier for calculating max HP increased from x4 to x6. I’m also looking at having High-Grade adamantine potentially advance the multiplier up to x8. A concern cropped up when I realized that doing so meant that a High grade Adamantine shield then had the same statistics as a Level 10 Sturdy shield, and that that edged up on the Sturdy shields territory. However, revisiting the rule, the sturdy shield should be the best long term high damage mitigation, longest durability shield of its level, and so a shield that is minimum 6 levels higher being able to have similar stats is not really that bad, and doesn’t actually break this axiom.
By focusing on a material having a HP and a multiplier which yields its HP (and BT) I think it makes it easy to allow magic shields of various materials to have different statistics quickly calculated, and yield a variety of reasonable results if the materials stats are reasonable. Hardness advances far slower for hard materials than sturdy shields but that is fine, it keeps sturdy well entrenched in its niche. The thing that is most troublesome has been shields getting broken or more often destroyed right off the bat at higher levels. By making the default be that Standard-grade and High-grade materials (as strong as steel) jump to a x6 multiplier would help the higher level shields survive longer, and give magic shields made from such materials a small boost in their survival chances.
Druid’s ability to use a sturdy or sturdy like shield.
Spoiler:
A simple step is to say that a sturdy shield can be made from darkwood, as it is as strong as metal. That opens up upper levels use of sturdy shields to druids, for a pricetag. Another option would be to allow weaker sturdy shield. By allowing normal wood sturdy shields, but reducing the hardness by 2, and the multiplier by 2 you weaken them enough to make the limitation to wood meaningful, but keep the option there. When looking at this, I also am tempted to allow bucklers as well, either using the same stats as wooden sturdy shields, or have them have be at hardness at -4 but with the 8x multiplier. If I did that I’d probably give them a 10% cut in cost, which seems consistent with other magic bucklers.
Damage applied to the shield.
Spoiler:
High level shields can easily be destroyed via critical hits, creating a dynamic in the game where you have an incentive to not use your shield to block an incoming critical hit that will likely do enormous damage to you, due to its ability to destroy even a completely undamaged shield you are wielding that you might otherwise, be unable to afford again. This damage to the shield is by RAW determined by the damage that would have been taken by the wielder. You then subtract the shields hardness, and this is what damage the shield takes. Note, damage to the shield may include precision damage from being able to strike the user in a critical location, or critical damage from potentially similar narratives, and may include deadly or fatal damage from a critical. All of this damage makes sense being very harmful to the target, but may not make sense to be taken by the shield as the attacker was likely not actually targeting the shield.
With this in mind, to help with the sustainability of shields, reduction in the need to pull back from blocking critical hits due to the high likelihood of them being able to break and even destroy the shield, I suggest we change what damage affects the shield. Unless the shield is actually the designated target (not normally viable by RAW) damage the shield takes should not include precision damage, or extra damage from a critical hit. That means that would mean that you don’t multiply damage for calculating shield damage, you don’t add the precision, sneak attack, or deadly dice, nor the extra die from fatal trait. (for clarity and simplicity of rolling; yes, the shield takes the larger die damage caused by the fatal trait) This is consistent with what seems reasonable that a deadly hit on a person, doesn’t mean it is just as destructive to the shield it hit before landing. I’m open to a new trait that a weapon could be given that would be something like Shieldbreaker, by which critical damage it does (still not precision probably though) will get applied to shields when achieved. A viable trait, perhaps for something like a maul or earthbreaker. This complicates the shield damage calculation a little bit, but it is already important that damage be tracked on if it is supposed to be doubled or not when calculating, so this merely means you keep the non-double number as part of your result/answer in cases with a shield block. I think it is both reasonable, and worthwhile application, but recognize some might disagree. If not liking to keep track of it, you could simply halve the final critical damage and it would get you close in many cases.
Although you could potentially use only one of a few of these recommendations, the following is a package that seems well thought out.
Summary of recommendations:
Shield being taken down to 0HP are considered destroyed but can be re-crafted given 1 days work. The crafter must have the tools and capability to craft a shield of that level, to re-craft it. This is similar to transferring runes, in that it is a crafting activity but is not strictly using the normal crafting rules. Note a shield that was taken to 0 by a blow (or damaged after already having being destroyed) can be completely destroyed, if the remaining damage exceeds the original BT of the shield (or the MAX HP if the shield was at full HP prior to the hit in question). A completely destroyed shield cannot be re-crafted to make is usable again. Special abilities such as disintegrate that completely destroy the shield as part of its effect if it brings it down to 0hp, will cause a shield that lost all its HP to become completely destroyed, but other effects which just cause damage will not.
Default rule for calculating Hardness and HP(BT) of magical/special material shields: is to maintain the higher of both the hardness, and the multiplier of the magic shield, and its special material’s grade. Exceptions are added to the Dragonhide and Silver shield special materials, indicating they use the lower of the two hardnesses, unless specified otherwise. Making the special materials more viable, and offering a choice to improving higher level shields, my recommendation is special materials get boosted as follows. All the existing Standard-grade special materials have their multiplier boosted to 6x increasing their listed HP (and BT). High-grade adamantine has its multiplier increased to 8x. As far as specific magic shields, some might specify certain types of materials. An example could be Spellguard and Reflecting shields being adjusted to require they be made of silver or mithral. Likely, it makes sense to require that Dragonslayer shields must be made of Dragonhide, but use the hardness listed in the magic shield.
Sturdy Shields get defined as being able to be made from wood. It does not lower the cost of the shield, but it does reduce the hardness by 2 and reduces the multiplier by 2 down to 6x. Sturdy shield can also be made as a buckler. These bucklers cost the same as their larger forms, but have the same hardness and HP as a Wood Sturdy Shield (-2 hardness from normal, only 6x multiplier) whether made from wood or steel. Sturdy shield can be made from Darkwood and then have the same attributes as regular steel sturdy shields. They can be made from any other special material as long as the material is at least as strong as steel. (Thus, it can’t be made from Silver or Dragonhide) Because of Sturdy shields high hardness and multiplier, such materials don’t normally affect either of those attributes.
Finally, when you block, when doing the damage calculation against the shield, you do not add precision damage, nor multiply the damage by two, nor do you add extra damage and dice due to the critical to the damage applied to the shield. (no sneak attack, no deadly dice, no extra die for fatal, but for clarity you do use the larger fatal die size for the normal damage dice.) This means that blocking critical hits will be a viable choice for most shields, similar to regular hits. This doesn't change the damage calculation done to the shield wielder, it is calculated as it always has been.
I’m also going to mention lastly, that players choosing to not use their reaction up to block against a critical or other attack, because they know that it will destroy their shield, which they can’t afford to have, need not have that decision be the choice of the character. They player can choose to describe their character attempting to block it, but failing for some reason outside of the control of the character. While I think the above rule helps keep the incentive to skip critical hits out for the rules, if a GM doesn’t like the above rule, this way of skinning your choice not to block, may help you feel like you are doing better justice for your character’s choices.
I'm all for people choosing not to use their reaction because they think keeping the +2 bonus to AC is more important at the moment, but I still dislike the game pushing for people to potentially systemically skip blocking the big blows because its systematic design it typically destroys their shield.
Ok, I was responding to a post about Goliath's and after a bit I realized it had far less to do with Goliath's than trying to streamline how size categories actually work, than the original topic so I decided to take this post and put it in a new thread in Homebrew, as that seems more appropriate location.
The Raven Black wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Note that some posters wish for a Medium ancestry that is considered Large for some purposes. The Giant instinct for Barbarians might provide a good basis. But in itself it is problematic: if your character is Medium but considered Large for this instinct, they can wield Huge weapons. Which starts sounding awkward.
Can't small races wield large weapons with this? Seems like a similar comparison: 2 sizes larger.
Good point. I must say that I find the blending of Small and Medium rather distasteful and do not wish to see it contaminate other Sizes but you are right.
I wish PF2 only had one Size for Small and Medium so that Size steps always had the same impact.
I kind of agree with you, that it seems cumbersome that we have two distinct sizes which are being treated as one size with practically no mechanical differences, but when you take the next size steps there are distinct mechanical differences.
I understand there was a historical differences allowing for small and medium sized heritages, and I understand that they wanted to give some of the smaller heritages a more level playing field in some areas, but it does make handling the other size steps now seem much more cumbersome and problematic.
It almost seems like it would have been easier to have simply made an Standard size that took over small and medium sizes from previous editions. Then weapons and armor could be of Standard size.
One impact I suppose would be that goblins being standard size, would if riding a size larger, would need to ride a 'large' mount, meaning they would be riding Wargs not wolves, and halflings riding horses not pony's.
Then you'd need the small and medium again traits, to allow small creatures in Average size to ride creatures with the Medium trait of the same size category. [at which point we are kind of back where we are now] Although I suppose at least then we'd know when something changed size, it impacted bulk calculations, instead of now where in some cases it does, and others it doesn't.
So what if you renamed Medium to Average, and made anything Small into Medium with an additional Small trait. Small creatures are on the smaller side of their size category and can ride creatures that don't have the small trait if they have more than 2 feet?
Then if you want some additional variance, you could create Small Large creatures which are bigger than a person, but can ride other large creatures on the larger side, but not huge.
Average creatures would probably then range from 2 to 8 range, with small ones running more like 2-4. Large creatures might actually run from 6-18 with, the small ones being 6-12 and slimmer and the larger ones being larger and stockier. Small huge creatures might range from 16 - 24 from the range of 16 to 36 or whatever the normal huge range is.
Actually, creatures that are quadruped getting some sort of bulk boost for carrying capacity makes sense, and could easily then make sense why a quadruped might be able to carry small creature from its own size category as long as it doesn't have the small trait itself. You could probably, without really creating any balancing issue, allow quadruped creatures get something like a +5 bulk to their max they can carry while encumbered. Honestly, I could see giving them a +2 bulk bonus for what they can carry before becoming encumbered, but that might have game balance impacts, potentially. And yes, it would assume they remain on fours. If they stand up, they would lose the boost and perhaps become encumbered or over-encumbered.
That would get rid of the small size as a category of its own, and treat it like it is otherwise being treated rules wise. but converting small to the combined size category with a small trait, you simply add a rule allowing mounts that have more legs than 2 would have the ability to allow someone from the same size ride them if the rider is small and they aren't small.
For naming convention I'd not use Medium, so people would be able to differentiate it from the Medium in core documents. Small would become Standard with the additional trait Petite. Petite creatures can ride non-Petite creatures in the same size category if the ridden creature is a quadruped (or likewise stocky/surefooted)
Anyone have better names for quadruped, stocky, or surefooted? Something that would include the quadruped, as well as any other beasts of burden with multiple legs or a legless creature such as a snail perhaps that might be a beast of burden that is good at spreading out load? But I'm concerned about saying sure-footed, as there might be some bipedal goat creature that might be considered sure-footed (even dwarves for instance) but shouldn't necessarily be a good beast of burden.
The idea being to make changes in actual size categories grant consistent predictable effects on game mechanics, which the small and medium really makes counter intuitive, at least in my opinion.
If you have a standard weapon, anyone of Standard size can use it (be they small/petite or human/medium size). Riding rules becomes a little more complicated, as far as it is written. But that is because you get rid of much of the prior duplication of size information between small and medium. Instead petite or small just modifies the given size (which may generally only get seen in Standard size, due to player options, and low level foes) The introduction of quadruped and allowing them permitting petite riders from their own size (as long as they aren't petite) takes care of allowing goblins and halflings to ride ponies, wolves, and goblin dogs. And potentially allowing quadrupeds to have a bulk bonus would help make sure the creature can actually hold the armored rider.
I understand it works like a science officer’s scan check, in a basic way.
However, a scan check uses sensors that you had to buy for your ship and can be damaged.
For 1.BP you get sensors that give you a minus 2 to checks, and the shortest range increments.
For Scrying, for 1bp you get a +2 on your mysticism checks. Additionally there isn’t any range increments specified for a Scrying action. Does that mean there is no rage penalty? Or does it mean it should be treated as using short range increments because it isn’t mentioned. Or does it have no range increments, but a limited range?
It doesn’t say so, so I guess it probably does not, but does this Scrying cost a spell slot?
Honestly, it seems that there should be a Scrying station, potentially costing BP. Your good old fashioned crystal ball station to the right of the broom handle rudder seat. Then you can easily justify them being ably to Scrying through space without using a spell.
I definitely like having something that can be used aboard the ship skill wise other than computers. The chief mate is nice in that it offers use of alternate skills, although the fluff makes it look like it should require a high engineering skill. But I like the concept and new options.
Any issues with posting potential conversions of Races from other old game settings. Coming across my old Alternity book inspired me to look over the Mechalus, for instance and think about how they would look in Starfinder. (not really androids, as they started as biological lifeforms)
Second, I started looking at the Sesheyans thinking about how I could easily imagine them being a species subjugated by the Aeon Throne instead of Voidcorp, perhaps having had a large migration ship or colony lost, and found by Pact Worlders. I haven't found if any of them would have fallen under OGL, something mentioned some of the Alternity material supposedly being included in D20 Future, but I'm not familiar with what all was in D20 Future.
Of course that also made me think back even further to the Dralasites, Vrusk, and Yazarians too.
Any issues with posting what someones conversions for these races if they were done up in StarFinder rules?
Any others have interest in seeing them if it's ok to post them?
So each lesson has a Key spell which the witch learns along with the lesson. (in addition to the Hex)
Wouldn't it make it thematically more interesting if you could spontaneously cast your lesson spells? So you would prepare your spell slots with other prepared spells, but could replace any slot with a lesson spell, spontaneously.
Lesson spells could then never be lost because of a familiar died, because they aren't prepared spells, and would be available the first day after a replacement familiar is summoned.
Or, if you feel that is too 'significant' an advantage, limit it to only if that lesson spell has been memorized in one slot. (or one slot at that level) That would mean if you memorize one use of the lesson spell, you could spontaneously cast it additional times using up other slots that you had other spells memorized in.
Ok, due to real life constraints, we didn't get past character creation on our intended playtest adventure. However, there was a lot of interesting aspects of the classes as presented. I enjoyed reading some of the forum posts, and they brought up several interesting points.
I wanted to go ahead and point out a few ideas I thought were worth sharing that working on the playtest had got me thinking about.
Always-on curses were absolutely a thing that were talked about here, and of course, as pointed out had been the standard in first edition. I can't help but ask the question, what if oracles had a Path choice. One path, the curse would begin the day as always on, but in response they would receive the choice of a set of a mystery agnostic second revelation spell, or potentially have two initial revelation spells for each mystery. If you begin the day without a curse, you choose one of them, if you begin cursed, you start with both. That way you could have a cursed oracle and a burdened oracle. The cursed oracle started with the minor curse, the burdened one gets there once they utilize certain of their abilities for the day.
One of the things that made me think of the potential of a second revelation spell was the fact that some had mentioned that some players were having to simply burn a revelation spell to progress their curse, as the spell they had wasn't always that useful early in the day. This made me think, what if any time you cast a divine spell that used a slot, an oracle would have the 'option' to advance their curse. (revelation spells would always advance, but this is an optional advancement) It might just be a simple option with no benefit beyond if you want to get closer to your more advanced curse, or there might be some 'perk' to engaging your curse, perhaps upping the DC of the cast spell by 1, or counts as a level higher for counteract purposes, as they Mystery power surges to power the spell. I'm torn on if cantrips should be able to progress your curse or not.
I personally like the way the curse mechanic turns the focus point system around a little bit. I see it as a little more complicated, but Oracle is being added to an Advanced Players guide, so I think that is fine.
Multi-classing, I have to say at first I was worried about how things would be handled with a Oracle multi-classing into something else that would have focus spells. But after I saw, and thought about how a Oracle multi-classed into a monk could channel their mystery powers to do martial powers, to power up their attacks, I loved the potential concept. In the end, I like Oracle changing how Focus powers work for that character.
What becomes problematic was as I began to consider multi-classing into Oracle. I don't think I believe it makes sense for the Multi-class dedication for an Oracle to have the ability to fundamentally change the way focus points work for their character's original core class. But if you take the curse away, what would make being a multi-class Oracle different from a Divine Sorcerer, other than potentially some different focus spells available to them? Since the curse is such a core part of the class flavor, leaving it out completely seems a bit wrong. Could casting your cantrip you learn from multi-classing as oracle more than once in 10 minutes potentially advance you to your minor curse, if you aren't already at it?
What comes to mind as a solution is to have people taking a multi-class Oracle dedication have normal character's rules for Focus points/Focus spells. Oracles would have the addition of the curse mechanic affecting them any time they cast a Revelation spell. With this, in addition to costing a Focus point to cast the revelation spell, they would advance their curse track one step, like the normal oracle. They would have access to the Refocus activity for both recovering focus points, and to reduce the curse down to minor. However, they would have a new option for the Refocus activity, as long as they have a focus point to spend, to completely mitigate the minor level of their curse back to nothing with a 10 minute refocus activity. (That means after casting your last focus point, you'd have to recover a focus point with a 10 minute activity, after which you could remedy your minor curse effect after another 10 minute activity) This would leave a multi-class oracle, who has spent a couple class feats multi-classing into it would be able to access some of the basic flavor of the oracle, including the Moderate Curse effects, but since not central to their class, leaving them the ability to mitigate it completely with time. I'm just not sure if that flavor would be too slow for normal multi-class archetype progressions or not, to feel worthwhile.
Perhaps, as part of the Flavor, if your multi-class oracle casts one of their cantrips they learned through their dedication, more than once per 10 minutes, it manifests their minor curse until they refocus. That could introduce a potential situation where the curse flavor can be felt, even with only the first multi-class dedication feat being introduced. With that in mind, perhaps this could be generalized, and apply also to full Oracle classed individuals, and have casting several cantrips within a given time from either 1 minute or 10 minutes, for instance would advance them to their minor curse.
Anyway, I think they way the Curses are tied to the Mysteries make them more flavorful. I'll admit, the loss of options to mix and match curse and mysteries was a loss. I can tell that the intent is to make the oracles more balanced, while at the same time as flavorful, by integrating the choices together. It will make converting some past character really complicated [require concept change, or homebrew] for many, but from a new game standpoint, may well be the better long term choice.
I look forward to seeing what the new Oracle Iconic's story will be, but I hope to also see an example of how our retiring Oracle Iconic would be presented in second edition.
As I have tried to convert treasures from first edition to second edition, I am realizing how what used to be a common simple treasure that adventurers could find was partially used wands. Now that wands are permanent items, and not something that gets consumed, it makes these invalid, along with some of the stories that included them.
I kind of felt like there would be room for something that might help fill this niche. Something other than (convert any wand to a potion, or scroll). What if some wands were poorly made, or sometimes overcharged wands, instead of becoming useless became, no-longer permanent.
My idea being, shoddy/fragile wands are generally 1/day usable items, but any use (not just over-charge uses) are subject to a flat roll. Overcharge uses are more risky, if attempted.
Your basic shoddy wand may for instance have a DC5 roll. On any success other than a natural 20, the spell is cast, and the wand's flat check DC increases by one. On a natural 20, the check remains the same. On a failure the wand is destroyed or becomes non-magical. If an attempt to use a shoddy/fragile wand is made more than once per day, subsequent attempts to use the wand on the same day, the DC of the flat check is 10 higher than its normal roll.
I contemplate a potential differentiation between shoddy and fragile wands, shoddy wands might be that shoddy wands may impart the -2 item penalty to the DC of the spell cast, fragile ones would however have no item penalty, but would still be subject to the flat rolls to see if they burn out.
By shoddy rules, such an item would normally not be something you could sell. if they were to be able to sell it, they would probably, at most, get around the price of similar level consumable, as you would only be guaranteed one use, so most would consider it too much of a gamble.
Further, if we implemented that the failure on a overcharge attempt on a normal fully operational wand only completely destroyed the wand on a roll of a natural 1, and rolls from 2-9 left you with a broken wand, that also gains the shoddy/fragile property with an attached DC of (10-your failed flat roll). This would then easily explain the existence of some 'limited' wands. (something that has been cannon in past stories) It also might make overcharging of wands a 'little' less crazy, and something someone might risk on occasion.
And yes, rolling a 9 on your flat check for the wand overcharge, would net you a Wand with Broken, Shoddy(DC1) traits. So after being fixed, it would need a DC1 check (success guaranteed), but unless they got a natural 20, the wand would become Shoddy(DC2), leaving you a slowly growing chance it is burnt out forever.
Anyway, what do people think about this?
Would it be interesting to be able to find a Wand of Magic Missile, shoddy(dc5)? An item you can use for a while and then discard when fate takes it from you?
