RCJak's page

RCJak wrote:

a lot of the counter points amount to relatively little.

RCJak wrote:

Is your role merely a matter of meeting a DC in rather exotic circumstances? If so, I suppose I can say no more to you, as you're enjoying the game and it is working for you.

RCJak wrote:

I did have to point a few fingers. They are not pointed with malice or in some effort to incur wrath. If all you want from the ranger is a relatively standard set of scaling modifiers, or a relatively effective role in combat, you can have as much in 2e.

Yeah, after reading these parts, I can't really say the same.

My questions about the class were meant as invitations. I do see how they might be taken as adversarial, but I really don't mean them as much. Ranger occupies essentially a "class slot", that is to say, a space in design that contributes to playing the game we all love. I'm pointed in an effort to ask the wider community why we bother retaining a ranger in the same way we retain a rogue. A rogue disarms traps, he deceives our otherwise milquetoast foes, he thieves the mcguffin when we least expect it.

If ranger deserves the space of an entire class, as it has been for an entire edition, I'm probing. I'm probing to see why we feel the ranger deserves a meme, or whether he/she deserves a TikTok video, or whether any particular situation demands a ranger -in the particular-. These are the directions my questions orient.

I do not endeavor to close the thread. Far from it. I think the OP has opened something of an inquiry into a much deeper question that the class, and even perhaps the system as a whole must ask itself. Does the Ranger even deserve to be a class? If it does, and I believe it does, I invite others to engage this seemingly growing problem, why? Why would you desire a ranger as a part of your party? Why does ranger warrant the same consideration as a wizard, sorcerer, swashbuckler or even shadowdancer?

We intuit why certain roles participate in a campaign, we understand where arcs are leading when our party-make-up is of a certain sort. Where does the ranger fit into that? Because Paizo seems inclined to reserve Ranger to the effectiveness of an archetype. And that is perfectly fine, if Ranger is to be merely an archetype. But it is not. So why does it warrant the slot of a class?

N N 959 has really carried the thread forward. Many of his points are well said and earnestly thought out. I'll admit he cares a good deal more for the class than I care to, but a lot of the comments that haven't been his cause me some pause. While N N certainly details a lot of his problems with the direction Paizo has taken the ranger this edition, a lot of the counter points amount to relatively little. Perhaps I can outline some sentiments, as I see them, without being too critical.

“I like how the Ranger plays.”

While N N may not mirror my sympathy to rangers being at least effective on the battlefield, I feel this is a perfectly reasonable observation to make, if not a very penetrating one. I'm certainly glad the numbers add up, as they should, but why does a ranger warrant a party-slot when the same objective could be accomplished by a fighter with a much richer narrative space to grow into? Consider the fact that narratively, the fighter will universally be the duelist due to their accuracy, the horde-breaker based on their feats leading to action potency, and the competitor when it comes to hitting or impressing based on feats related to their skill set. All of these are ostensibly tied to the most martial of all martial classes, and still there is an immense amount of ammunition here to allow fighters to perform impressively and gain the 'limelight' entirely outside of combat while still exhibiting their class abilities. Ranger's deficiency will be detailed later.

I will waste no time in this thread to detail the extensive concept mine that can be dug for the fighter, but compared to the ranger? If the wilderness hunter is precisely what you're looking for, in certain situations, you will find yourself mirroring a fighter in all but its versatility. I must ask these folks that say ranger plays well, is this sufficient from a roleplay perspective? Is your role merely a matter of meeting a DC in rather exotic circumstances? If so, I suppose I can say no more to you, as you're enjoying the game and it is working for you. I, however, do expect more of a class that demands distinction if it is to operate as its own class.

“Rangers should not have spells.”

Can I ask why? Why are spells so objectionable, even focus spells, to the concept of the ranger? I tried to detail this class in a manner that called back to AD&D; a martial branch that nonetheless veered into the realm of the 'primal' classes, for those merely of 2e extraction. N N had a very poignant observation that Ranger 2 was incredibly common in 1e, and their spellcasting never even entered the equation for the many 'players' of rangers. Perhaps the fact that no one sees spellcasting as an essential element of ranger reflects on this general trajectory of regarding ranger as little more than a 'dip' class than a role in and of itself. I can speak to seeing rangers played and playing rangers above level 10, and the lack of this element to the ranger makes them the poorer for its lacking. Consider, for a moment, that without the ranger of 1e, the only class that utilized the druid spell list was the druid itself, despite a great deal of narrative effort being made to emphasize druidic and ranger efforts aligning in a great number of different things. The arcane spell list is utilized by half a dozen classes, the divine spell list is the same, even the occult could arguably be applied to bard, mesmer, sorcerer, arcane trickster, any number of different class options. Why does druid demand and require its own spell list that is soley its purview? I feel as though rangers are a natural fit to this, and the fact that so many comments in this thread alone reflect the inclination of rangers to dedicate into druid seems to argue for itself.

“The Wilderness Hunter is good enough.”

I cannot speak to your particular campaign or your particular arcs, but I must demand a little more depth on this. Is this concept as rich as a bard? Who can elect to play as a spy, a penny-singer, a montebank, an evangelist and a skald? Is the ranger deep enough to reflect this kind of diversity? In 2e, I cannot say, in earnestness, that it does. What is ranger-y? Tracking and nature-y stuff comes to mind, certainly, but 2e has turned rather hard to make these two elements of play entirely skill focused. A fighter or a rogue or a wizard can be just as effective as a ranger in these spaces in 2e. Skills in 1e were at a much higher premium than they now are in 2e, and clerics enduring their regrettable skill count was a -huge- liability for the class. The fact rangers gained just so many was an immense boon, and was, in essence, a critical flavor of the class. I'll waste no time reminiscing about 1e, as it is neither here nor there, but dedicating mechanics to tracking itself and reading nature and feeding your party were once essential parts of the 'adventuring experience'. They have now either entirely been forgotten or permitted to be handwaved by a feat anyone can take, which leaves the ranger in the lurch.

I would ask you to take a brief browse of the ranger feats and gauge their distinction compared to other classes. Barbarians can eat spells because their superstition compels spellcraft to fail, and they can be stirred to greater heights as a result. Sorcerers can make their own ancestry just as intimate a part of their spellcasting as their magical bloodline. Fighters can make distance and reach and pushing and pulling their tools based on their weapons' utilities. Rangers see the design space that was neglected from 1e filled in come APG, and not in a way satisfying to those that actually have some investment in the class.

My points remain in my first post, but I did have to point a few fingers. They are not pointed with malice or in some effort to incur wrath. If all you want from the ranger is a relatively standard set of scaling modifiers, or a relatively effective role in combat, you can have as much in 2e. But this does not deserve the space of a class in and of itself. This is the space reserved for an archetype at best and a couple skill or general feats at worst. Pathfinder 2e can do better when it comes to Ranger; nay, it must do better than 5e, given the absolutely abyssal state that class claims even to this day.

lemeres wrote:

The are basically putting up a set of feats and focus spells to give rangers the same deal that monks have with ki spells.

I like this direction of giving martial characters focus spells instead of trying to give everything spell slots.

I don't like the juxtaposition with Class Feats. Let me use Skill or General Feats. The Ranger is particularly screwed over in this manner because Paizo commoditized a lot of the Ranger's narrative abilities as Class Feats. So this is forcing a Ranger who wants spells to give up even more of its Ranger-esque feats and/or its combat viability. This is exacerbated by the fact that you have to choose a 1st lvl Focus spell to get any other Focus spell.

Maybe this is true for the Monk and Champion, as well, but I haven't looked into Focus Spell for the other classes.

A concise but poignant critique of the ranger, and one I've largely seen building several and seeing several played. Ranger was perhaps the class I was watching most closely in the new edition, partially because D&D 5e's absolutely disastrous treatment of the class that it retains meme status even into 2020, and that the path to 'competitive' contribution in Pathfinder 1e felt so...particular, in a word.

Ranger seems to have been introduced into the game, generally, as a martial that rubs elbows with the now-dubbed 'primal' classes. Where Paladin did so with the divine, Ranger was the answer for folks that dug druids and fey and nature/wilderness. I think Pathfinder 2e set itself up for a very tricky situation by making the Ranger solely a 'wilderness hunter' type. While there is design space here, many of the elements that made ranger unique were jettisoned to shore up a very narrow kind of character. Many of the most ranger-y things are now feat locked or were absent pre-APG.

Don't get me wrong, Hunter's Edge makes the Ranger a fine class mechanically; they can be competitive and effective when it comes to the math going into game systems, but their flavor is simply subpar. The fact that warden spells occupied such a large design space in ranger's 'update' implies that Paizo realized this absence was a misstep that had to be remedied quickly. I feel like there's simply not a lot of space left for the hunter archetype to expand anymore than it already has, and the fact that so many things that make a ranger a ranger in the first place are feats means accessing the class's flavor is a matter of taxation. The warden spells are more of the same.

Take the tax out of the equation. I've seen plenty of panels, updates and interviews that the team gives saying they're trying to distance themselves from arbitrary feat taxes the likes of which made 1e something of a nightmare for new players. Why is gravity bow the entrance to focus spellcasting? Heal companion? What if my ranger doesn't use an animal companion? It's arbitrary and unnecessary. And Rangers don't even get spellcasting progression, to boot, so bramble or soothing mist used offensively are bound to be wastes after a certain level threshold. The entire endeavor seems either last minute or not very well thought out for precisely these issues. I look forward to the errata, at the very least.

Malkyn wrote:

Is there much (if any) incentive for a heavy armor user to increase Dex above 12 outside of Reflex save or skills?

If you use my House Rules changes, there is a line in there that changes the motive for dumping Dex because of armor's Dex cap.

Increased Proficiency in Armor has additional benefits. At Expert, the Dex cap is raised by +1 and any armor check penalty is reduced by 1. At Master these benefits increase to +2 , and Legendary is +3.

This goes for all armor types, including Light, but my rules cap PC's inherent stats at 20 (+5). Magic can still raise it higher, but you can only buy up to a 20. This means it tends to favor medium and heavy armor wearers most, if they keep their Dex up.

I was actually going to make a thread questioning this very rule until I came across this one, and let me just say, I love this houserule. I don't like the idea that by level 20, half the party has just elected to put their magical armor in the bin because they've had the opportunity to increase stats -so- much. Dexterity is eventually going to snag a couple of those increases, even if you want it to be a dump stat. I want the epic fighter to still be decked out in runic, magical armor by the end, but this system discourages that slightly when it renders heavy armor more irrelevant. This house rule goes a long way towards nudging in the other direction without being game-breaking. Definitely going to test at my table.

I wanted to chime in here because I want Samurai to know they're not alone. The corners behind the binding of the book seem particularly weak. My book has been used about as much as his has; ordered it and reserved it at my local game store, so it wasn't stocked and being handled by anyone before I picked it up, and it has been in my home since then, used to read through once over two to three days, and make two characters, and already I'm seeing flaking on the corners and the binding aching.

I think part of this is that the book is simply too large. This is a -big- core rulebook. I understand the many motivations Paizo had for wanting to get games rolling with so many different systems and encounter designing elements and game mastery tools, but the fact of the matter is the weight of the pages are straining the corners, glue and bindings of this book. And, perhaps as other comments above have detailed, the material might not have been up to snuff; simple as that. Nothing really can be done about it at this point, I still love the book, but I feel like I'm going to be forced to use Archives of Nethys for character creation from now one to preserve my book's integrity.

Don't get me wrong, Paizo. It irks me, sure, but I just hope future books remedy the problem if I'm going to make Second Edition my new edition for play.

RCJak wrote:

Just ran my second session of Pathfinder 2e, and while there is a lot to like, our group is also running into some surprising (and somewhat disappointing) issues. Multiple actions for each character is stellar, for certain, but plunging into a 2e game with a group very much accustomed to high-level play from 1e, multiple actions through quicken spell, attack bonus increases, etc, are very much something my players are familiar with and can game with.

Our first game saw the players go from level 1-2, and the second session we tested higher level play at level 6-7, and the spell Haste came up. Searching the forum, it seems like there is no special rule for this spell anymore and that it will suffer the appropriate penalty for multiple attacks. This seemed odd to the group for a number of reasons.

Perhaps it was in the past that Haste was an overpowered spell, but it was almost universally cast on martials even in 1e. It seems the focus was even more narrowly defined in 2e by restricting actions to Strike or Stride. Sure, fair enough. But shouldn't being augmented by magic counteract this penalty in some way? We've gone through a dozen combat encounters, and Strike, Strike, bonus, seems to be the typical approach for our martials, that bonus being a move or a shield or any number of one action deals.

We very rarely see that -10 rear its head because it's been tested and tested and tested and overwhelmingly, it's an exercise in failure against level-appropriate challenges. Sure, we can imagine the situation where we're facing mooks and a -10 is really nothing against a -1 Challenge enemy, but I'm curious what precisely Haste is meant to accomplish if we're supposed to see this spell manifest magical-speed enough to make an additional attack, but that attack potentially suffers from a crippling penalty. Like I said, the two actions for characters before seem to be reserved for their combat specialty; either the Strike, Strike or the spell or what have you.

Put simply, why go

...

Of all the counter-posts, this understands my contention. It just don't make no sense.

RCJak wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

RCJak wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Haste isn't an auto cast on every martial, no. If you're already swinging 3 times in a round, one more at -10 probably isn't worth it.

But it is EXTREMELY good on anyone who has to mix up their action routines more often. Anyone with an animal companion to command, for example. Shield users, Demoralizers. Or casters themselves. Haste makes an incredible addition to a caster who can swing a sword or shoot a bow.

Certainly, those caster's proficiency lends itself to such a casting. The spell flags Strike and Strides. In my experience, we don't see our wizards swinging swords all that regularly, to say nothing of wading into the fray.

Then you haven't seen enough casters. The action economy of 2e makes gishing extremely easy. It takes a single ancestry feat to open up the possibilities of what you can strike with. And even a squishy elf wizard can enjoy haste. Stride away >cast spell >bespell weapon longbow shot is excellent.

Or crack open the bestiary. It is full of casting heavy hitters. A dragon with haste is terrifying.

It isn't an auto pick spell like it was last edition. But it is very good on the right builds, and there are plenty of builds that is true for. If you or a party member can utilize it well, if it is worth picking. If you can't, then you can skip it. That's a pretty ideal balance point for a spell, especially given how easy it is to retrain out of it.

Also, while the spell has stiff competition for 3rd level slots when you first get them, as a fireball can really turn an encounter, it remains a useful way to use a lower level slot throughout your career.

This is precisely why it feels profane to me. "You can make your wizard a front-liner, give him the extra attack,". Certainly, ancestry feats can give you some of the proficiency you need, but in the end, their HP is going to be lower, their AC is going to be lower, their options fewer in melee combat.

...

Then let me concede almost every point you've made as a very round-about way of making my point. Every class gets to do the things you outline. Wonderful. But Haste as a spell lets you Strike or Stride with an 'extra action'. What does this mean mechanically? What does this mean thematically? The answer to these two questions immediately diverge. Mechanically, if I look at my turn in a gamey way, I can make my first action x, second action y, which makes way for z with this formula.

Thematically? None of this follows. We're looking to make the character under this spell faster; he can swing a sword again, or move again, but what about the other class examples? Sure, we can create a certain combination of actions that game the system so as to be...somewhat practical? We certainly couldn't say this is ideal. It just gives a little wiggle room for other actions that -aren't even associated with the effects of the spell-. That is why this rubs me the wrong way. “I'll use haste to drink an Elixir!” “I'll use haste to command my pet!” How does this translate in the theme of the spell? The speed of the spell? Are you speaking extremely fast to your animal? How is that intelligible to a beast? Why is drinking an elixir not just another action you can do with Haste? The whole of this strikes me as gamey, it strikes me as cringey and it strikes me as underdeveloped.

This is my main point. I'm not arguing for the spell based on its longevity; you misunderstand me. That isn't worth nothing, but more importantly, how does this spell work and why does it flag only certain actions that it speeds?

RCJak wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Haste isn't an auto cast on every martial, no. If you're already swinging 3 times in a round, one more at -10 probably isn't worth it.

But it is EXTREMELY good on anyone who has to mix up their action routines more often. Anyone with an animal companion to command, for example. Shield users, Demoralizers. Or casters themselves. Haste makes an incredible addition to a caster who can swing a sword or shoot a bow.

Certainly, those caster's proficiency lends itself to such a casting. The spell flags Strike and Strides. In my experience, we don't see our wizards swinging swords all that regularly, to say nothing of wading into the fray.

Then you haven't seen enough casters. The action economy of 2e makes gishing extremely easy. It takes a single ancestry feat to open up the possibilities of what you can strike with. And even a squishy elf wizard can enjoy haste. Stride away >cast spell >bespell weapon longbow shot is excellent.

Or crack open the bestiary. It is full of casting heavy hitters. A dragon with haste is terrifying.

It isn't an auto pick spell like it was last edition. But it is very good on the right builds, and there are plenty of builds that is true for. If you or a party member can utilize it well, if it is worth picking. If you can't, then you can skip it. That's a pretty ideal balance point for a spell, especially given how easy it is to retrain out of it.

Also, while the spell has stiff competition for 3rd level slots when you first get them, as a fireball can really turn an encounter, it remains a useful way to use a lower level slot throughout your career.

This is precisely why it feels profane to me. "You can make your wizard a front-liner, give him the extra attack,". Certainly, ancestry feats can give you some of the proficiency you need, but in the end, their HP is going to be lower, their AC is going to be lower, their options fewer in melee combat. Perhaps I haven't seen enough casters, but an elder dragon is a little different than a dedicated wizard, and while I can imagine a dragon engaging in melee while casting spells, expecting our wizards to mirror that kind of verve is asking a hell of a lot for our low-HP, low-AC buds.

You're right, it's not the great spell it was in 1e, but as I said above, this is one of the few spells we have from -before- DnD was a thing. And it's been utterly neutered. Fireball isn't this way. Why did Haste get the ax? What is the justification for making the folks that are typically good at Striking just taking a literal lucky stab at the end of their turn with ostensibly supernatural speed. It makes no sense mechanically or thematically. I feel like I want to explore why this spell is such a waste when it's been with our shared hobby for ages now, and a very iconic wizard power.

No, its just the formal wording that interacts with when/how you get your normal 3 actions/reaction.

Check page 468 of the CRB
Where it talks about what happens at the start of your turn.

"Regain your 3 actions and 1 reaction. If you haven’t spent your reaction from your last turn, you lose it—you can’t “save” actions or reactions from one turn to use during the next turn. If a condition prevents you from being able to act, you don’t regain any actions or your reaction. Some abilities or conditions (such as quickened and slowed) can change how many actions you regain and whether you regain your reaction. If you lose actions and gain additional actions (such as if you’re both quickened and slowed), you choose which actions to lose."

Perhaps the formal wording confuses me. Could you parse this so it's more digestible? I still don't see how this explanation clashes with my groups interpretation, and thus, the spell's odd place and weakness?

Haste isn't an auto cast on every martial, no. If you're already swinging 3 times in a round, one more at -10 probably isn't worth it.

But it is EXTREMELY good on anyone who has to mix up their action routines more often. Anyone with an animal companion to command, for example. Shield users, Demoralizers. Or casters themselves. Haste makes an incredible addition to a caster who can swing a sword or shoot a bow.

Certainly, those caster's proficiency lends itself to such a casting. The spell flags Strike and Strides. In my experience, we don't see our wizards swinging swords all that regularly, to say nothing of wading into the fray.

I'm trying to parse the quickened condition. You gain the extra action at the start of your turn, you can only use this extra action to stride or strike. Do you have to USE this extra action at the start of the turn, when it is gained, is that just when you gain it? like, can a quickened fighter Power Attack, Strike, then move?

It would be nice if you still got a status bonus to your speed, AC, and reflex save like in 1e

This does -not- seem to be the case. This spell gives you a Strike or Stride, not an action that acts as a Strike or Stride, so you couldn't Power Attack with it.

This is why I see the spell as so curious, because of its -very- limited utility. No speed boost, no bonus to AC. Really, it's only giving you an extra chance roll for level-appropriate enemies. I feel like it could have been handled better.

Certainly, Rangers will benefit, but it seems odd to have an arcane spell be oriented towards "you ought cast this on your ranger, assuming you have one" kind of flavor. But "if the stars align, this is a good spell" seems to bait the exotic, or in other words, making the use of this spell so rare as to not even warrant consideration in taking.

This isn't a dig at your explanation, it's just I'm struggling to find a good place for this spell when we're expected to "maybe with -two- negative 10's, you'll get lucky", or "it's the ranger spell", when this spell has been incredibly iconic since Gygax's Chainmail supplements. Why do we see this, one of the dozen or so spells the founder of our hobby gave us, so gutted and lackluster, and what were the dev's thinking this spell could be used for beyond those two relatively obscure circumstances?

It almost seems like a -waste- of a spell when the arcane caster's turn comes up, when before, through half a dozen editions, Haste has ever been one of these great multi-tools for us to use.

Just ran my second session of Pathfinder 2e, and while there is a lot to like, our group is also running into some surprising (and somewhat disappointing) issues. Multiple actions for each character is stellar, for certain, but plunging into a 2e game with a group very much accustomed to high-level play from 1e, multiple actions through quicken spell, attack bonus increases, etc, are very much something my players are familiar with and can game with.

Our first game saw the players go from level 1-2, and the second session we tested higher level play at level 6-7, and the spell Haste came up. Searching the forum, it seems like there is no special rule for this spell anymore and that it will suffer the appropriate penalty for multiple attacks. This seemed odd to the group for a number of reasons.

Perhaps it was in the past that Haste was an overpowered spell, but it was almost universally cast on martials even in 1e. It seems the focus was even more narrowly defined in 2e by restricting actions to Strike or Stride. Sure, fair enough. But shouldn't being augmented by magic counteract this penalty in some way? We've gone through a dozen combat encounters, and Strike, Strike, bonus, seems to be the typical approach for our martials, that bonus being a move or a shield or any number of one action deals.

We very rarely see that -10 rear its head because it's been tested and tested and tested and overwhelmingly, it's an exercise in failure against level-appropriate challenges. Sure, we can imagine the situation where we're facing mooks and a -10 is really nothing against a -1 Challenge enemy, but I'm curious what precisely Haste is meant to accomplish if we're supposed to see this spell manifest magical-speed enough to make an additional attack, but that attack potentially suffers from a crippling penalty. Like I said, the two actions for characters before seem to be reserved for their combat specialty; either the Strike, Strike or the spell or what have you.

Put simply, why go from a full attack bonus free-attack spell, to such a stinker? Is Haste really cast that often in your games? Do you feel this spell gives you 'bang for your buck?' The current consensus in our group seems to be a definitive no, but I eagerly want to be convinced otherwise.

Perhaps we should parse the hell knight as it has existed from 1e and into 2e, and I'm talking at it's most basic and accessible. Both first edition prestige classes that come to mind have class features that specifically deal with armor, either a variant of armor training, or a straight-up original buff to wearing 'Hell Knight Plate'. Furthermore, utilizing their unique, heavy armor grants them supernatural defenses in the form of resistances and skill boosts for doing so.

If we take a look at the 2nd Edition, a similar trend follows. Four out of the five options available are defensive in nature, and half of those are physical defense or specifically armor related in LOWG. Expand this to Hellknight proper in LOCG, and we see a similar emphasis. Half of the feats for the Hellknight grant some boon to armor, specifically Hell Knight Plate. Even the ostensibly spellcasting Signifer gains not just medium, but -heavy- armor proficiency boosts.

OP's concern is that this seems like a good track to take; they are following in the footsteps laid out in the setting. They are simply not enough. Hell Knights should be intimidating, certainly, but they should also be skilled in the use of this armor. This armor should be intrinsic to that dedication, and that implies better than merely expert.

Try though we might, we cannot divorce the armor, the defense and the plated-mastery this Golarion staple has broadcast over the years. This is an important element to the theme of this organization, from its flavor and aesthetic, to its mechanical emphases. And arguing against as much is arguing against the setting itself as it has been laid out from the beginning.

I feel like there's been a worrying trend on the forums. That if there is a design flaw with the system or a break with continuity or some in-congruence with previously laid down material, there must be some justification conjured to obfuscate a potential oversight by the developers.

I love our game, and I want our game to grow, to sell books, to enthrall storytellers, the lot of it. But working backwards from published source material to scrub the unsightly bits that might not work is not the way to do it. Maybe we'll see an update to these dedications in the future; I certainly hope so. And God knows errata is a part of every new system anyway, there is simply no way around it to 100% playtest all material and involve all variables in a creative endeavor like this.

Until that time, I pray we don't keep trying to justify decisions by the developers that may not have been thought 100% through, and it seems like their attitude on these forums has been fairly amicable to us voicing these concerns and inconsistencies, with a salutary “We'll take a look!” for the most part. Providing them with an echo chamber gives them no ammunition to better our game.

Thoroughly disappointed myself, as well, and it makes no sense. Certainly, we expect the Champion and Fighter to tread the ground of heavy armor mastery, as that’s what stirs in the imagination when these classes are mentioned (typically).

Hellknights? As above, armored juggernauts, quoting laws, the whole shebang. Heck, the armor itself, stylized and intimidating and covered in iconography in fluff and art is the image of the Hellknight (typically). Helllknight -Plate- is as much a part of this organization as anything else, and they end up shorted on mastery? It steals some of their thunder, their flavor and their charm. Going into a Hellknight archetype should carry with it the assumption “I’m going to be an armored judge by dedicating my character’s development career to this”. It seems like an oversight.

Let's be frank, here. Constitution has always been the dullest and most underutilized of the ability scores. How often does it honestly come up in games beyond death/living-dying mechanics, that is, Negative Con or relating to gaining or losing HP?

To no one's surprise, not much. Fortitude? Sure, one of the three saves in the game is great, but it relates to no skills as Wisdom does. Nor does it relate to a great number of skills -and- attack, defense, initiative, etc, like Dexterity does. Even Charisma has increased its utility since its dump stat days to outshine Constitution.

Coming to mind? Drowning. How uncommon is that? It's simply a design flaw of the system to keep Constitution around as one of the six, starting pillars of a character creation, or to leave it as unimportant and tiresome as it is. A 10 Con will work just fine, and universally, my group's characters have 10 or lower and have no problem. It's a problem that haunts Gary's system scions, and it was only made worse in 2e.

Hey folks,

I'm a long time DM and follow the forums closely, but this is the first time I've felt the need to reach out with a question of my own. My current campaign has been running for almost two years, and I've given the players a lot of options in changing mechanics or creating new effects; I like to be a 'sure, give it a try' rather than a 'no' DM.

I've worked with my players on several homebrew effects that seem to be balanced and work well in the campaign, but these have been things like trait level or feat level adjustments or creations, which seems straightforward.

But now a player wants to start creating their own spell, and I've been trying to pour over the spell-creation mechanics and other homebrew material, and my mileage has varied. Sometimes the rules are straight forward but vague, other times they get byzantine as all get out. The player wants to be able to combine the effects of two spells; blink and fireball. The gist is that he wants a short teleportation adjacent to an enemy and then be able to further 'teleport' the fireball inside the enemy for augmented damage of a fireball.

I've asked him how he wants to limit this so it isn't instantaneous death for enemies, as saves seem appropriate for an effect like this. He says he doesn't want an AoO to trigger in the blink, as he justifies the spell's initiation of effects would be before the teleportation and not trigger one, as well as this effect being 'surprising'. Is this appropriate? Furthermore, he wants no reflex save for the spell as the effect is manifesting inside a creature...I told him how would he feel about a ranged touch attack, and he seem somewhat receptive to this, but he'd obviously prefer to leave all chance from the spell. Obviously, I'm convinced some of the things he wants simply can't be done for balance purposes, but I do want to work with him. He's a 9th level wizard right now, so he's got access to 5th level spells.

So from folks who have navigating making custom spells, how doable do you think a spell like this is? Will it be overpowered? What level spell should we look at making an effect like this and how much damage should it do or what effects should it carry? It seems like making this a 5th level spell might be too high, and making its damage like that of an empowered fireball might seem like a good damage threshold, but thoughts and advice regarding this situation would be deeply appreciated. Like I said, homebrewing spells is entirely new to me, and veterans have probably navigated this before, so any guidance would be super helpful. Thanks so much!