Reticent's page

107 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

It would be nice if we can avoid the situation where every single member of a class needs a specific item that must be a staff while never being a staff.

Having that happen because they forgot to let the class be able to use the main feature of staves feels like the wrong way to go about that though.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Reticent wrote:
The funny thing about Magus right now is that if you aren't too concerned about building around using Striking Spell a lot, it's not really a bad class- some of those focus spells and feats are really nice!
so it'll be a good archetype, but not a good class.

I think it's a given that Striking Spell won't go to publication in its current state.

But if someone told me I HAD to play a Magus right now, I would dip into an archetype that offers some other offensive gimmick for my bread and butter.

The funny thing about Magus right now is that if you aren't too concerned about building around using Striking Spell a lot, it's not really a bad class- some of those focus spells and feats are really nice!

Dubious Scholar wrote:
Reticent wrote:
Dubious Scholar wrote:
Since it's not locked to the forehead anymore (see art of new iconic), just hold your hand behind your back. They still have to be in the right spot to see it, it's not visible through mountains or anything, etc...
Your body is incapable of obscuring it.
I'm going to say that's an absurd reading of it to say that it glows through your entire body such that it's visible from any and all angles.

It's obviously not what they intend, but it's literally what they have written.

Dubious Scholar wrote:
Since it's not locked to the forehead anymore (see art of new iconic), just hold your hand behind your back. They still have to be in the right spot to see it, it's not visible through mountains or anything, etc...

Your body is incapable of obscuring it.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like the intent of the sigil is so that anybody who looks for it and can see it, so they know that the person behind the rampaging chimerabeast is you.

It's not to give away your presence in a dark room or to make your sartorial choices difficult.

I agree entirely- which is why I think the language they chose to express that needs to be rewritten.

I understand what the sigil is supposed to do, but as written the sigil goes WAY beyond that:

"The link between you and your eidolon takes the
form of a magic glowing sigil on each of your bodies.
This symbol can’t be obscured either magically or via
mundane means, as it either shines through the magic or
appears over top of whatever you use to cover it."

Can't be obscured by anything? So if I close my eyes, my eyelids won't obscure my view of them? A wall won't? A mountain? Invisibility?

Anyway, clearly the intent is just that the link between eidolon and character is always obvious, rather than anything silly like the above. I'd just suggest taking another pass on the wording used to describe the sigil.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, it's less that the Two-handed Magus is barred from material components, and more that it's so action inefficient that they'd better have a REALLY pressing reason to cast whichever particular spell with a component requirement.

Xethik wrote:
But I suppose a Magus could pick up Double Slice and forgo their Synthesis, so I can try that as well.

It wouldn't "fix" Striking Spell, but I think there's an interesting Magus(Shooting Star)/Dual Weapon Warrior build to be had using throwing weapons, Dual Slice, Dual Thrower, Dual Onslaught.

nicholas storm wrote:
My soloution would be to never have the spell dissipate. That way you can pre buff and you never waste spells

Or at least move the time limit on dissipation out to 1 minute. Then you don't really have to worry about what carrying around an extra spell into another combat might look like.

Even changing the dissipation, there'd still be some basic to-hit issues with Striking Spell though.

graystone wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
From a purely game-feel perspective, a class' core combat mechanic, imo, should have a really strong feeling of "I get to do this cool thing" and Striking Spells doesn't really confer that feeling, especially if you're splitting up your actions across two rounds as some people have suggested.

What I think also influences a feeling of that you're missing out on the "I get to do this cool thing" is that Eldritch Archer JUST came out and showcased a "I get to do this cool thing" that does what the Magus is doing and is in every way better than Striking Spells...

Striking Spells would have felt bad anyway but it just plain looks worse when you compare it to something so much better... :P

I don't think Eldritch Shot would be a good fit on the Magus though- too few spell slots makes losing spells on misses hurt so much worse. Plus Striking Spells works with so many more spells in general.

I'd rather see them make Striking Spells work at a math level than just copy/paste Eldritch Shot's mechanics.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
There is a lot of complaining going on but I find it hard to believe anyone has actually playtested this yet. It came out yesterday. So could judgement be reserved?

There's always value in playtesting, but nothing here is so complex that certain things won't be apparent to simple inspection.

Moppy wrote:

Does this mean you can use the scroll twice?

Otherwise I can't understand why you don't just use the scroll as normal/

You know, at first I thought Strikers Scroll was the only way to use a scroll with Striking Spell, just by implication of the feat's existence.

But seeing how there doesn't seem to be any rule that would actually cause that to be the case, the only benefit if Strikers Scroll that I can see is that it would let you use the scroll while keeping your grip on a 2-handed weapon.

And I though this was a bad feat before!

Angel Hunter D wrote:
And if Striking Spell is situational, it should be a feat, not a core class feature. Monks Flurry all the time, Champions get shield and reactions all the time, Rangers Hunt - Why aren't Magi supposed to be using Striking Spell?

I'd be happy if they just split the difference-

It's okay if there are going to be turns where maybe you wouldn't want to use Striking Spell- but it pretty clearly needs to be more useful than it is currently (especially at low levels where there's not going to be a stack of feats to make it worthwhile).

Shooting Star does work with a much larger variety of spells than Eldritch Shot will, and you do get subsequent chances to hit with it if your initial shot misses. That's not to say that Shooting Star is better than Eldritch Shot- but they're different enough that I wouldn't just replace SS with ES.

Shooting Star does seem pretty weak when compared to the other two syntheses though, so I do think it needs some improvement just for internal class balance.

Draco18s wrote:
Reticent wrote:
I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to Striking Spell every turn, I'm saying that if/when they get there Slide Casting is probably too much bang for the buck.

And what if someone is not a Slide Caster?

If the primary feature is nerfed because when paired with an optional path is too powerful, the problem is with the optional path not the primary feature.

I feel like you're having a one sided argument here. I'm not opposed to them tweaking Striking Spell to be more reliable. I am pointing out that if they do make Striking Spell more reliable, they'll want to tone down Slide Casting.

Draco18s wrote:
Reticent wrote:
Right now its balancing factor is that you probably aren't going to get to use Striking Spell every single turn as you'll often make multiple attacks fishing for a hit.

"Here's your shtick. Now don't use it every turn, that would be too good."

What. If its too good to use every turn, then why is it your shtick?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to Striking Spell every turn, I'm saying that if/when they get there Slide Casting is probably too much bang for the buck.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If they enhance the accuracy much (or the wrong way), I could see them needing to nerf Slide Casting. Right now its balancing factor is that you probably aren't going to get to use Striking Spell every single turn as you'll often make multiple attacks fishing for a hit.

It compounds too if you pick up a feat through an archetype that gives you extra action efficiency on a Strike. Pick up something like Acrobat's Tumbling Strike and you might reliably doing 5 actions worth of stuff every round before even looking at haste effects.

Bast L. wrote:

Yeah, this seems unlikely to happen. First, they have to target you with a spell (rare enough that they use targeted spells, but then also picking you as the target), then, you have to have spell parry going, which, with your very tight actions (3 for spellstrike in the same round), is not often going to happen, and finally, they have to miss or you have to save against the spell.

I suppose you might put up spell parry on your non-spellstrike rounds, if you didn't have to move, instead of doing a third attack.

You can work around the action economy though, whether trough the several available haste effects, or simply leaning on attack patterns that don't require using your own spells to Striking Spell every turn.

It's situational, and I kind of wish Capture Spell was a viable option for the non-Spell Sliding syntheses, but I do think this feat is pretty much good to go as written. Worst case, the other available level 8 Magus feats are also strong if not even stronger.

Kalaam wrote:
It does not feel like an advantage if it removes gameplay opportunity. It's like the DM removing all undead from the game because you have a Paladin and a Cleric in the party. (to a less extreme extent)

I mean this as gently as I can, but if your DM is removing that many options just to hamstring characters, then they could stand to improve considerably as DMs.

From my point of view- Capture Spell means I can focus my tactical choices around mitigating area of effect damage. Whether that's because I know that targeting me specifically is a large risk for my opponents, or because I know my opponents are leaving their Disintegrates at home and just bringing bigger Fireballs, the end result is about the same for me.

Kalaam wrote:
Like the 10th level synthesis feats be "casting a non-cantrip spell" instead of "a spell from a spell-slot".

I can see why they wouldn't want to do that- that's a window for future abuses if something comes along that would allow at-will casting of a Striking Spell eligible spell (non-cantrip).

If your DM is inclined to tweak the enemies' spell lists to not include single target spells just because of this feat, that's kind of a strong advantage in and of itself.

I realize that many of these are discussed in detail in their own threads, this is just a review of feats with issues as they seem to me at present. If I don't mention a feat, it's because I think it's good or very good.

Raise a Tome: as mentioned elsewhere, this is nearly incompatible with the Magus Synthesis features. Also, it could stand to have the flavor text explain the the book is mystically protected or something, because as described it's pretty implausible.

Spirit Sheath: nice feat, but the action economy benefit of getting a free interact to draw with Striking Spell might better be spun off into its own level 1 feat that would work with any sheath, not just a "spirit" one. Or better yet just make that a default benefit of Striking Spell.

Spell Parry: this feat should also benefit from an additional +1 if the weapon in question has the Parry trait. That aside, this is probably my favorite feat chain in the class.

Strikers Scroll: as a feat, this is pretty bad both mechanically and aesthetically. I'd suggest dropping the requirement to "affix" the scroll- this just isn't strong enough to burden it with a prep time. Even then, this is really limited for anyone who doesn't also have the Scroll Trickster archetype

Martial Caster: all of the level 6 feats are strong, but this one is so essential to the class that the other two are almost trap options for their level. It's fine that the Magus is spell-slot starved as a balance feature, but that makes anything that gives additional spell slots EXTREMELY valuable.

Comet Spell: Shooting Star is already the synthesis that see the least benefit from Striking Spell, and this feat requires both a battlefield geometry that will rarely happen and target selection that likely won't be optimal for the situation. This feat needs to be much stronger to give Shooting Star some teeth- right now a Shooting Star Magus would be better of with any of the other available level 10 feats (Cascading and Quickened are just much better than this).

Whirlwind Spell: While I acknowledge the action economy inherent in this, I'm not convinced it's so strong as to warrant its level 20 requirement. Consider dropping this to level 18 (or lower?).

Look, I know this is a fantasy game, but-

As a life-long reader who is old enough to have read more paper books than digital ones, who dreads moving because packed boxes of books are heavy, and who worked in a book store for several years:

If you are holding a book in one hand and you try to parry with it, your BEST case scenario is that you aren't going to be holding on the that book any more. And it likely isn't going to be in much shape to ever be read again afterwards either.

Yeah, Capture Spell was my favorite too!

I don't think the action economy is much of a problem at all; the other feats and features contain a lot of action economy hacks that smooth that out really well (and for some builds, trying to Strike Spell with your own spells might be a bit of a trap option).

And "harmfull spells" is a really big bucket. Harm isn't just damage.

Maybe they should bring the spell strike mechanic in line with Eldritch Shot.

Right now a Magus/EA could spell strike at the end of his turn, and launch an Eldritch Shot with his next turn, thus firing a shot that's carrying 2 spells with entirely different to-hit parameters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Idk if you should be comparing the Fighter w/ Wizard archetype to the Magus, so much as comparing it to the Magus with Wizard archetype.

I'm inclined to think at the moment that Magus with a spellcasting archetype is probably the gishiest gish.

pauljathome wrote:

Hopefully coupled with them resolving how wild shape interacts with various other rules.

Absolutely! We shouldn't even need to wait for a supplement to get that, tbh. They could probably clear up 99% of the rules questions about polymorphs with a 3 sentence paragraph.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Shifter on the other hand gives things that are more unique. So they have a higher chance of being a full class.

I don't know what it would mean for Shifter in relation to the prior edition, but in PF2 this feels very in line with other "feat chain" style archetypes (Mauler, Martial Artist, etc).

I'd expect the Dedication to give the Wildshape focus spell, and then access to the appropriate Druid feats at min level +2. Add in a couple of archetype exclusive feats as gravy and call it a day.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I mentioned that for the ape later in the same post. :)

Sorry I missed that, forum browsing while distracted!

Anyway, there are ground dwelling upright bipedal birds that would make great Animal Companions- they're just not well characterized by the basic "Bird" entry.

They'd be more aptly described by the Dromaoesaur rules really.

graystone wrote:
Reticent wrote:
There are a couple of Animal Companions who walk upright, and would get 10ft reach at Large per CRB Table 9-1. Ape and Arboreal Sapling come to mind specifically.
Myself I'd say Ape, Arboreal Sapling, Bird, Bear and Dromaeosaur could be counted as tall. For birds I'm thinking of secretarybird and seriemas, long legged birds of prey.

Bear is kind of debatable, but the the rest of those examples are solid.

Some of those support abilities that key off of reach could be pretty useful if the character also has a way to reliably Strike multiple targets- but it would be very hard to fit the feats to do that into an Animal Companion build. And I'm still skeptical it's worth missing 7 AC for.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Reach is amazing, but at the moment there's no inherent way for Animal Companions to get it, since there's no Specialization or other option to make them Huge. They potentially go up to Large size with Savage or Indomitable even if they didn't start with it...but that's as far as they go.

There are a couple of Animal Companions who walk upright, and would get 10ft reach at Large per CRB Table 9-1. Ape and Arboreal Sapling come to mind specifically.

That said, I can't think of a combination that leverages that reach bonus to be as good as +7 AC.

I'm pretty sure it's intended to scale as unarmed, though it does strain the definition of "unarmed" in the individual Animal Companion rules.

I'm not up for modelling the math myself at the moment, but in order to avoid some MAP the stack introduces an extra dice roll. I'm not sure the end result is really that much more reliable than just having your teammate make their last attack at full MAP on the enemy target.

Especially at the opportunity cost of an action, a reaction, and multiple feats. As has been pointed out, there are already better ways to achieve similar that are clearly within the design intent of the game (Marshal archetype Target of Opportunity).

I'd say leave it as it is- it's genuinely more amusing that it is practical. The only vaguely practical application of it I can think of would be if the monk has line-of-sight on a target that their teammate does not.

Gray Warden wrote:
attack is synonymous to Strike, but not to an action with the Attack trait (since spell attacks are not Strikes, and would not benefit from, nor trigger, the feat).

This reminds me of my general confusion regarding attacks from Polymorph spell effects, and whether the wording "which are the only attacks you can use" allows you to socket those attacks into Strikes provided by feats.

The whole Strike/Attack/attack nomenclature needs to be clarified as to when these terms are synonymous and when they are not.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see anything wrong with going that route- would make a good elf or gnome build describing how they've spent a ridiculously long lifespan dabbling in stuff.

But it's not especially strong either. Gives up a lot of opportunity cost skipping strong combat feats or specializing in specific skill sets.

A less abusive trick would be to have the Marshal archetype with an Arboreal Sapling Animal Companion.

Order the sapling to use it's Throw Rock advanced maneuver and use any hits from that to trigger your Target of Opportunity reaction on your own turn.

There are plenty of builds that switch hit very well. Especially when you consider that you really don't have to invest in both modes equally.

Heck, a Monastic Archer Monk doesn't even need to drop his bow to kick people.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You can already basically make a "samurai" from pure fighter.

If there must be something separate with the samurai name attached to it, let it be an archetype so that you can bolt the flavor on to other base classes.

You could treat it as an up-sized spiked chain meant to be used by a large or huge creature. A pc would need to be a giant instinct barb to use it, and would be clumsy 1 while doing so per the rules.

manbearscientist wrote:
It also has some unfortunate wording; a GM might rule that magical fog such as Obscuring Mist isn't 'weather'. Tempest Oracle is much more direct.

I don't think anybody would have too hard of a time arguing that fog is weather. And if magical fire is 'fire', then magical weather is 'weather' (or insert a score of similar equivalencies).

But yeah, I don't see a way for a base Druid to quite reach that same lofty end damage without Disintegrate.

manbearscientist wrote:
it's unique thing is the safety of shooting from inside a Solid Fog.

Storm Order Druid/EA has a shorter path to that gimmick with Storm Born as their default level 1 feat and the Primal spell list.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There's no wrong way to play as long as everyone is having fun.

But as far as my preference goes- it's more interesting to have to make tough choices, and the game is generally balanced around the idea that your feat resources are pretty limited.

Stay Out of My Personal Space

This is a pure gimmick build designed to stack Shoving Sweeps/Shove Down/The Harder They Fall/Boundless Reprisals to fling to the ground anything trying to move within reach of your weapon. Use a reach/shove or reach/trip weapon for maximum effect. It also stacks Improved Knockdown/Sneak Attacker/The Harder They Fall as the main offensive action on its own turn. (Though there's almost certainly a better build for that second feat stack just going Rogue(Ruffian)/Mauler).

Human Fighter/Mauler/Rogue

1) Power Attack
2) Mauler Dedication
4) Knockdown (Mauler)
6) Advantageous Assault
8) Shoving Sweep
9) Multitalented (Rogue Dedication)
10) Improved Knockdown (Fighter)
12) Sneak Attacker
14) Basic Trickery (any)
16) Advanced Trickery (Shove Down)
18) The Harder They Fall
20) Boundless Reprisals

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Could probably do psychics entirely separate from the "magic" systems in the game. Make every power a feat, lesser powers balanced on pure action economy. Stronger stuff balanced on "once per minute" or "once per day".

There's some temptation to also implement psychic focus spells- but with all the magic classes already in the game why keep rehashing the same mechanics?

caratas wrote:

Okay so against a +1 or higher guy you have to

Crit Succeed an attack (Downgrades to hit)
then they have to crit fail the save (upgrades to fail)

For this ability to do anything.

But against equal level enemies or lower, it replaces your strike.

That feels.. more correct?

That seems accurate.

Only other downside I can think about it would be the opportunity cost of not doing some other big Strike with that action.

Well, that and not necessarily knowing the "level" of your opponent I guess. Makes for a very easy way to get some quick metagame knowledge though.

The more I stare at the feat the more I think it needs a rewrite.

Sporkedup wrote:
Far as I can tell, incapacitation per the rules only applies on saving throws. So just the fort save has the incap effect

Sidebar on CRB page 157, note the mention of attack roll:

"Incapacitation: An ability with this trait can take a
character out of the fight. But when you use an incapacitation
effect against a creature of higher level than you, you reduce
the degree of success of your attack roll by one step, and
that creature improves the degree of success of its saving
throws for that effect by one step."

Circus Animal-

Wildshape Druids have a hefty load of high priority class feats to take, but there's JUST enough room to pick up Acrobat Dedication and Dodge Away at levels 2 and 6 respectively. Acrobatic Dedication gives the Druid some much welcomed "free" skill advances while ensuring access to the clutch skill feat Aerobatics Mastery at level 7, while Dodge Away is an all-star reaction whenever you're attacked in melee, regardless of what form you're in.

1) Wild Shape
2) Acrobat Dedication
4) Form Control
6) Dodge Away
7) Aerobatics Mastery
8) Soaring Shape
10) Healing Transformation/Plant Shape/Elemental Shape (any of these)
12) Dragon Shape
14) Reactive Transformation
16) Monstrosity Shape
18) Perfect Form Control
20) True Shapeshifter

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's always better to have an "official" option, but if you have a GM who's willing to work with you, you could probably cobble together a respectable "Gnoll" by borrowing from the ancestries of the already published races.

I don't think you'd create any balance issues mish-mashing together feats and heritages from the Catfolk and Orc ancestries, for example.

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>