Ross Orion's page

I may be missing something but it seems like there's basically never an instance you should be overwhelmed once you gain access to the extreme effect. With only three focus points it's not possible yeah? I'd like it if you could get more than three focus points

Like others, I'm not a fan of the Study Suspect mechanic for Investigators, and I've been thinking of a homebrew change for it. It keeps the need for Perception checks, and keeps the variability of the Study Suspect roll, but it assures that the Investigator always gets some form of damage bonus.

- Once a round, an Investigator can make a DC 22 Perception check against one target (not against the target's Will DC). The numbers below are based on the assumption that the Investigator's starting Perception bonus will be +7 (+2 to Wisdom, expert in Perception, +1 for level) and a 20th level Investigator can have a +30 (+20 for level, +8 for legendary, +2 for Wisdom). Using the four stages, the Investigator gets:

Critical Success: The Investigator can make 3 Studied Strikes this round, each at +4d6 damage.
Success: The Investigator can make 2 Studied Strikes this round, each at +3d6 damage.
Failure: The Investigator can make 2 Studied Strikes this round, each at +2d6 damage.
Critical Failure: The Investigator can make 1 Studied Strike this round at +1d6.

I realize that it's very spikey, but that can be a good feature to differentiate the class from the Rogue. It also negates the need to state that the Investigator's damage goes up at certain levels, because the Perception bonus increase will push them up to those levels more naturally. At 1st level, the Investigator will most often 'fail' and still get decent DPR; by level 20, the Investigator will get critical success on anything but a 1. It's not perfect, but I thought I should throw it out there for people to see.

From a design standpoint I really like it. From the standpoint of how DCs seem to work in 2e I don't think it jives that well. That's forgetting how it changes the action economy.

Again....I like it. But I wouldn't feel comfortable adding it to my games as you have it. I'd probably say the damage you have listed is good but the number of allowable attacks is where it gets wobbly

Ross Orion wrote:

This seems like creating an issue where one doesn't need to exist.

You literally just said the problem existed in 1e too. How does a problem in 1e existing make it less of a problem if it didn't get fixed in 2e?

Quote:

Yes there are ways a familiar can get killed but a d!@##ead GM can just as easily choose to go after a Wizard's spellbook or a cleric's divine focus.

Well, no, not just as easily.

The rules governing attended objects are designed to protect those objects. If your spellbook is on your person there's basically nothing anyone can do about it without deliberately going out of their way to try to take it off your person.

If a familiar is next to you, any AoE can potentially kill it (or you if you try to life link it away).

You're right, that a lot of GMs just ignore this entirely, but hoping your GM is willing to pretend your familiar doesn't exist isn't very satisfying, both because it relies on GM fiat and because it means your familiar ends up being a nothing class feature, which is just plain boring.

I don't deny that it could be a problem but that it should be one. It hasn't been a problem in my experience (doesn't mean it never was for anyone just that I've never known or been a GM vindictive enough to actually make it an issue) and barring narrative requirement it seems like the great majority of groups would mutually agree to not make it a problem. Rule of fun and all. Swarms still attack everything in their space. AoE spells still affect everything in their area. Why make it a problem?

Is this problem unique to 2e witches? I've played with a witch PC in my 1e games about 75% of the time and the familiar rarely if ever got a mention outside of RP. This seems like creating an issue where one doesn't need to exist. Yes there are ways a familiar can get killed but a d*&!#ead GM can just as easily choose to go after a Wizard's spellbook or a cleric's divine focus.

I really like a lot of what I'm reading here on how to improve hexes. One thing I've been rolling around and that I haven't seen posted yet is what if the first hex you learned was the hex cantrip and all subsequent ones require the focus point? That way you always have an ability you can use that sets you apart. Then add a second level feat to grant a second hex and more feats at higher levels (8th, 12th, 16th?) to make additional cantrips and you've got yourself a heck of a lot of build potential. Combine that with making Cackle more useful and this class winds up being pretty darn good

I kinda hope that becomes a Class Feat but idk if it makes sense as a baseline.

Yes I could get on board with that. I'd still want it to be more powerful if I'm going to spend a feat on it though. And would you want to replace that with a different baseline feature? If so, what?

Isn't that really similar to a Warlock ability from that other game? That doesn't make it bad by any means.

I think having whatever Cackle winds up being called as a reaction would be a vast improvement. Maybe something like...

Spread Unease - your eccentricities unnerve your foes and your hexes linger on them. This can take the form of a cackle, an obvious twitch, an involuntary curse or any number of other things.

Trigger: An enemy affected by one of your hexes with a sustain duration begins its turn.

Effect: Sustain the hex affecting that enemy until the end of that enemy's next turn

It's not perfect but I think it's an improvement. And you could have feats that allow you to affect multiple creatures affected by your hexes until eventually it's "Sustain all affects you have active for one additional round"