Regarding the LOWG, I am having a hard time seeing the point in the magic warrior archetype when you can take druid dedication. The highest magic warrior feat is...casting a 3rd level spell that is on the primal list. Lower level feats are wild shape, but only for 1 animal. +1 vs. Divination isn't much of a bonus.
If you have a gun to someone's head, the difference between bullet and blank is mostly academic. At that range, blanks are quite sufficiently deadly.
Which is completely tangent to your point, just one of those gun myths that irk me.
Making lower level enemies a greater threat also means blasting spells not heightened to max level remain useful. When spell damage only scales with slot level, low level damage spells age terribly as enemy HP increases. Having 20 low level enemies be something other than scenery means your unheightened fireball has a reason to exist in the mid to late gane.
I expect multiclassing and archetypes are intended to replace the various classes that mixed competencies. Fighter with wizard dedication and wizard with fighter dedication in place of magus, maybe prestige and archetype support down the line.
I haven't dug into all the class feats, but I recall thinking in the playtest that grabbing a few spells seemed a lot better than most of what martial characters could get otherwise.
Glad you like the class!
I haven't played past the first chapter of Carrion Crown, so can't speak in detail as to what is useful there. I expect at least some of them are undead heavy (the first is, I've heard they aren't all though), so mind might not be a good focus. If your party composition allows it, you could focus on undead, but the locals might not like that. Being able to possess mindless undead might be useful.
You have good stats, so combat talents could be useful (some could be regardless, depending on sphere). What does the rest of the party look like? Is there a particular sphere you would like to focus on or try out? You have a lot of options. I don't know that the sneaky infiltration stuff will be as useful in the AP, maybe others could say for certain, but that would cut some haunt options.
I can see them fine and still don't like them. Shouldn't let graphic design supercede useability and words or letters/numbers would be more natural.
As far as a seperate accessibility document, do you really want to be obligated to make one for every single release? Because every book is going to have some abilities in it.
No, you do not add strength. Extra attacks help. The feat to add the reach property to get AOOs helps get more attacks. Greater blast talent works too,though I'm not sure I would allow that if I was writing it over again.
A doomblade at lower levels is going to lean more toward melee debuffer than straight damage.
Brother Fen wrote:
I have been told that drivethru actually has one of the worst cuts for the publishers (barring exclusives and other factors). Open gaming store is supposed to be better.
All second-hand info though.
The elemental is created as part of the possession, which costs a spell point. The greater ability lets you do so without cost, though now that I type that it seems a bit strong.
Listing the half BAB isn't really relevant in the current version, no. Probably just remove that.
Hello, this is stack. You may remember be from such playtests as "the Convoker's Handbook", "the Destroyer's Handbook," "the Shapeshifter's Handbook," and "Spheres of Might." I come to you today to invite your feedback on a new Spheres of Power based base class, the Wraith.
I want to state right up front: the class is a bit odd and uses mechanics that are not usually seen at low levels nor as major focuses of PCs. Incorporeality and possession are tricky to balance. I believe the basis of the class is reasonably sound, but it definitely needs table time.
Further material may be added later.
Hold nothing (pertinent) back. Thanks for all your help.
BAB prerequisites had the exact same issue in PF1; they often seemed to be assigned without due cause.
I would argue that no prerequisites at all should be the default; add them if they are needed mechanically (the ability builds on another ability but can't fit as a scaling increase of the base) or if they are required for balance (granting an ability that cannot be accommodated at a lower level).
Basic fantasy tropes should not be locked to high levels.
I don't argue that level prerequisites should never be used (though many abilities can be scaled so they are very rarely needed). My contention is that they should only be used when needed, not slapped on every ability because that's the Paizo way. Spending a limit build resource (a feat) to get the ability to spend a limited action economy resource (a reaction) to protect an ally is not the kind of thing that requires superhuman levels. Obviously we don't know all the material, but 'shield tank fighter' should be achievable at level 1, not 'wait until level 6 because yeah'. Being a defender is a simple, iconic, core character concept.
Looking at the fighter preview, I see that arbitrary level prerequisites, a constant headache in PF1, are alive and well.
From the preview: "At 6th level, fighters can take the feat Shield Warden, which allows them to use their shield to block the damage taken by an adjacent ally. At 8th, they can even get an extra reaction each turn, just to use shield block one additional time. (And yes, they can spend this extra reaction on another use of Shield Warden.) At 14th level, a fighter can use their shield to protect themself from dragon's breath and fireballs, gaining their shield's bonus to Reflex saves."
Why does a fighter have to be level 6 to be able to cover an ally and 14 to use a shield against dragon's breath (an iconic fantasy image). You are paying a feat for the ability (explicitly in the first case, second isn't clear), how is that an insufficient cost? Why continue loading on unneeded prerequisites that delay concepts from coming online or push options outside of the band of normal play?
You don't NEED automatic bonus progression to be baked in because you can change the rate of scaling so it isn't required. +5 to saves is only needed if the expected DCs are 5 higher than they should be at that level. Granting everyone +x AC at level Y is unnecessary bookkeeping since you can just not boost monster damage to require that Pcs need that +x.
I'm not saying don't scale, I'm saying don't scale faster than the base class chassis keep up.
Items that grant +X by level Y being built into the game math, I would argue, makes items less interesting and more cookie cutter. A large portion of your wealth is taken up by items that grant bonuses the system assumes you have. This is boring.
Also, shopping while creating mid to high level characters takes a long time. The lists of near useless magic items that have to be sifted through are endless.
I am in favor of anything that removes the required itemization. Cut down the Christmas tree.* Make items interesting and special, not required to keep up with game math. The gear treadmill needs to die. Given comments made about learning from ABP, I have some hope, though the best solution is to remove the need for static bonuses from the base math scaling.
*by mid levels character have so many magic items that they look like a Christmas tree when viewed by detect magic
My favorite weapon system in a d20 RPG was from Rule of Cool's Legend system. Each weapon was either melee or ranged and had three properties (improvised weapons had less if I recall). So a dagger could have the properties to be thrown (making it ranged and melee) easily concealed, and quick draw. (I haven't looked at it in some time, so my details may be off). You can have a weapon that is brutal x3, getting a scaling damage bonus; doesn't matter if you describe it as a greatsword, a big axe, or even two scimitars. Want a shield? guardian property. It was flexible and did not try to inject mechanical distinctions for fluff differences that the game didn't need. Armor was even simpler.
I don't expect anything of the sort, but I can at least hope for some streamlining.
Is light/agile/superstabby weapons do get reduced penalties for additional attacks, I hope that they don't end up overpowering other weapon choices. Once you are able to stack up enough per hit bonus damage I could see that being problematic.
Also gishes may have an advantage over mundanes if they deal damage with an attack, then cast to deal damage and don't eat the iterative attack penalty on the spell.
The existing combat system is insufficiently granular to make the subtle distinctions between types of weapons and armor function in a way that reflects actual use. See possible Cabbage's list of polearms above.
I suppose you could have massive tables of bonuses for each weapon verses every type of weapon and armor, but that would be cumbersome. Old school, but not in anything like a good way.
Light armor, medium armor, heavy armor, fluff as necessary. Minor cost differences that become meaningless after level 2 do not justify a large table of pointless bloat.
Or scrap medium armor entirely.
And please remove redundant weapons. The gladius is not sufficiently distinct from the short sword, for example. Better yet, have weapons defined by their properties and give some examples of real world types for use as fluff descriptions.
The main author for Gladiator here.
I would have multiple demoralizations overlap. If two Gladiator sphere users both had Daunting and both affected the same target with Strike Fear, I would have both gain Daunting's benefit.
As for other sources of shaken, the concern is caster's getting to overshadow the combat sphere users. I could see there being an ability that would let some characters combine it though (nice examples by the way).