Besmara

Sydney S.'s page

31 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now that I think about it, it's kind of a recurring issue with pf2e class development in general. By lumping everything together as "class feats", they've created an issue where things like a message cantrip have to compete against potentially 6d4 damage in AoE at level 1.
Which is a player more likely to care about? There's a reason the pf1e kineticist has utility talents on its own track separate from the infusion options.


I guess the point I'm trying to make here is, beyond the minutiae of how any given application of action economy or feat selection shakes out, you're not rewarded for specializing.
Anything a dedicated kineticist can do is something a dual or universal can do, but with more options for versatility.

The thematic angle of being "the fire guy" just isn't there. You can be "the fire guy" just fine as a universalist, there's nothing (good) hidden away behind being a specialist.

In pf1e, you made the choice at 7th level, and choosing to double up on your own element unlocked a bonus wild talent at a very competitive level for wild talent selection, and again at 13th where tripling up gave you a hard-to-come-by +1 to accuracy.

In pf2e, that choice is entirely front-loaded and "balanced" accordingly. You don't gain any extra (good) water feats for being a dedicated water specialist, let alone a bonus feat that comes online at a level where the universalists don't get one at all.

It entirely boils down to the trade between your level 1 feat options and the expanded access to other elements, and I do not believe the level 1 feats are so good you really want THAT many of them.

They're just too situational for their opportunity cost.

(and yes, retraining is a core rule, and in the core rulebook, it's mentioned as being up to GM discretion. ie, explicitly something they can choose to allow or not)


Guntermench wrote:
You're still avoiding the question. You gave basically 2 level 1 feats that you like. Being universal doesn't help you with this.

With a universal gate, you get to cherry pick the good feats, even in a flexible manner, as well as gain 3-5 more elements than a dedicated gate.

It absolutely helps with that. You get value from the tradeoff instead of being made to take options you probably didn't want.
Even a dual gate character is better off at specializing than a dedicated gate is due to that expanded access at minimal cost.


Guntermench wrote:
Sydney S. wrote:
roquepo wrote:
That would make Dedicated too strong in comparison to Dual and universal. Like, way too strong.

imo, it might be exactly what dedicated gate needs to stay relevant.

dual and universal gate characters will be doing cycle elements to gather and blast with the same action, and then follow up with a two action overflow of their choice.
A dedicated gate character gets no bonus for gathering power, it's just pure action tax. Letting them be the ones that get to use a three action overflow in one turn would be a nice niche.
I'd expect that ability not to survive the playtest. It seems to be missing a requirement that you already have an element gathered, but it's worded like you need to have an element gathered already before you can use it.

That's a fair take. Technically it only says you can't gather the same element you already have, (which is pointless to begin with) but it would make sense if the intent was to say you need something gathered already to even use it.


roquepo wrote:
That would make Dedicated too strong in comparison to Dual and universal. Like, way too strong.

imo, it might be exactly what dedicated gate needs to stay relevant.

dual and universal gate characters will be doing cycle elements to gather and blast with the same action, and then follow up with a two action overflow of their choice.
A dedicated gate character gets no bonus for gathering power, it's just pure action tax. Letting them be the ones that get to use a three action overflow in one turn would be a nice niche.


You can't just be looking at the effects of a given thing without also looking at its cost, both in actions and in opportunity.

If you want to use one of those auras, they have to be worth a feat as well as at least 3 actions.
The universalist can say "we're going into a volcano/tundra? Sure, I'll prep resist today." The dedicated/dual gate character is stuck with that resist even in the 90% of the time it's not going to come up.

And then, that aura locks you out of other auras; Dust Storm is significantly better than any of the level 1 options, and the moment you take it, the others are dead feats. Hope your GM uses the retraining rules.

To go further, Kineticist is a "martial" class and hitting things for damage is its primary job. If you're spending all three of your first turn actions to deal 0 damage it had better be for a very good effect, not a situational and minor resistance to an energy type the class doesn't even have the knowledge checks to be sure the enemy uses.

And don't even start with Stoke Element, it's a bad joke even in optimal conditions. All the overflow impulses you'd want to use it with already take 3-4 actions; making them take 4-5 is not a win. Doubly so since only dual/universal gates have access to cycle element, allowing them to overflow and regather/blast without as much action tax.


Guntermench wrote:
So the only Universal feat you'd take on purpose is Aerial Boomerang then?

It would be my pick for the level 1 freebie, yes.

Though with the universal gate being flexible, it's possible later on in levels I might choose something else, as might a wizard who knows they'll need more haste and less fireball. The dual/dedicated gates don't get that option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thaago wrote:
The elements have quite good 1st level feats actually. Plus the feats can be spent on familiar, weapon, and flexible blasts.

The feats gained from dedicated/dual gate must come with the relevant elemental tag; you can't take the unrestricted options.

And I strongly disagree with these "level 1 elemental feats are good" takes I'm seeing in here.
The only ones I'd take on purpose are aerial boomerang (maybe some other AoE option instead, but never two at once) and maaaaybe Winter's Clutch because minor free AoE damage is still free AoE damage. Assuming I didn't have line of effect to an actual enemy. And I didn't want to spend those three actions on just... moving to where I'd have line of effect.


Dedicated gate gets a handful of free feats that are forced to go into options you would never have chosen on purpose.
Dual gate is trading access to 2~4 entire elements for two iffy level 1 feats they at least get to cherry pick.
Universal gate gets a flexible bonus feat that can be anything they want any day on top of access to cherry picking the high level elemental options on top of having the best gate-exclusive feats.


Witch Guide wrote:

Ley Line Guardian

Power -1, Versatility -2
...
And you also wave goodbye to your familiar and all the skill ranks that being an Intelligence full caster gave you.

I feel the rating here is overly harsh due to a mistaken interpretation.

The archetype gives you the sorcerer's spontaneous casting and spell slot progression, but it does not make you a charisma-based caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All the Oozemorph Shifter needed to be an actual functioning character was the guy who wrote it to not add the overkill line of "However, she has no magic item slots and she cannot benefit from armor; cast spells; hold objects; speak; or use any magic item that requires activation, is held, or is worn on the body."


Oh right, there's also the Heraldic shield enchantment if you use one of those.


The psychic gets some nice divination spells I hardly ever see used.
Mind Thrust, Mental Block, Synapse Overload, etc.


Unchained Monk is, in my opinion, the only build that uses tekko-kagi and doesn't come out too far behind.
Adherent of Ancient Osirion lets you use tekko-kagi as though they were claw blades and the Catfolk FCB for monks lets them use claw blades (and by extension, tekko-kagi) for all their monk stuff, on top of some generously scaling bonus damage.


This is generally fine. For a personal favourite example, the Paladin's Hospitaler and Tempered Champion archetypes will stack.

Hospitaler modifies Channel Positive Energy to not consume uses of Lay on Hands, but does not actually modify Lay on Hands itself to do so.
Tempered Champion modifies Divine Bond to give you extra uses by spending uses of Lay on Hands instead, but again does not actually modify Lay on Hands.

As for the Hooded Champion/Beastmaster example, doesn't work.
Being required to choose a certain Combat Style modifies that entire feature; the later bonus feats are from the same feature's progression.
You could take archetypes that trade out the 2nd level feat and the 6th level feat independently, but what you'd be doing as a Hooded Champion/Beastmaster is like replacing a Fighter's Armor Training with Aldori Defender and then also trying to trade Armour Training 2 and 4 out with Cyber-Soldier.


Not sure how helpful this is, but Channeler of the Unknown clerics can snag any weapon you want as a holy symbol at no gold cost, along with proficiency if you needed it.
Has some iffy RP, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seconding the original post.
Every ancestry other than human has to spend their ancestry feats remembering they didn't write "human" on their character sheet.
Humans, who lost absolutely nothing in the transition from PF1e to PF2e, instead go from gaining 1 bonus feat to gaining up to 5?

That's just not right. Not even a little.
As long as humans have the option to take class/general feats in place of their ancestry feats, every other ancestry should have options that compare to class feats.

For example, elves and gnomes getting a cantrip as an ancestry feat? Work with that. They don't just gain a free cantrip, they gain a free Multiclass Dedication feat for anything that would grant them arcane/primal cantrips, ON TOP OF some other small bonus, like training in arcana/nature.
Let humans be the "jack of all trades", and give the other ancestries more powerful, but more narrow, options.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Gosh I really hope Drow don't get turned into a heritage feat.
That's already a terrible shame for half-elves and half-orcs, we don't need actual unique races getting flung into that mess.
We need the races to feel more like themselves again, not turn more races into feats that take entirely too long to get going anywhere iconic.


N N 959 wrote:
It'd be one thing if Snares were this wonderful new mechanic like Inspiration was for Investigators. But who the hell uses it in P1?

I know I sure don't. Even when I archetype my magic out, because I'm not a fan of the 4/9 casting thing, I avoided the ones that tried to replace it with terrible trap gimmicks.

Is the campaign about hunting wild animals? ...gosh, you actually said yes? Alright, sure, lets roll with that. Do you want to spend that whole campaign just setting traps to hunt the wild animals for you?
Even in the perfect scenario the things are still useless, because they actively make the game less fun to play.


Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Ancestries seems more appropriate for changelings, dhampir, genie-blooded, duergar, ...

Maybe if they don't do them such a grievous wrong like they did to Half-elf and Half-orc.

Probably the biggest thing I expected from "Half-X is a feat now" was the ability to take them on races other than human. Like, Aasimar and Tieflings in PF 1e have rules in place to be from a race other than human, but that explicitly only changed their size category... and only if the DM allowed it.
As it stands now, I'm just straight up never going to play a half-race, why spend a feat on gaining access to racial feats when I could instead just be the actual real race? Not having the real race as an option (playable true genies when?) for the half-races not appearing in the playtest would suck.


Pathfinder Society play doesn't use the same rules as your average home-game.
For example, they completely change the way gold and item ownership works, so any class or archetype in PF 1e that grants the Scribe Scroll feat (such as the core Wizard, or the Geisha Bard archetype) instead receives a replacement feat in the form of Spell Focus.
In a home game obviously no one really cares, let the wizard craft their scrolls, right? But the rules don't allow it in Society play, and so rather than banning everything that would grant a crafting feat, they instead replace it.

In a home game this is a complete non-issue. Obviously the Paladin can use Lay on Hands, I mean c'mon, right?
But the current rules for Society play on the PF 2e playtest don't allow that. The Lay on Hands power, which counts as a spell, is Uncommon, and the rule on that is "spells with uncommon and rare rarities are not allowed".
This in turn makes the entire class of Paladin invalid as an option, since there's no rule in place to allow or substitute that disallowed power.

For an example of what I mean, typically a Rogue cannot use an Elven Curve Blade. Not only do they not have martial weapon proficiency, it's an Uncommon weapon.
But if that Rogue is an Elf, they could take the Weapon Familiarity feat and gain access to it, as per the rule "Items with uncommon or rare rarities are not available unless you gain access to them with a character ability (for example, an elf with Weapon Familiarity gains access to uncommon elf weapons)."


KingOfAnything wrote:
This is total nonsense and not how the rules work.

You don't need to defend a mistake brought about by unfortunate interactions of wording likely written by three entirely different people.

This is a playtest, there is a problem, and hopefully it will be fixed in time for the official release.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Common class features that give you uncommon options work the same way.

This is obviously the intent, but not how the rule is currently written.

Society play is designed to eliminate as much table variance as possible, and that means deciding things in advance that the DM would normally decide for you.
In this case, because the class does not at any point actually grant access to those Uncommon options, you cannot, by the rules of Society play, select them.

It doesn't matter that in some cases you only select a Common feat that grants an Uncommon reward, you haven't been given access to the Uncommon option, and that means you can't take more than one of them. And because you can't take more than one of them, there are some classes in the game that, as per the currently written rules of the game and Society play, are not legal for play at all.
You would end up selecting more Uncommon options than you're allowed by just statting up normally; there aren't Common options to take in their place.

Again, not arguing this is how it SHOULD work, because that would be ridiculous. Playtest rules just need a fix before the real launch, this is what playtests are for.


At least the PF 2e Rogue isn't forcing that nonsense into the actual mechanics like in D&D 5e.
Every Rogue in D&D 5e knows Thieves' Cant; even if I were playing a thief, why assume I was involved in organized crime?


Colette Brunel wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Maybe y’all should read the PFS FAQ page. John’s post serves as the sanctioning document for the purpose of the Playtest. It does not make particular note of uncommon powers granted by common class options, therefore the default rules apply. As you can see, that means uncommon powers granted by common class abilities are considered legal and available.
Does the 1e FAQ carry over to the 2e playtest?

It does not, in fact. There's different headers for each section of the page detailing what the clarifications below them apply to.

On a related note, such a FAQ for Pathfinder 1e is kinda telling in its own way; they've already been down this road before and didn't have a rule in place to handle it.
Again, I'm not arguing this is the intent because clearly that's ridiculous. I'm arguing the rules need fixed so we won't *need* a FAQ-fix in the future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, they're pretty on the dot here.
By the rules as they are written, several classes are unplayable in a Society setting due to the way they can't even be statted up without taking an Uncommon option somewhere.
They need to either reword the rule, change rarities, or introduce an explicit class feature granting you access to a class's Uncommon options for being a member of that class.

Part of the point of a playtest is to find these sorts of issues and fix them, not to say "yeah but it's obvious it's not supposed to *actually* work that way" like there's nothing wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They probably just wanted to avoid using the word "sex" in the book.
Regardless of a person's particular conundrums of gender, they're going to fall under one of two generally blatantly obvious physical sexes.
Like, you can't even dream of disguising as a female if you have a beard (or your shaved beard starts creeping back in as stubble) and aren't a dwarf, y'know? There's a physical characteristic that's absolutely going to give you away.

I'd say the bigger problem is the feat isn't described as learned type of disguise like "If I wrap my chest just right it really flattens down, and then I add a bulky shirt on top..." and rather retcons in an aspect of your character: "What do you mean? I've always had slightly pointed ears, yeah. Got some... distant elven blood in me. Honest."
It should be either reworded entirely (to represent a learned benefit) or changed to a feat you can only take at 1st level. (to represent a physical, in-born characteristic)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For example, the Ranger in the playtest only gains Trackless Step at 5th level.
Considering how incredibly situational it is, yet also how incredibly thematic it is, it should be a 1st level class feature rather than 5th.

Nature's Edge at 9th level? Again, it's thematic, but not really a "9th level" benefit. Bump it down to 5th, it's not like a Rogue can just dip Ranger and Sneak Attack everything that sets foot in vaguely defined shrubbery.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Heritage feats should be something that changes what you are at a base level.
Any Goblin could learn to chomp things better with the teeth they *all* have, but you can't (short of a Reincarnation) have a Human that decides one day "I'm gonna be part Orc."

Edit: Another example would be Elves and "I can hear a bit good I guess."
That's not a Heritage feat type of change.
What IS a Heritage feat would be something like Aquatic Elves; you've got gills and can breath under water.


Envall wrote:

So are the Lashunta really completely okay with how their race works?

I mean, I feel like a classic blue vs white collar conflict.
Are the taller and more intellect Lashunta snobs towards the shorter and more workman Lashunta?

This is very human culture reading on a fictional alien race, but are the values of "being more physically strong" and "being more intellectual" in harmony or does one have more cultural value?

I mean, considering it's optional now, I figure they're just glad to have the option.

On a planet they intentionally preserve in a 'wild' state having some muscles could help, so it's not like they're that much worse off for it.


Personally I say it isn't even a retcon.
Back before the Lashunta had access to what is basically HRT for them, males and females were just naturally predisposed to becoming a certain subrace, be that from genetics or societal pressures.
Nowadays a guy that wants to develop Damayan traits just pops some pills/gets a different job until they pass puberty.

Not that I like the change, honestly, but it makes sense to me.