Unicorn, I never said anything about hyper specialization.
A +1/+2 is not even close to hyper specialization, in fact its still 1 point behind the Fighter and his +3 weapon. Its barely 1 point above a master Martial with a +3 weapon.
The lack of bonus to spellcasting is part of why master proficiency in casting is so bad for any thing that is not buffs at high level.
I think that the focus on balance is great, but there was too much a focus on balance. Which resulted in a system that has no wiggle room between bad and good characters. This was even more a problem in the playtest.
Someone mentioned this earlier about proficiency tiers only giving +1 in the playtest. The reason why people asked for a bigger difference was that there was effectively no difference. Which was a huge problems for skills, which needs people to choose how good you are at them.
In the playtest system the smallest number you could get was +18 if you were untrained, and +24 + stat if you were legendary. Thats right the difference between untrained and legendary all other things being equal was just 6. Which applied for all skills, which was one part where people wanted to have a lot of choice to build how they wanted, and not be beat by some random person.
It certainly doesn't help they removed a bunch of bonus types and only kept 4. They should had kept at least 5, maybe6: Untyped, Status, Item, Circumstance, Alchemical, and maybe Morale (for things like bards).
Except scrolls are so meh most of the time that scrolls are mostly just useful for noncombat stuff.
Also permanent items feel much better than spending money on something that might not work.
If spells were built like gacha games when you have the chance to get something extremely valuable, then they might seem better. But as they are, they dont really seem worth it as anything but extra utility.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I was not complaining, also what I am saying is that Spontaneous Staff casting is deficit compared to Prepared Staff casting.
Spending a spell slots to cast a staff spell gives versatility, but not extra castings.
You get a number of charges for free.
Prepared casters can spend spells to get more charges.
Spontaneous casters overall run at a deficit when using staffs.
Most undead specially at higher level where there are more intelligent undead know Necril. Bam, Scare to Death now works on undead. Or you know get an item that lets you use the Tongues spells.
Even then most campaigns feature something like 4 creature types. Which means with only 4 languages you can kill most enemies.
Also, the best way to handle comparisons is using quartile. That gives you the crit fail, fail, median, success, and crit success percentages. Combined with DPR/DPA which tells you the average of those numbers.
If we compare the numbers.
Scare to death is the best attack you can possibly make. Even if you use it once a turn to see if you get lucky, the amount of damage it can do blows away any other damaging ability.
The only things I know do more damage are: Power Word Kill (9th level) cast on a level 15 creature; Fatal Aria (10th level) cast on a level 17 creature; a Vorpal Blade (level 17 rune) on a creature that has 1 head it needs; And finally Phantasmal Killer (4th level) that needs 2 saves.
The only ones that can be reused infinitely are Vorpal (that needs many other conditions), Scare to Death (trivial to get), and Fatal Aria (level 20 Bard).
Maybe the Swaschbuckler got less attention because the Witch and Oracle got so heated.
The Investigator also had a clear lack of Int, so that was easy to see.
Meanwhile, the Swashbuckler didn't have anything that looked bad. While the abilities did make sense in the context of the "Swashbuckler". You go tumble in, finisher, tumble out. Or you tumble in and keep panache for the constant benefit.
But yeah, I agree the Swashbuckler needs a little something extra. But not much.
Having a cold heritage/ancestry makes you more thematically ice related. But it does not make you a winter witch.
Similarly, just because you are a winter witch does not mean you have a cold ancestry/heritage.
Winter Witch is a Witch that has an even greater focus on cold than the regular Witch. You could come from a desert having fire resistance and still be a Winter Witch.
I think that Magus should have the Eldritch Archer ability and a melee version. I really don't see how they can call it the Magus and not have those abilities. Those abilities literally should be the bread and butter of the Magus.
Winter Witch PF1 wrote:
A winter witch must choose her patron from one of the following patron themes: ancestors, deception, enchantment, endurance, moon, occult, portents, stars, transformation, trickery, water, winter, or wisdom.
Winter Witches might have a strong in setting tie to Irrisen and Baba Yaga. But there is nothing saying that they all need to be from Irrisen, related to Baba Yaga, or be humans.
A Winter Witch archetype should and would allow any race to be a Winter Witch.
Having a human heritage be from Irrisen does not a Winter Witch make. It might be easier for them to be Winter Witches (not having to spend a class feat). But they should not be the only ones who get to be Winter Witches.
Winter Witch PRC wrote:
Not all winter witches have a blood connection to the nobility of Irrisen. Some have their craft passed down to them by wizened mentors, and others hear their calling in the howling winds of a freezing winter’s night. Of those winter witches who live outside Irrisen, many subsist on the fringes of civilization or in the wild, often concealing their powers lest they be seen as Irriseni spies. This is particularly true in the lands of the Linnorm Kings, where memories of the Winter War with Irrisen fuel long-held hatreds, as well as in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, whose superstitious tribespeople deeply distrust most forms of arcane magic.
Which is why my suggestiong only gave you the strike, and needed a level 10 feat to get the stride. Also, Classes usually get feats faster than Archetypes do.
It would be strange for a Magus to be as slow or slower at getting its main ability than an Archetype.
I even made the Magus version harder to get via archetypes.
I could 100% see Magus getting the stride at level 8. Which means classes who archetype Magus can get stride+strike by level 16. Just like Spellmaster. But I know people will complain about it being "too fast for Magus", so I purposely said level 10.
The Winter Witch archetype did a lot more than just add +1 to the DC.
It also gave you:
* Endure elements vs cold and scaling resistance to cold, eventually immunity. This is just straight up great.
* A swift action to add the cold trait and 1d4 cold damage when you land a touch spell. Useful to trigger conditions or add extra damage.
* And the ability to move through Ice and snow with no or reduced penalty even up walls, which is huge when your theme is all about creating icy surfaces and snow: Its also extremely useful in campaigns where there is lots of snow/ice.
All of which are extremely useful and extremely flavorful. And they would make for perfect feats in PF2.
Why is it that there are 2 archetypes that all do what the Magus wants to do better than the Magus?
* Eldritch Archer gets to land their spell when they land a ranged hit.
* Spellmaster gets to move and strike as part of casting a spell with atleast 1 action cast.
Give the Magus Magic Combat and let them cast a spell and strike as part of the same action as a flourish. Give them a Spellstrike feat at level 2 so that when you hit with the weapon you also land the spell. Give them access to Mobile Magic Combat at level 10.
Bam Magus that is 100 times better than the current one and nothing about it is broken.
You see to me that whole block of text is way to wordy for a mechanic that doesn't give any benefit. It ends up reading like a waste of space in a book that already has very limited space. Specially if they decide to keep the lame Eidolons in the Playtest.
Abilities and mechanics need to be as concise as possible without introducing problems. And right now you either get a bunch of problems or something that is not at all concise. All because "this is unique or different", which does not mean its better than the normal way creatures are treated.
Even if its "only damage", there are many abilities that do "damage and something else". Which then has to be adjudicated because do you now make 3 rolls, or is it still 2? And what roll should be used to determine the effect?
The summoner should have full control and access during synthesis, without having to spend actions.
I think that special attacks should also be evolutions, but maybe have them cost 2 points, if needed.
I also think that giving 2 points at level 1 would be best. That way Eidolons can be very diverse from the start.
Combine that with my list of evolutions given in Deverin's thread (based on Familiar evolutions) and I think it could work well. Obviously removing the stat evolutions if the eidolon will have full power from the start.
I think we can get even more diversity by give at least 4 options for base form: Biped, Quadruped, Avian, Serpentine. For example: Avian could allow for flying eidolon from level 1; Quadruped could be faster in land and serve as mount eidolon from level 1; Biped could allow for manual dexterity and at least 1 weapon from level 1; While Serpentine gets faster access to burrow and better at grapple checks (aka constricting).
Oh I agree with all of you. I know that the playtest is optional, that rules are not aet in stone, that it has a lot of value, and that its a huge shore. I was not saying the playtest was bad.
I was just stating a preference in response to Richinevh's post. Even if I do dislike the type of playtest I mentioned, I understand why its done, and have no problem with it. Also I think, that as rules in general some of the things that got complained do make sense. But in the context of the specific classes, it needs to meet a different bar for mesh the lore, feel, and mechanics associated with them.
Enhanced and Incredible Familiar each gives 4 familiar slots. While Wizard and Witch each give 4 familiar slots.
You are talking about not giving Summoner extra resources. Yet here you are saying to give Summoner at least 4 bonus feats. 10 bonus feats if you include the basic abilities of Witch, and their incredible familiar feat.
How is giving Summomers 4-10 bonus feats better than giving Eidolons evolution points/slots? Again are you even reading what you are typing?
A familiar with 4 familiar options costs 2 feats. Wizard's Familiar thesis gives them a familiar for free, with an extra 4 abilities for 6, and Enhance Familiar feats makes it 8. Wizards get full spellcasting and spent 1 feat to get 8 Familiar abilities. Witches get their familiar for free, get the Wizard's familiar thesis advancement, can get it back in a day when it dies, and with the Incredible Familiar feat get 10 Familiar abilities spending only 2 feats, Witches still have fullcasting and Hexes.
So Wizard and Witches have full casting and fully customizable familiar without spending a single feat.
Meanwhile, here is the Summoner that barely gets any casting, while keeping all the bad caster proficiencies. But them getting a customizable companion is "too much free"?. Are you seriously seeing what you are typing?
My version is mostly underpowered compared to any of the other casters with their companions considering that Summoners do not get full spellcasting. Which means that paizo can give Summoner a Summon Monster pool without breaking anything.
Edit: fixed a math issue with the familiar abilities.
Honestly, if Rune and Potency are combined the stance idea does get better. At that stage you are spending say 2 action on the first turn to get a better weapon and a stance.
But it is still a problem that Striking Spell takes your entire round. It really should have striking be a part of casting the spell.
If its too strong for level 1, then make it a level 2 or 3 feature. Which is around when PF1 Magus got Spellstrike.
Personally, I really do dislike the idea of being given version of a playtest that is just full of experimental stuff they know its probably going to get complaints.
I always felt that type of playtest is no better than a bait and switch. While also just making everything more toxic.
But thats just a personal opinion.
It is impossible to design a class without having some understanding of the system. Balance passes and Playtests are supposed to find all those weird interactions that the devs did not find. While also checking that the information is presented correctly, clearly, and concisely.
We playtesters are the equivalent of bug testers for an App. Our job is not to design the app, just tell the actual devs whats wrong and let them figure it out.
I said I wanted customization because to me an Eidolon without customization is not an Eidolon. PF2 Playtest balanced the Eidolon as a player, and some people said "you can't give more customization because they are balanced like players". Okay, so I showed two examples of how the system could be made.
* The first example I made my own thread and that was based on PF1 evolutions. Only a few people commented on it, didn't get a lot of reviews on it.
* The second example I made in the "Remove Evolution Surge Thread" made by Devirin, that was based on PF2 Animal companions and Familiar abilities. This time I got mixed reviews.
That was a system I literally made in under 3 hours. That only had the basic ability of each subtype, and proposed to make getting the advanced abilities of said subtypes into feats. I even made most of the evolutions worse than familiar options. I also said that it would be good to have feats to focus even more on the eidolon.
So tell me what about that system, which I purposely made to be conservative, is unbalanced? Flight at low level? I made it so only a small eidolon could have it, and the evolution has a clause that prevents the Eidolon from carrying someone. Resistances? Is an Animal Companion with resistance = Summoner level really going to break something? Too much mobility? I made all but the basic land speed evolution 15 feet; Burrow I kept it at 5 ft. The ability to add stats? That only lets them catch up with martial stats, it doesn't give them any of the martial feats.
So what point of it is unbalanced? What point of that system makes it impossible to balance? Why can't Paizo, who are the devs and have a better understanding of the game, come up with a much more balanced system?
I ask them to give the Eidolon more customization because I trust them to make something that is well balance. I might disagree or question some parts of the balance. But I trust them that it will be balanced. I dont want Summoner to be broken. I want it to keep the mechanic that made it fun. I don't want Paizo to throw away what made the Summoner unique and interesting, when Familiars are getting it.
I just gave the value the PF1 gave them.
PF1 Summoner was a 3/4 BAB class with 8 HP and light armor proficiency.
The Summoner by itself was mechanically as strong as a Rogue without any class features.
Do you know which class took the most space in PF1? Clerics, Sorcerers, Kineticists, and Druids.
You want to know why? Domains, Bloodlines, Animal Companions, and Kineticists talents being huge lists.
Of all the classes that Summoner had one of the most efficient use of space for the amount of customization it gave. And the reason for that was the evolution points being super space saving.
Not to mention that the entire point of the eidolon was for the Summoner to make their own companion how they wanted. It didnt use static stats because the eidolon was supposed to be flexible to fit any player's need. Yet you are still asking for Paizo to throw away what id arguably the best part of the class.
And the whole "it can't be balanced" was disproved by me. A system with a lot more customization that takes up considerably less space 100% possible. But you refuse to even consider it. You straight up dismissed a system that gave you the strong boring eidolon you wanted and still let me have something that was customizable with plenty of choices for utility.
Krispy a narrative system is one in which the system has no rules to stop the players. Most things are handled by either the GM or players deciding "this is fine" or by them changing the flavor of something to suit their needs.
Savage World is more a Simulationist/Gamist system. You are given plenty of option that have a significant mechanical effect. While also getting clear rules on how things works.
In any case. People want to play pathfinder because it gives them options. Asking for the Eidolon to lose all of its options is the opposite of why people want to play the game.
Aspects would make for an awesome feat. IF the eidolon has its own evolution pool, with access to monster abilities.
The Aspect and Greater Aspect abilities allowed the Summoner to get abilities that could not be gotten by any ancestry. You want Fast Healing? You can get that. You want Elemental breath? You can get that. You want to turn into a large creature? You can do that.
I have no idea why people don't remember the Aspect abilities because they are honestly awesome.
Angel is refering to the fact that the post might not even be about PF2e.
As it stands that post was talking about a Starfinder Errata. It was posted in the Starfinder forum. Before Starfinder received an errata, including an errata blog.
It could very well be a case of misidentified book. People are known to make mistakes like that.