With the new streamlined focus point changes, the Oracle's perk of improved focus point recovery becomes largely ineffectual. Without that perk to balance the curse mechanic, it inadvertently makes the Oracle the most limited in casting focus spells than any other spellcaster with no further adjustments. How do you think the Oracle's focus point features will change and adapt in the remaster?
I really had no clue how to even guess how they would approach this so I never gave it too much thought. That is until looking through the Oracle playtest. I came across an interesting quirk Oracles used to have and made me mull over this topic.
Oracles did not have a focus pool at all and simply advanced their curse to use a focus spell. I could see this being revisited for the remaster and incorporating it with the current focus point mechanics. So imagine, the Oracle will now have the gimmick of being able to use focus spells in two ways. Either they pay in advancing their curse or spending a focus point, instead of paying both like they currently do. What I personally like about this the most is having more control on when you advance your curse, literally "focusing" to repress the curse when using a focus point. On the other hand, this is could be a huge amount of extra focus spells Oracles could cast per combat that could step on the Psychic's shoes a bit, so that may not be okay if nothing else changes. Also, maybe not? Especially if many of the curses stay as punishing as they are, this might be what it takes to make those curses worth the price.
Act Together doesn't play well with rules regarding 'last action used' or 'next action is'. Those rules for things like Knockdown and Metamagic weren't written with Summoner in mind - mostly because the Summoner class hadn't been written yet.
Oh yeah, metamagic is interesting too. If it was read as literally as possible, this would result in the opposite sequence compared to push/knockdown/grab. The metamagic action has to be within the Act Together and be used before the separate Cast a Spell.
So if the GM wants to be an antagonist of the players, then they could indeed rule that the Eidolon's 'last action used' was Act Together, not Strike. Or even that you have to have the Eidolon use their half of Act Together first before the Summoner can take their half - otherwise the 'last action used' was the Summoner's action, not the Eidolon's Strike. And if you try to rearrange your action usage to avoid that by having Act Together be the Summoner's action and the Eidolon's Strike and then have the Eidolon use Knockdown, then the GM can still rule that the 'last action used' was Act Together.
Thankfully the order of actions can't be GM bullied in this context. The Knockdown action specifically call for the monster's (eidolon's in this case) last action and doesn't care about anybody else's. Whatever the order, the summoner and eidolon would each have their own individual 'last action used.'
The summoner performs and spends the actions for Act Together, and then you both perform the subordinate actions in tandem, so you could do it the latter way if you want because the eidolon's last action would have been Strike
I think I need a refresher on subordinate actions. I thought that meant the activity that contains them gets their traits but does not assimilate their identity. For example, Sudden Charge is technically not considered a Stride or Strike despite having the traits and properties of both, is it?
Push, Knockdown, and Grab from the respective eidolon feats all require the eidolon's last action to be a successful Strike. If I were to use this sequence with Act Together, I think I would have to strictly do it this way.
1st action: Eidolon Strike
I wouldn't be able to do it the other way where we Act Together with the Strike and then Push because Act Together becomes the eidolon's last action instead of a Strike. Is that right?
Nice catch. I didn't even notice Detect Metal was a cantrip so that is extra unusual.
Looking through the other elemental lords, Kelizandri is probably the better example then. Grants Fear as a 1st level spell, another all-tradition spell. Curiously, he debuted in Gods and Magic so it seems this isn't a new oddity.
- Allow eidolons to wear and use tools to enable certain skill actions.
Bards getting different starting composition cantrips based on their Muse is an idea I’ve heard more of lately. I don’t know how I feel about it overall, but I enjoy the thought of Inspire Courage being the Warrior muse’s signature cantrip. The different cantrips would just become low level feats any other muse can still take on their own.
I almost want to outright give the Oracle focus point auto-upgrades to every focus point class. Then to compensate for the Psychic and Oracle, they get a class feature that allows combat refocus and a few exclusive feats that upgardes that ability or simply upgrades focus point use in some way beyond that new baseline.
I don’t mind spending feats on focus point related abilities for the focus point focused classes. It already feels nice that way for Psychics, which already has a good one with Strain Mind. Although, the class getting taxed with the universal 18th level refocus feat is still an odd outlier.
Agreed. It all falls on what easier refocus actually means and results in. I could see it clue in more on the psychic refocus trick being intended or not, even if the psychic texts remain unchanged.
When something calls for your reach and you have multiple things with different reach values, what is actually your reach?
The plant eidolon made me ponder on this. Its ability growing vines says
All your eidolon's melee unarmed attacks gain the reach trait.
Its other ability field of roots says
All enemies within your eidolon's reach take damage of the same type and amount as your eidolon's most damaging Strike, depending on their Reflex saves.
When field of roots is referring to the eidolon's reach, is there a difference between the eidolon's reach and the eidolon's reach with it's melee unarmed attacks? Hypothetically, if eidolons could use weapons, would that also be a separate instance of its reach, or is it all interchangeable when something asks for your reach?
I've had enough different people argue and ask about things like Malignant Sustenance if it can target Dhampir's in the first place or not to consider it confusing.
I just rule Negative Healing as if it says to also treat the living with Negative Healing as undead even for targeting purposes AKA what Gortle said. It doesn't say it but it's the simplest and probably the most intended way of interpreting it.
Personally I house rule it and ignore the targeting resrictions on ALL these sorts of spells and effects. I treat all creatures with negative healing as if they were undead. That is how I think it should work.
I haven't GM'd in a bit so I don't remember exactly how I tackled this but I think that's is how I did it. Probably not entirely rules accurate but it's the only way it's ever been the most functional and the least confusing in my experience as both a GM or player.
I think how exactly I did is that anything with negative healing that's also living is simply targetable as undead and prioritized as so if at all possible. So things like Heal and Harm that can target both, has targets you as undead. Effects that exclusively target the living work on you normally, while effects that exclusively target the undead will work on you as if you're undead. Of course the most important part is that these ONLY apply if the effect in question involves positive and negative healing and damage AKA if it interacts in any way with the Negative Healing ability.
I'm sure there are effects that exclusively target undead with no relation to Negative Healing that could be problematic if it worked on a technically living creature. Although I think this is where a living creature with Negative Healing AND has the undead trait would be relevant? So not the Dhampir but the Undead Eidolon qualifies for such effects.
This subject is so consistently confusing, a clarification on all of it would be so relieving. This is probably the only rule that renews my confusion whenever I come back to it and have to reprocess how I understand it, lol.
Yeah, broader clarifications are more likely than balance changes although, balance was a major factor with the last batch of errata so it's on the table. For balance I'd like to see change is animal barbarians. Deer and frog get extra benefits at 7th level and the other animals get nothing. Always bugged me.
I do hope so but I'm biased because clarifications are my personal top priority. I still want to know for sure if eidolons can actually use mundane tools or not, for example. Even the recently addressed Soothe brought up the still ongoing battle between the undead trait and the healing trait. I'm so anxious on closing the books that one.
Anything to boost consistency on such rulings across games is appreciated since I do bounce between different tables more than ever.
For a different example, Lifelink Surge also specifies the eidolon gaining the fast healing.
You make a quick gesture, tracing the link between yourself and your eidolon and drawing on your connection to slowly strengthen your shared life force. Your eidolon gains fast healing 4 for 4 rounds.
As a slight tangent, what happens if both the summoner and eidolon has fast healing? Do you only take the higher value like with aoes? Does it have any impact if the fast healing values or source are the same or different?
But I hardly see how the Eidolon could get temp hps, so it's fine.
The Undead eidolon's second ability allows it access to temp hp pretty consistently. It was actually what prompted my question since the ability specifically says the eidolon is the one that gains temp hp. I don't think it ever came up the with the last Summoner I played so I found it interesting.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I'm actually working on two ancestries right now, because I've got to have beefolk and mothfolk in my game, non-negotiable.
There's something about unconventional creatures with great potential to be fuzzy that just instantly captures me. Mothfolk have always been in my radar but beefolk are suddenly in range too.
Strain Mind is an option though not exactly equivalent to a direct refocus improvement. It's hourly and it comes at a cost.
I do agree the initial refocus description could use more clarity considering how it deviates from other refocus rules. In my experience, it has not been consistently ruled across different tables.
I'm always in favor for more accessible rules clarifications. Anything that can help us avoid threads that accrue hundreds of posts that ultimately and unfortunately fails to answer anything in the end. There was at least one or two battle medicine threads did this and it was a nightmare to go through when I was a new player looking for answers. Never again.
I think it should probably say "in the area when the spell is cast." That's what what I think it intends to do, at least. Most other spells that create a lingering "zone" are often more specific like specifying what happens when leaving, entering, or how you're affected while inside the area.
To Calm Emotions' credit at being suspicious, I can't think of another comparable spell off the top of my head that affects an area but the effects are what is sustained instead of the area.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I have seen both a Oscillating Wave and The Silent Whisper in action. I think Oscillating Wave does more damage. Silent Whisper has a nice base cantrip with Forbidden Thought, but it only works once per target per battle. Shatter Mind is nice too.
I can vouch for Silent Whisper. One basically changed how our GM built encounters. Amped Shatter Mind is a beast of a spell: good damage, huge aoe, debuffs on fail and party safe. We weren’t exactly shocked with the sudden surge of mindless and/or high will save enemies and anti-cone enemy formations shortly after back to back unleashed + amped Shatter Minds became a staple. The Psychic isn’t even mad because they didn’t intend to build a dedicated blaster in the first place.
Any significant single target spell really would be a thinker for me on counterspelling.
If the target is known and isn't the worst possible target for said spell, I'd consider letting it slide depending on our situation. If I had no info on targets, I probably wouldn't risk not counterspelling anything that could critically threaten even one ally.
Before you commit to reacting to a casting of a spell, like with counterspell or an attack of opportunity, would you generally know a who or where a spell is aimed at in terms of targets or area of effect?
I guess this goes for any reaction that triggers on the cast, not on the effects of spell like Shadow Siphon. For counterspell, at least you have to know what the spell is beforehand, but where that fireball is pointed at is probably the determining factor for counterspelling it or not. Would you have the luxury of that info though?
So are the repeat attacks having no auditory trait an oversight? It feels odd if only the first attack has it.
I feel like all the traits of the spell should apply to the repeat attacks too but then I’m a bit confused why it would point out the traits for them as separate. The concentrate trait makes sense but don’t the attack and linguistic traits seem redundant?
Biting Words wrote:
You entwine magic with your voice, causing your taunts and jibes to physically harm your enemies. You can attack with your words once when you finish Casting the Spell, and can repeat the attack once on each of your subsequent turns by taking a single action, which has the attack, concentrate, and linguistic traits. After your third attack total, the spell ends.
Since the spell doesn't have an initial target, is the auditory trait only asking the caster be able to speak? The attack targets don't have to hear you or the spell?
As I understand it, casting the spell is a temporary buff that gives you access to a unique attack. However, the attacks themselves, both the one you can use for free after casting the spell and the two you can use on subsequent turns with one action, don't have the auditory trait. I just need to satisfy the attack, concentrate, and linguistic traits to attack a target with it.
So versus a group of common-speaking enemies that have been deafened, can my common-speaking character cast Biting Words and use it to attack those enemies successfully?
To be fair, a listed duration does more than clarity or unleash psyche synergy. It also signifies if a spell's effect is magical or not.
There could very well be an intention that unamped Astral Rain's affected area is meant to be not magical and therefore can't be dispelled, and my assumption is completely wrong.
Just like Daze having a duration. I don't think it needs one listed but it being listed does make it magical and that may be the intent.
I think Astral Rain is intended to have a duration, but RAW it looks like it can get Unleash Psyche bonus damage. Would it get only get bonus damage on both the initial cast or would the triggers on entering creatures also get the bonus?
For the amp version, would the added sustain option mean it doesn't get bonus damage altogether or can the initial cast get the bonus but not the follow-up sustains?
There are a few other psychic related ambiguities. Astral Rain and Forbidden Thought both read like they have durations but they don't have a duration listed so they qualify for Unleash Psyche's bonus.
Forbidden thought has only one instance of damage to be fair but Astral Rain technically has no limit and the damage triggers can occur at different times within a round.
Using Daze as the example is a bit of a problem because Daze still wouldn't work with Unlimited Potential since it isn't a spell slot spell. A spell slot spell that is worded similarly would work with Unlimited Potential after removing the duration though.
It invalidates it for Unleash Psyche which is interesting to say the least.
That 1 round duration is peculiar no matter which way you look at it, huh? I even considered there was another effect it was related to that I just looked past.
So it's all a matter of whether the effects are magical or not? That clears up a lot of these for me.
Fear, for example, inflicts a magical Frightened condition, and therefore can be dispelled, while those other spells inflict a non-magical Frightened condition?
Similarly, Daze causes a magical Stunned condition while Ray of Frost's speed penalty is simply an effect of the spell?
Of course, these would then also determine what is valid for the Conduit feats and Unleash Psyche, correct?
Conditions like Frightened, Stunned X, Sickened, and even persistent damage. Also given that the spells have no other effect that needs a duration.
I want to know what qualifies for those level 20 spellcaster feats and now the Psychic's Unleash Psyche that care about spells with no duration. I thought it would be as simple as checking if the spell has a listed duration or not but certain spells keep me skeptical.
Fear says its duration varies but similar spells that cause Frightened like Weird, Blistering Invective and Agonizing Despair have no listed duration.
Daze can cause Stunned 1 and has a listed duration. Ray of Frost can cause a 1 round speed penalty but have no listed duration.
Persistent damage spells I've noticed to be consistent as to not having a duration listed at least.
For what it's worth, I think the spell description is decently supportive of the amp disconnect. "Your spells release soothing mental waves." Combined with the specific 30ft range, I can see it fits this visual just as well. The "amped psi cantrip counteracts" part gives me doubt but then the "chosen ally" part SuperBidi points out brings me right back to seeing the amp effect being its separate thing.
The counteract effect is being associated with "the amped psi cantrip" - since that is what is doing the counteracting.
Thanks, missed that. That first effect targeting is strange though but remains functional so how it was intended could go either way. Treating it consistently with the others feels to be the best approach.
I thought the counteract effect referred to the same 30 ft and targets of the first effect? It's not setting a completely new range for the spell is it?
Other amp effects are direct at stating how it affects the spell's target or influence so that's why I thought seemed odd Mental Balm.
Homing Beacon wrote:
Choose one creature hit by the spell (if the spell has a spell attack roll) or that fails its save against the spell (if the spell requires a save).
Inertial Barrier wrote:
You or one target of the spell gains resistance to physical damage equal to 2 + the spell's level until the start of your next turn.
Remove Presence wrote:
Choose one target of the spell or one creature in its area.