daaaana's page

I have a question for something that seems like a typo.

"You're Next!" for pre-remaster Swashbucklers is a reaction. It is also a reaction for Rogues in Player Core. So why does it require an action for the remastered Swashbuckler?

It's an error - we don't have errata for PC2 (yet?), but the sanctioning notes fix it:

The swashbuckler’s You’re Next feat (page 164) is a reaction, not an action.

Probably way too late, but they didn't give us a playtest or earlier preview, sooo...

Suggested Variant Rule : Key ability scores are added to cantrip damage.

Honestly, simple rule that would solve most of the discontent about caster changes. Without it being in the book, it won't get into the Foundry rules, which is how I imagine most people play online.

Foundry doesn't need any extra automation to support that - if you open the details for a spell, there's just a tickbox indicating whether ability modifier is added to damage. Add your cantrips, tick the box for each, and you're done.

I’m a bit confused by the feat. It sounds like it’s meant as battlefield control. I don’t see it ever doing damage because taking a minimum of 7d6 to your allies so that the creatures stay in the area seems like mutually assured destruction. Doing this at range with no allies guarantees that the bad guys move. I’m guessing the intent here is to have it make bad guys use an action. Seems awful high level of a feat for this though.

It seems fine to me. You could position it such that an enemy would have to decide whether to eat the secondary detonation, stride and take a reactive strike, or step twice to evade both at the cost of most of their turn. You could use it to set up a Shove from one of your allies and guarantee the damage. You could simply box the enemy into a tight area where they can't escape - which you could have created with Wall of Stone beforehand. Plenty of cool ways to use it, IMO.

Assuming that you are correct, it does bring up another weird case. Assuming the Eidolon was manifested while you were asleep (unconscious) it could not act. Unconscious prevents the character from acting and if the character can’t act it prevents the Eidolon from acting.

So assuming a threat came into the room, would the Eidolon be able to wake you via the shared link? I will need to think and look over the rules, really not sure how it should work.

There are certainly some weird corner cases with this class.

This is incorrect, the summoner and eidolon are explicitly allowed to act even if the other is unable to for some reason:

If only one of you becomes restricted in how you can spend your actions, that restriction doesn't automatically extend to the other; for example, if your eidolon became immobilized or petrified, it wouldn't be able to move, but you could still use your actions to move. The GM resolves any situation that's unclear.

With this, I don't see any issues from e.g. an eidolon keeping watch and waking the summoner via their telepathic link (or verbally) if something happens.

Any updates on this one?

Not at the moment.

I still have local VO refusing to give access to all characters, saying "You" means character.

I wish we'll have clear boon text. Not so hard to replace "You" with "Player".

Sigh - fine, you've dragged me onto the forums. I'm the VO in question. I think you're misunderstanding me and the role of venture officers: I do not have the authority to make rulings in situations like this, nor do I have the ability to "give access" to options. I was sharing my perspective as a player - which is that because it is ambiguous, I would defer to the more conservative interpretation (i.e. that you need a separate boon for each character) in order to have a character that is unquestionably legal, whichever way the boon is intended to work.

As a venture officer, we're aware of this discrepancy and working on kicking it up the chain, but Alex Speidel (the org play coordinator) is currently out of office, so it's unlikely we'll have an authoritative answer for at least another week.