Sympathetic Weakness IMO only further confuses the issue because it references a completely different creatures from the one that was originally targeted with Esoteric Antithesis. A more apt comparison would be if the thaumaturge attacked a different red dragon instead of fire elementals.
I agree with OP that it's not exactly clear the way that it's written, and the example given in Sympathetic Weakness only furthers that uncertainty.
I'm fairly new to 2e, but I can see a balance argument either way.
1. I think it should work, but playing Asmodeus' advocate for a moment.... While solar flare does have a caveat to it, it also says 'anything that can affect a solar weapon except...' Solar shield doesn't say 'anything' it just says 'solarian weapon crystals'. I can see an argument being made that weapon fusions shouldn't work because it's only the weapon crystal that is specified. Again, I disagree with that interpretation.
2. RAW, it seems like it should change the type of AC you target. I'm not convinced that was the intention, but the RAW seems pretty straightforward.
3. I don't think the Vesk one should apply - at least, not completely. The second half seems to imply it's their racial natural attacks that should see the boost to specialization damage. Since Solar Shield isn't a racial natural attack I would think it wouldn't interact that way. Seems like aesthetic warrior should work as written, though.
Honestly, the lesson I'm learning from this is that solar shield is pretty darn good. Innately, it doesn't have any scaling damage, but a one level dip in soldier takes care of all of that - and rids you of that pesky CHA primary attribute. You lose heavy armor proficiency out of the box, but you get a shield at level 2 and could always pick up heavy armor again with a feat.
I know there’s been a healthy debate over RAW whether Soul Fire should work with Solar Flare, but I’ve not seen much conversation over other Solarian class features and revelations. Specifically, I’m talking about Plasma Sheath.
Taking a step back, the relevant portion of Solar Flare’s rules reads:
Quote:
Any solarian class features (including stellar revelations and zenith revelations) that specifically affect melee weapons (such as the flashing strikes class feature) function with your solar flare, even if they normally work only with melee attacks.
And for completeness’s sake, the rules for Plasma Sheath:
Quote:
As a move action, you can cause all of your melee attacks to deal fire damage instead of their normal damage type. (The attacks are still made against the target’s EAC or KAC as normal for the weapon.) This benefit lasts for 1 round or until you leave photon mode. When you are attuned or fully attuned, your attacks with plasma sheath deal additional fire damage equal to half your level.
To the point:
Solar Flare clearly states it can benefit from Solarian class features that specifically affect melee weapons. While Plasma Sheath affects melee attacks - and while it logically follows that you’re making melee attacks with a melee weapon - it does not specifically say it affects melee weapons. That might be a super hard rules lawyer way to look at it, but an argument could be made that Plasma Sheath doesn’t affect the weapon itself - just the result of an attack.
I like to think the intention is clear that Solar Flare and Plasma Sheath should work together, but I’ve been wrong before and I’ve heard tell from others that they shouldn’t because Plasma Sheath doesn’t specifically say anything about melee weapons.
I’d appreciate an FAQ on this, or at the very least, the community’s opinions. Thanks all!
Hey all! I'm trying to come up with a name for my Vlaka envoy. I'd like it to be somewhat representative of a typical Vlaka name, but I haven't seen any. Are there any Vlaka NPCs in the APs or society scenarios, and if so what are their names? Thanks!
So I filled out the class survey and was a touch disappointed there was no room for open feedback on the forms. I absolutely understand why, and in lieu of that option I figured I'd come here and share my experience with two classes I played and a third that I *almost* picked up, but just couldn't.
My first character was a level 1 cleric.:
Maybe I'm a weirdo, but I've wanted to play a character that focuses on in-combat healing for a long time. I harbored a secret desire to fill this role when I used to play MMOs, but I was never confident enough in my abilities to give it a go lest I screw over my party. Perhaps because of that, I was really excited to give the cleric a whirl as a follower of Sarenrae with the healing domain.
I was a big fan of the mechanics of the new heal spell/channel. The three action economy gave me some interesting choices in combat. It felt like a waste at that point to use the AoE channel, but I enjoyed the strategy that came with it all. The power from the healing domain was nice extra padding. I was disappointed that the number of channels the cleric received were reduced in one of the errata. I understand it might have felt too strong or necessary to have a cleric around if only for the channels, but I felt a better solution was to address *other* means of healing, rather than nerfing the cleric. To that end, the resonance rules were updated and the medicine skill got some healing use out of combat, but the treat wounds use of the medicine skill felt too clunky to the point that I'd almost have preferred the ol' wand of CLW strategy over using it. I think the consequences for failing were fine, but it was too hard to critically fail that check.
In the end, I was disappointed that I didn't have enough channels and instead had to make roll after roll for treat wounds. My original design for the character was to mix it up a bit in melee as well, but after the change to how often you can use channel I ended up not boosting my strength and instead focused on charisma.
My second character was a level 4 druid.:
I was a big fan of how druid orders interacted with class feats, and I've always liked the idea of polymorphing as an approach to combat. Though I understand from an ease-of-use perspective, I was disappointed to see the druid's wild shape attack roll and bonus damage stats were tied to the spell and spell level I was using. Fortunately, the druid vestments allow you a way around this, but it's a fairly expensive magic item and at least under the old resonance rules was too cost-prohibitive to use.
I ended up building the character to use Wild Morph and Savage Slice as a means to approach to combat. His strength was solid, but it became really hard to do stats for the rest of the character as Wild Morph requires you spend a spell point to activate it, and it only lasts one minute. And, as a melee character I wanted some Con and Dex for health and AC. So my stat array was a bit of a mess. Still, it worked okay. I'd say the most disappointing thing was that Wild Morph took two actions to activate, which meant I'd often be spending the first round of combat producing my claws and then moving into melee range while our fighter could get off two attacks with his charge feat and quick draw. It was darn good fun if I could smell combat coming, but felt very unsatisfying when I basically spent my first turn in a combat drawing my weapon while everyone else is doing cool stuff. I'd suggest that maybe Wild Morph should allow you to grow claws as a single action, but perhaps keep the other cool things it can do that give you some pretty neat utility at two actions.
Also, I totally missed that animal form had been rolled into the wild shape feat for free starting at level 3, so I never got a shot to play with it. But by level 4, on paper my AC, attack bonus, and damage bonus were better while not in an animal form (which was disappointing). Still, I really enjoyed the druid a lot, and I'd say it was my favorite class to read and to play.
Now, the last class.:
I always disliked the barbarian in 1e. The chained version was too min/maxy for me, but the unchained version rebalanced the class by adding stances that I just didn't really care for. They were strong, but stuff dies so fast in 1e that it felt like a wasted action to me to enter a stance unless there were lots of mooks around. I hoped that the 2e barbarian would represent a turning point in which I might finally appreciate the class for what it is - a hulking death blender with a 20 word vocabulary. But that hope was in vain.
I didn't like the rage mechanic when it was first printed (three rounds of rage followed by one round of fatigue), and I like it even less after the errata (make a flat check to see if you stay in rage, with the DC growing more difficult for every round you remain raging). Under the old system it felt so mechanical, but under the new system it feels too random. My AC would already be pretty bad while raging, but when I become fatigued it can end up taking a -4 penalty to my AC! I'm going to get crit like crazy with that, if an enemy sticks to me. And if I run away I need to spend the next round re-entering rage and moving up to the enemy to engage them again. All for some temp HP that I basically need because of my reduced AC and a pretty small bonus to damage? Most of the rage related class feats outside of the totem ones are also really situational or just not that useful.
Personally, I'd like it if rage worked more like the solarian's stellar modes in Starfinder. You build up points each round you rage. When you reach 3 points you can spend those to perform a finishing move of some kind. Maybe something tied to your totem, maybe a combat maneuver. They could be damage focused, but I'd like to see something that gives you a tactical edge. After that, at the start of your next turn you become fatigued. This way, the player can choose if they want to keep raging, or if they want to cash out for some kind of advantage before they become disadvantaged. It could encourage more teamwork and more interesting decisions. But that's just me. It could end up being a pretty big rewrite for the class, and doing something so drastic after the playtest could be bad news bears. If nothing else, I'd like to see either the AC penalty go away while raging or the barbarian get a +1 to hit instead of a +2 to damage.
Final thoughts. I was a pretty big critic of 2e when I first read through the system, at least in my circle of friends. After playing with it I've gotta say I really enjoyed it. Everything felt so much faster in our 2e game compared to our low level 1e campaign. The three action system is great, and I'm a big fan of the new shield mechanics. While I had some criticisms for the cleric and druid I always felt like I could do something cool and/or useful. I was surprised, but I had a ton of fun. My table is super close to the end of Rise of the Runelords. While the playtest will have been over for a short while by the time we end, we're looking forward to going back to Doomsday Dawn and finishing it up, and I can't wait to see what the final version of 2e looks like.
My table has a weekend coming up where we're going to play the crap out of 2E. One GM is prepping some of the AP content, and I'm prepping the PFS scenarios for play when he needs a break.
I've never done PFS before and I haven't seen this info provided in the playtest documents. When having players build a character for one of these scenarios what should their wealth be? Just starting wealth? Or should it be assumed they've got a certain amount of coin on them for their level?
I was looking at the drone chassis in the CRB and was pretty disappointed in how low the STR and DEX scores were for most of the chassis. Specifically, the COMBAT chassis has what seems like an absurdly low score of 12 DEX.
I compared that stat with the ACs for the races in Starfinder: First Contact and discovered that a ranged combat drone has roughly a 50% chance of succeeding at a standard action attack assuming its level was even with the creature's CR. Taking a full attack with the drone dropped the chance of succeeding down to 30% or less.
I then compared the flight chassis' DEX-based attack to these same ACs (since, for some reason, it has a higher attack stat than the combat chassis) and learned it wasn't much better. Basically a 60% chance of success on a standard action attack, down to 40% or less for a full attack.
My method:
For each race in Starfinder: First Contact I assumed the mechanic's (and thus the drone's) level were equal to the CR of the enemy (or was 1 in the case of enemies with fractional CRs). I assumed the drone had Starfinder's version of weapon focus, and when facing CR 11 or higher enemies I assumed the drone received a +1 to attack rolls from Coordinated Assault. I took into account the ability score increases from the drone advancement chart as well. I assumed the drone only attacked with one weapon each round, though in the case of full attacks it used that weapon multiple times. I will admit that there weren't enough creatures in First Contact for this to be conclusive, but the trend was difficult to ignore.
My conclusion:
It seems like most classes have roughly a 50% chance to hit against CR appropriate enemies when making a full attack. I assume the drone's chance to hit is so low because the mechanic can still technically shoot with a full attack. I find this disappointing as I had hoped to make the drone the primary damage dealer of the two. I also think it's silly that the flight chassis is better at attacking than the combat chassis.
I don't really have a solution since I'm only guessing at the reason this was done. I think the flight drone is probably in an okay place if you assume its damage is only meant to supplement the mechanic himself, who should be the primary damage dealer. I think the combat chassis needs to have both STR and DEX increased by 2 (or maybe the option to assign a 16 to one of the two and a 12 to the other). As it is, the combat chassis is the worst ranged chassis of the three, though it is admittedly better at melee than the others. I think the stealth chassis is probably okay since it seems the intention is to balance its damage with its utility, but even still I think it would benefit from a 16 in at least one attack attribute.
I don't understand the description of area P9 in the lunar prison. It says Ahrkh-Nar has the stone in the North position, linking areas P10 and P11. That's what the map shows, which is fine; it makes sense. When in the South position, though, it links P10 to the kinked, long hallway leading to areas P3 through P6? Is that right? Doesn't the map show a solid wall between that hallway and P9?
Okay, I get it now. I was relying too much on the map, I think. The wall between the hallway and P9 shouldn't be there; it should just be the big stone in the way.
My question for any of you that have run the lunar prison: how did getting to P10 go? It seems that (beyond trying to destroy the 1,800 HP stone) the only other way to get to P10 is through the drain connecting to P1. What if the PCs miss the drain? What if they don't think to use it? Was this a problem for any groups, and if so how did you work with it?
I don't understand the description of area P9 in the lunar prison. It says Ahrkh-Nar has the stone in the North position, linking areas P10 and P11. That's what the map shows, which is fine; it makes sense. When in the South position, though, it links P10 to the kinked, long hallway leading to areas P3 through P6? Is that right? Doesn't the map show a solid wall between that hallway and P9?
I posted this question on the products page before I knew there was a subforum for the AP itself; my bad.
I'm gearing up to GM this AP and I noticed the player's handbook encourages PCs to build characters with flaws. Playing with folks that medium-to-heavy system mastery, this delights me as APs aren't often challenging for munchkins. And it's advice that meshes well with the horror genre in general.
Mechanically speaking, however, I don't really know how to encourage my players to approach this. Right now I'm thinking paladins are not a good fit for the campaign (a bonus for me is that none of my players are interested in this in the first place). How about barbarians with the superstition rage power, or clerics that can remove all the nasty ailments I'm sure the party will accrue? I imagine those things are fine, but is it?
When considering flaws one person suggested everyone take a drawback but not get the extra trait. Is that more in line with the 'flawed' idea? Or should it be more like players have fears or quirks that cause them to act differently or subject them to minor penalties?
------------
TL;DR: Did your group build characters with flaws as the handbook suggests? If so, what did you do? How did it affect your play?
Our group decided to take this AP into a "survival" game from the get go. Usually our group does a 20 point buy, but this time we went to 15. Also we decided to steer away from classes that were strictly immune to fear or had many ways to undermine it and limited our race to human. We also had to take one drawback without the bonus trait.
It's been fun, every fight being tooth and nail. We have a Warpriest, an Inquisitor, an Invetigator, and a Wizard.
As for advice, I would just about ban paladins if for nothing else but to keep the theme strong. Having a drawback (with or without the extra trait based off group) will help the player's have some sort of weakness built in. And lastly have the player's name off at least one fear that their character has. Give them a small penalty (shaken or dazzled) if they come across that fear, nothing too detrimental though.
Yeah, I've decided paladins are out, but I don't think anyone was planning on playing one anyway. I've thought about the drawbacks thing, maybe I'll give that a go. Thanks!
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
Here's a system I posted back in November on the Strange Aeons subforum. I used it IMC and the players liked it. YMMV.
* * * * *
I love the amnesia aspect of ISoS. What I don't like so much: that the PCs, after the opening encounter, immediately find all their stuff and start off pretty much unscathed. I think the horror aspect is likely to be ramped up if the PCs have a more realistic "wake up naked in an asylum" experience. Yes, ISoS is a pretty tough module. But I have a party of six, so I'm okay with handicapping them a little. I think this system would also work with four 20-point characters (since the module assumes 15 points).
Before starting, I'm going to tell the players that they have six Starting Points, which they can distribute among four categories: Stuff, Physical, Mental, and Fugue. They can spend up to three points in each category -- so, for instance, a PC might start with Stuff 2, Physical 3, Mental 1, and Fugue 0. What I'll tell the PCs: "Stuff 3 means you start with lots of stuff. Physical 3 means you're in great physical shape, Mental 3 same. Fugue 3, you have the least possible effects from the fugue. Lower numbers are less good." No details beyond that.
So what will these mean? Well:
** spoiler omitted **...
I'm also not a fan of them getting all their stuff right away. I need to read more of the AP before making decisions, but I'll probably give them a means to defend themselves right off the bat and scatter their stuff around. Depending on the party composition I may not start them at full health and I may have casters roll to determine if they lose one of their prepared spells or spell slots. I don't want to be too mean, but I don't want them to feel like things are just 'business as usual'.
I like the idea of your point system; I'll have to think on that! I've been reading about the sanity system. Does the AP assume you use that? I like it a lot, but I'm not sure if my players would appreciate it.
I'm going to be running the Strange Aeons AP soon, after I've had a chance to read through everything. I'm super pumped and I love how steeped in theme the AP is.
I read through the player's handbook and noticed one section encouraged players to build characters with flaws. As I've grown to know Pathfinder (and pen and paper RPGs in general) I've come to realize what's interesting in them isn't what you can do, but what you can't do. In that regard, I was happy to see that section in the handbook because that mantra is especially true of the horror genre.
I've also been reading some people's reviews of Strange Aeons and I've noticed them say that groups with PCs that are murder hobos and/or munchkins likely won't get as much out of the AP due to how theme driven it is and how the horror genre tends to work.
Lots of setup; here's my question. What exactly does that mean? How should players limit themselves when building characters? I assume a paladin who is immune to fear is probably a bad fit for this kind of game. What about a barbarian with the superstition rage power? Or are clerics that use spells like calm emotions not a good fit? I just don't really know how to encourage my players to build characters in order to become really steeped in the genre.
I guess this is probably a divisive question or one that's likely to produce a variety of answers; that's cool. Lots of thanks in advance for your help!
Edit: Not sure if this is the best place in the forums for this question; if this is out of place let me know and I'll delete this post and repost elsewhere. Thanks!
My druid recently awakened a roc that has been very helpful in my party's current adventure. I'd like to take Leadership and formalize the relationship between the two but I don't know how to calculate the cohort level for an awakened animal, and thus don't even know if this is possible.
I get that Leadership is a powerful feat, but that isn't an issue at the table. I also understand that simply due to the size of the bird it has certain advantages and disadvantages, and my group and I are fine with all of those. I am playing a storm druid, which means I could not choose an animal companion (if that matters for any reason).
Currently, I'm level 10, and thinking of taking Leadership as my next feat at level 11. What would my total leadership score need to be to have a roc for a cohort? Is it even possible to get a Leadership score high enough that I could take a roc for a cohort? Thanks!
Making non-Flurry claw attack only
Making non-flurry Unarmed attacks only
Making non-flurry Unarmed and secondary claw attacks
Making Flurry Unarmed attacks only
Making Flurry Unarmed attacks using one claw as the weapon (FCT) for some or all the Unarmed attacks
How exactly does Feral Combat Training work with the Unchained Monk's Flurry of Blows?
Feral Combat Training wrote:
Choose one of your natural weapons. While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite.
If you are a monk, you can use the selected natural weapon with your flurry of blows class feature.
Unchained Monk Flurry of Blows wrote:
At 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When making a flurry of blows, the monk can make one additional attack at his highest base attack bonus. This additional attack stacks with the bonus attacks from haste and other similar effects. When using this ability, the monk can make these attacks with any combination of his unarmed strikes and weapons that have the monk special weapon quality. He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what's already granted by the flurry for doing so. (He can still gain additional attacks from a high base attack bonus, from this ability, and from haste and similar effects).
At 11th level, a monk can make an additional attack at his highest base attack bonus whenever he makes a flurry of blows. This stacks with the first attack from this ability and additional attacks from haste and similar effects.
Let's create a hypothetical barebones level 6 monk. No items, we'll assume he's got two claw attacks, and weapon focus (claws) since it's a prereq for FCT. I can see this working one of two ways.
First, on a non-flurry full attack this monk would make two claw attacks at +7/+7. Therefor, since Unchained Monk's flurry says it just grants an additional attack at his highest attack bonus, when he flurries he makes three claw attacks at +7/+7/+7. I'm not sure how (or if) attacks with other weapons could be traded in with these, as flurry of blows suggests is possible, and I'm also not sure how style strikes would work with this reading. This reading means that the monk would never get more than three attacks from just a flurry plus his natural attacks, from level 1 to 10, and four attacks from level 11 to 20 (though obviously other effects and abilities that grant additional attacks would still function as normal) all at his full attack bonus.
Second, on a non-flurry full attack this monk would make two claw attacks at +7/+7. However, when flurrying he makes attacks at his normal iteratives. Thus, with his bonus attack he'd make three attacks at +7/+7/+2 (assuming they were all claw attacks). This reading suggests that a flurry is the same as a normal full attack action from levels 1 through 5. At level 6 the monk makes three attacks because his BAB allows him an additional iterative attack, and he gains additional iteratives at the appropriate levels (which equates to six attacks at level 20, albeit with iterative penalties). This reading also suggests that any claw attack could be traded out for a different attack that could be used during a flurry of blows with no trouble.
The way I read it the first interpretation seems RAW how it should work, but I just don't see how you could use style strikes with it since every style strike requires an unarmed strike to function.
I don't see any problems with an elf druid. They don't take a penalty to wisdom, they've got a caster friendly racial ability, and start off being proficient in bows, so they've got a nice ranged option for the beginning levels with that dex bonus. And having low-light vision always available for those forest nights is rather handy.
Yeah, compared to human I don't get the extra skill points, the bonus feat, or the flexible attribute bonus. Of those things, Elven Magic makes up for the loss of the feat (since it's essentially the spell penetration feat except I can still take spell penetration), and the Int bonus makes up for the missing skill point. I do miss the flexible attribute bonus and I don't like the Con penalty, but with 20 point buy neither of those things were much of an issue for me. The other racials are mostly gravy as an 8th level wisdom-based caster with perception as a class skill.
Wait there is a trait to retcon new subdomains in. Isnt that what FAQs are for?
They aren't being retconned, per se. They're just being added, but they aren't added to the list of available subdomains by default. To qualify for a given apocryphal subdomain (what the new subdomains are called) a PC must take the Acolyte of Apocrypha faith trait.
As far as I can tell, no FAQ is needed to add more domains/subdomains in general. They simply gave these subdomains a small buy-in price.
I don't think you're at any risk of being OP with this combination. It can certainly be effective, but by no means game-breaking (though you may want to consider avoiding Dazing spell metamagic -- it *can* be cheesy when spammed).
Have fun with the character -- I like the concept a lot!
Thanks for the tip! I'm very excited to give it a go! I'm one of those guys that does voices for his characters, and I've been working super hard on a gravely, thunderous voice for this guy - think like Bane from Dark Knight Returns, but lower and more rumbly. Just the flavor of the archetype and my backstory together has me giddy with excitement! Our group isn't meeting again until November 2nd, which just feels like an eternity to me right now!
Well the Storm Druid Archetype is THE Druid Caster. You lose your animal companion. Thats a major loss for an Druid. Youre already stated you know youre gaining the ability to freely use domain spells at-will.
The problem is youre not getting a great deal from domains or from the archetype. Most of the domain spells a Druid can take are already Druid spells so youre not getting much.
I think you would get more use out of having an Animal Companion. You can still specialize is casting. Just think of your mountain lion or bear as a bodyguard.
Lightning bolt is a decent spell, but its worse than Fireball and its usefulness is limited. Druid isnt meant to be a blaster. You dont have a wide variety of attack spells like a Wizard would have. Instead its about the variety of having a 15bab melee, tier 9 spellcasting, wild shape, and an animal companion all together.
Story-wise, the character I have in mind had an animal companion at one point, but it was killed in an altercation within the last two months by some evil aberrations. In grief, my druid turned to the power of the storms for vindication and to remove the rest of the aberrations from his forest.
I totally get that it might be better to have an animal companion or even spontaneous Summon Nature's Ally spells, but we've got two melee party members and a guy that's summoning already and I don't feel like gunking up the melee fights any more. Plus, I've been taken by the flavor of this concept and I'd have a hard time changing anything now, even though my decisions might not be "optimal".
You are overvaluing the spell as it is a line effect with a reflex save. Blasters are hard to do. Most DM's would actually promote this as you would be more of a flavor mage and if you made it a signature spell, etc, that would be cool in my eyes. Not only that it promotes people to read new books (which I promote). I always prefer flavor meeting mechanics most of the time. Sure it is powerful, but you are doing nothing that a sorcerer can't do. With your wild shape, assume primarily avian forms. Remember, down is also a direction. Become the thunderbird! If you want to weaken yourself, play an elf. None of the stat boosts are beneficial for a druid's spells, but it is beneficial to it's skill ranks, AC, and your reflex save. :)
Yeah, I rolled elf knowing that the stats didn't work in my favor, but we're playing 20 point buy and elf fit my idea for the character better. Thanks for the feedback!
I've been working on a level 8 character to hop in an adventure path after my last character died (RIP, Mimic). I'm settled on an elf druid with the storm druid archetype, which essentially lets the druid spontaneously cast his domain spells instead of Summon Nature's Ally. The archetype specifically calls out what domains and subdomains are allowed for the class - Air and Weather domains with the Cloud, Storms, and Wind subdomains. While looking at the Air domain online I noticed the Divine Anthology added a Lightning subdomain, which grants access to the Lightning Bolt spell as a 3rd level domain spell.
I asked my DM if he'd houserule I can take that subdomain, and he thought it was fine. I don't want to take advantage of him and do something borked, though. If I used the Lightning subdomain I would make a blasting druid that focused on Lightning Bolt and metamagic feats that would make it stronger. I'd still have a wide variety of control spells to spontaneously cast as well, and at level 9 I'd take the Storms subdomain. Otherwise, I'd take Storms to start, and at 9 I'd also pick up the Air domain.
_____________
TL;DR: Is being able to spontaneously cast Lightning Bolt as a druid with the storm druid archetype too good, or am I overvaluing the spell?
Thanks! That's what I figured, otherwise there's almost no downside for quite a bit of upside. I think I get how it works, the wording is just a bit confusing to me. Appreciated!
QuidEst wrote:
Play an Amnesiac Psychic with Rebirth for the discipline, and you go around remembering other lives instead. Plus, an extra flexible spell known.
That is actually the discipline I'm planning on using, though the background for the character is pretty different!
You still get the normal spell slots, but you don't fill them with prepared/etc.
Instead you blow up a unused spell slot of same level, (why you you then not use it, I don't know?) then cast any spell of same level (your choice).
But once used, it now locked as one of your spells known for the day.
You can fail to cast due to failing a Concentration check, failling, your remember check, dispel magic counter, deafness, ASF, etc.
So just in case, you still have it. They just wanted to confirm it.
Thanks for the reply!
Sorry, still trying to understand. So the way I'm reading the archetype is that I'm gambling with my spells known. There's between a 30-35% chance that I'll know one or two spells less on a given day of adventuring if the dice are against me.
Are you saying that rather than gambling with spells known I'm more gambling with my turn's actions? That an amnesiac slot is always converted to a spell known, but I simply may not be able to cast that spell that round or, to a lesser extent, any spell that round?
I'm thinking of building an amnesiac psychic because it matches up very well with a concept I have in mind for a harrower PrC character, but the archetype is confusing me a little.
I understand how you figure out the number of spells known and amnesia slots. Does the character learn an appropriate number of spells when she gains a new level of spell casting, though? The archetype says how first level spells work, but doesn't mention what happens at level 4 or any other level when you gain access to a new level of spells.
The spell recollection feature is a little confusing; it reads:
Spell Recollection wrote:
Regardless of the result, the amnesiac expends an amnesia slot of the appropriate level for the spell she is attempting to remember; she must cast the spell remembered (if any) using that amnesia slot during the same round, or the spell slot is lost without effect.
Once a spell has been remembered in this way, the amnesiac can cast it as one of her spells known for the rest of the day (even if she failed to cast the spell during the round in which she remembered it), unless spell recollection allowed her to cast a spell of a higher level than she would normally be able to cast.
So the first paragraph says I expend an amnesia slot regardless of the result. I read this to mean that if I'm a 7th level psychic and I attempt and fail to remember a spell with a 3rd level amnesia slot that the amnesia slot is unavailable for the rest of the day. Is that correct?
The first paragraph also says if I don't cast the spell remembered with the amnesia slot that round that I lose a spell slot without effect. Now, spell slots refers to my spells per day, right? So if my hypothetical psychic remembers a third level spell but doesn't cast it I still deduct one casting from the number of third level spells I can cast per day. Is that right?
Lastly, in the second paragraph I quoted it says I can treat a remembered spell as a spell known for the rest of the day (provided that it wasn't a higher level cast from the 96+ option on the table), even if I failed to cast it when I remembered it. I don't understand how I can remember it but fail to cast it? There's no entry on the Spell Recollection table that says I remember the spell but can't cast it. Really, the first option on the table says I can't cast spells this round, but doesn't say whether or not I remembered a spell. Is this just assumed to mean I also don't remember the spell? I assume that is the case, since tables often tend to have the worst results near the bottom. Regardless of that, can I attempt to remember a spell if I have an amnesia slot for a given spell level but no remaining spell slots?
Thanks a bunch for helping me understand! I appreciate it!
I'm going to be playing a single player campaign during lunch breaks with a coworker of mine, who will be the GM. We'll be playing in a setting that has almost no magic, and it'll feel a lot like a gritty spaghetti western.
My character is going to be a bounty hunter with a strong personal code by which he conducts himself.
I've ok'd a couple of things with the GM to allow him to dual wield repeating hand crossbows, attaching weapon straps from his chest armor to the cocking lever so he can pump to re-arm his weapons. He's also said that the Bolt Ace archetype - in this instance - can begin play proficient with all exotic crossbow weapons as well, so I don't need to burn any feats on those. Looks like right now it'll be a 15 point buy starting at 5th level, and I'll probably be going human.
As far as setting goes, it'll probably play a lot like an Assassin's Creed game. Lots of sneaking, information gathering, and then the eventual take down of the target.
I've played a few campaigns and GM'd some, but solo games are foreign to me. Any build advice you'd lend considering I'll be all by my lonesome?
My character will be a fairly close range fighter, since sneak attack and hand crossbows only work (or work optimally) out to 30 feet. He'll need two-weapon fighting off the bat, and point-blank shot would probably be helpful since he'll be up close a lot. At level 6, he'll probably pick up Crossbow Mastery from the 'Ranger Combat Style' Slayer talent. At level 7 he'll be able to spend a point of grit to intentionally miss a shot, causing his foe to lose his Dex bonus to AC for the round.
That's my framework. I'm sure I'll need other feats to flesh out his defenses. Any suggestions on what I should take? Thanks!
Did some more looking into the class and was drooling over Ride the Blast. I can’t help but feel like it might be a little broken. Not sure if this has been covered elsewhere in this thread, but at 40 pages and counting I can’t really read the whole thread. (Insert ‘Ain’t Nobody Got Time for That’ meme here.)
Now, Ride the Blast….
I could (at level 10) charge up to 480 feet in a straight line or snake a path of up to 120 feet without provoking any AoO from my movement and without being affected by hindered terrain. I’d then reach my target, where I’d get to make an attack with my blast. And I still have my move action if I want. Next turn I could throw up my kinetic blade/whip. All without taking any burn (from Infusion Specialization). If I used my move action to reduce the burn cost, I could even add a substance infusion with a cost of 1 and still take no damage, or use a composite blast for only 1 burn.
At 13th level, I could quicken my blast, allowing me to make that charge as a swift action for 3 burn. Then I can make a full round of attacks with my blade/whip. I could even throw a substance infusion in there (for 0 burn with Infusion Specialization) to knock my target back 5 feet so I can keep him at reach and make good on AoO from my whip. If I’m hasted, well…. *drool*
Now, that’s for 3 burn, but I suspect most kineticists will have Con (and thus HP) that goes through the roof because they really have no reason not to do so.
Even without using it as a gap-closer for melee combat it seems like it provides an almost unreal amount of mobility. I assume that since kinetic blast is an SLA that using it would provoke an AoO, and thus using Ride the Blast would do the same. But, no AoO along the path you’re moving, and you could move up to 480 feet in a line or 120 feet however your pretty little heart desires. As many times per day as you would like. For 0 burn. Seems more than just a little good. I suppose the trade-off is that you don’t have anything close to a list of spells or the power and flexibility that spell list would provide.
It looks like a really fun ability and I like its current iteration, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that the mobility seemed beyond good. Thoughts?
A Kineticist can only use one Form Infusion at a time (and one Substance). So he selects Infusion Specialization: Form, fires an Extended Range Fire Blast, he takes 1-1=0 Burn. But if Burning is also a Form Specialization, a Burning Extended Range Fire Blast is against the rules.
You can freely select Form at one level and Substance three levels later. You almost have to, since at the moment there's basically no value in selecting Form more than twice but a /lot/ of value in taking it twice.
AC considerations are why I'm leaning heavily on Touch blasts. Hopefully we'll get some kind of additional accuracy augmentation on final release.
Thanks for the clarification! It seems I didn't read the Kinetic Blast ability well enough. I'll agree on the touch blasts, too. They are even more spikey since they have reduced static damage, but they will have little or no problem finding their target.
I downloaded the playtest last night and have thoroughly enjoyed reading about the kineticist! I've got a couple of questions that could use some clarification, though. I apologize if this has been addressed elsewhere in this thread. I read the first 5 pages or so, and then realized there were over 30 pages now. Wow!
To the questions:
I'm a bit confused about how the reduction in burn costs are applied. At 5th level, a kineticist gains Infusion Specialization. Let's say a particular pyrokineticist (let's call him Edgar) chooses form infusions. When Edgar uses two form infusions (say, Burning and Extended Range), how does his Infusion Specialization apply the reduction in burn cost? Are both burn costs added together and then the reduction is applied, meaning Edgar would take 1 burn to use both effects simultaneously? Or, is the Infusion Specialization figured for each form infusion individually, meaning he'd take 0 burn while using both of those two infusions simultaneously? I figure it's the latter, since he doesn't have a ton of wiggle room with the way burn seems to work.
Next, when Edgar chooses 'form' infusions at 5th level for his Infusion Specialization does that mean at level 8 he has no choice but to reduce the burn cost of his form infusions again? Or can he instead choose substance infusions at this point? The name 'specialization' leads me to believe you lock yourself into that type of infusion and can't choose the other type at later levels. But the wording in the description leads me to believe that you can choose to reduce the burn cost of either form or substance infusions each time regardless of which you chose before. Again, I feel confident that it's the latter and that I'm just reading into the title of the ability too much, but clarification always helps.
Lastly, his chance to hit against normal AC seems to be lacking. Granted, when he hits he has the real possibility of leaving a nice gaping wound in his foe's torso, but so much of his ability to hit and the damage he does is dependent on luck. I haven't tested a build yet, but it seems like he's got about a 50% chance to hit against an average single CR-appropriate monster. (He'll do better against little packs of guys who generally have lower AC, but he'll still miss pretty often, too.) Adding to that is the fact that his damage can be pretty spikey. A player who's cursed by the dice gods could easily roll a string of missed attacks, potentially followed by a very underwhelming hit. I don't exactly know if this is a problem that playtesters are noticing, but it seems like it could be very discouraging to the player. Just my $0.03.
Again, I'm really pumped about this class! Great work!
