I would love it if DaS remained an action but allowed your next dice interaction with an enemy use that die roll. After that give it a few abilities that target saves so he can force an enemy to use a low roll. (Maybe give him an ability to have combat maneuvers go against his class DC instead of Athletics when using DaS)
First off, I love these! On your questions: Ratings: I think you should just standardize them. I like the dots, but the summoner guide symbols are nice as well. Bubbles: I don't think you need to distinguish core vs APG or whatnot. Save those for the really helpful changes for stances, and warden spells and whatnot. I think that those are helpful! Page Numbers: Dont use page numbers, the links are good enough. Groupings: I don't have a preference. Fighter: I think the Fighter should have just an extra extra long chart. One sheet makes more sense. I plan on giving these to my players, thank you for the good work!
So it seems that when people are talking about Burn they don't like it mostly because 1) some Kineticists should be able to play it safe and 2) it was a complicated extra thing to track. People like burn because they like the feel of health being drained to power abilities. So what about this: What if the Kinetcicst could deal damage to themselves to gather elements as a free action? Make it normal lethal damage (why wouldn't over-channeling the plane of fire cause you to die?) Now, this is something that is completely optional, gives a nice power boost, makes the Con boost worth it, and is easy to track. This also seems like something easy to get the balance right. How much damage is Slowed 1 worth? One could easily (all though time consumingly) look through for every monster that can inflict the slowed condition and check: how much damage are they not dealing because they are instead spending their actions making the opponent slow?
What do people think?
The goal of this Class Archetype is to bring back the 1e Mr. Hyde Alchemist style. Where you got to play as a weak non-combative scientist, who drinks a potion and becomes a terrifying brute. Through the Mutagenic Form Elixir, the Alchemist can boost his attack and AC proficiencies to match that of a Monk. that of a Monk. It is a powerful item, but no one but a Hydian Chymist should ever be making this. I was originally going to call it a Master Chymist, but I was told that the 1e name was confusing for people who have never played 1e.
Trading the cost of spells to feats or money does not make a ton of sense. Martial's do not have extra feats or money, they have better proficiency. The only exception is Martials get a level 1 feat. Materials also usually get some schtick to increase damage and such. The simplest way would be to give the Eidolon Martial Proficiency, and then instead of getting a 1st level feat, they have their cantrips. It is slightly more powerful than a level 1 feat or level 2 dedication feat, but it makes up for the Eidolon to not have the other martial tricks like rage damage or hunted prey or something.
manbearscientist wrote:
I think this is exactly on point. Imagine a class with an ability like this,and many feats that bring in more forms/abilities. Heck I would love things that gave bonuses if you change. For example a a "fast form" which gives a speed boost while it is active and +1 damage on the first attack you make after you switch out.In fact I would probably remove the "which persist till the end of your next turn" and make it where you want to switch forms because you get a bonus on changing. Kind of like how the swashbuckler gives you a bonus on ending panache so you are encouraged to end panache every turn if you can.
I think the question here is, what type of game is Pathfinder 2e? Pathfinder 1e (and Dnd 3.5) were simulationist games. There were bad options and good options. Character building was a huge part of the game, and the combats usually went to who built the better character. If you want to play a game like that play Pathfinder 1e. Pathfinder 2e is a gamist game. It focuses on level balance even to the point of losing some simulation. Why cant the Summoner's phantom go through walls? Why cant the bird animal companion be ridden by a small PC? Why is a standard longsword just as effective in the hands of a gnome as the hands of an orc? If you want a gamist game, play Pathfinder 2e.
WatersLethe wrote: My problem with Reload 2 is that you get to the point where the things you're missing out on (fun of the 3 action economy, the mobility of this edition, cool new skill actions etc) What if you had different ammo types. If you had a strong ammo that needs reload 2, then you effectively have a choice in how you use your actions. Actually the double barrel pistol would be great for this. You could do reload 2, and then be able to shoot both in one action, or reload 2 and then shoot one barrel, and then shoot another later. Or you could do reload 1 and just fill one barrel and then shoot once. Instead of giving an attack penalty for shooting both barrels (which would mess up the crit fishing of the gunslinger) have it increase the die size by 2.
So the sad thing about Unstable is with a DC17 it feels like it is impossible to beat the DC. What if you had the ability to make a repair? Perhaps: Unstable Repair (one action)
So then you can spend 1 action to reduce the DC to 12, two actions gets you to 7, three actions gets you to 2, and four actions removes the check entirely. I think it will make the class feel more inventor-ish
I know a lot of people do not like even having reload 1 on the guns, but I would love to have a "heavy" version of the guns listed. Would it be reasonable to make a set of guns with +1 reload and the damage/fatal die increased? Or more interestingly, have a special ammo that takes longer to load properly but does more damage?
You could do it the way the Druid solves this problem. Just have a feat that allows you to take a feat of a lower level from a different school. It would be something like: Broadened Magic: Feat 4
You can take this feat multiple times, each time selecting a different school gated feat.
KrispyXIV wrote:
I mean the easiest way to solve the problem is to give the Eidelon 1 + Int. skills, give the Summoner 0 +Int Skills, and then give them 2 skills which they both share. Not necessarily those numbers but something like that.
Perpdepog wrote:
I guess the mathematical question is how much extra damage do you take if you have -1 to your AC?
Verzen wrote:
Once you start adding that many things the balance starts to get skewed. On the other hand the Summoner is not a full caster, so being a bit more powerful would not be that bad.
People are comparing the Animal Companion with the Eidolon, people are also comparing the Familiar with the Eidelon. For those of you who dislike the current form of the Eidelon, would it be better if the Eidelon rule just combined Animal Companions and Familiars? Imagine if the rule was just: pick an Animal Companion. This Animal Companion gets four Familiar/Master abilities. They would get more Familiar/Master abilities on par with the Witch. Add to that the ability for the Eidelon to have armor/weapon runes and have some random feats that can add special abilities. Now they are just as balanced as a Witch who has a familiar riding on the back of an animal companion (easily picked up by level 2.) It would also give a whole slew of options. Now the Eidelon is weaker, but does not share MAP. What would people think of that?
KrispyXIV wrote:
Well it would have some mechanical distinctions. 1) You cannot remove the rune and give it to a friend to put on their weapon.2)You do not need to find the rune somewhere. If you get some money in the middle of a dungeon you can use it immediately. I think it would add some flavor and customizability. It is similar to the rule someone came up with where you can pick which attacks your eidolon has, but it has to be from the list of simple or martial weapons. (So you can have weapon qualities at the expense of damage die or one "unagile" attack instead of two smaller attacks where one has agile.)
So it has been mentioned before that instead of giving the Eidolon feats that give "flaming", "Acid", etc. attack types it is built into the ability to use runes. It feels a bit funny to use runes to create the acid tongue of your weird beast Eidolon, but it is balanced. What about this for a rule to maintain the exact same balance while making it feel less weird. What if you had the option to perform a 10 minute summoning ritual. This ritual would have as a material components the price of a particular rune, and once the ritual is complete your eidolon innately has that ability. So at level 8 you spend 500 gp and now your Eidolon can clap its hands and make a Thundering attack (having the same effect as the thundering rune)
So many people have mentioned the balance problems of having an eidolon fly. Suppose the eidolon had the same rule about flight as the Animal Companion, where is cannot carry someone and fly. This seems like it would make things balanced, but some think it would not due to out of combat things and the like. Here is my question: At low levels, what would a flying eidolon (that cannot carry people) be able to do that a Wizards Familiar being carried by a bird animal companion not do. (Build is Wizard Familiar Thesis, Beastmaster as level 2 archetype. Familiar has Speech, Manual Dexterity, and Skilled for either diplomacy or lockpicking depending on the situation.)
QuidEst wrote:
You are correct it is not a focus spell! But incorporeal creatures make noise, can be seen and then you can have an actual ghost. I don't think that would be overpowered, but I could be missing something.
What is they had the ability to spend one minute to gain the Incorporeal trait? The Ghost cannot manipulate things when she passes through walls, but would be good on spying on something on the other side. This seems like it would have comparable utility to a familiar with share senses. In fact it would be better in regards to time (share senses you trade 10 minutes of focus for 1 minute of viewing) but it would be worse in regards to sneaking around. The Phantom is not invisible and much more likely to be noticed than a bug/rat/bird familiar.
So I have my group playing Carrion Crown in 2e right now, we are getting closer to the end, and my question is: does this story make a good sequel, or does it just make the ending of Carrion Crown feel worse? Or is there a possibility of using the same characters through both APs? I am already converting everything to 2e so I don't care about the level disparity I am more wondering about how the story would flow.
So I have my group playing Carrion Crown in 2e right now, we are getting closer to the end, and my question is: does this story make a good sequel, or does it just make the ending of Carrion Crown feel worse? Or is there a possibility of using the same characters through both APs? I am already converting everything to 2e so I don't care about the level disparity I am more wondering about how the story would flow.
So I have my group playing Carrion Crown in 2e right now, we are getting closer to the end, and my question is: does this story make a good sequel, or does it just make the ending of Carrion Crown feel worse? Or is there a possibility of using the same characters through both APs? I am already converting everything to 2e so I don't care about the level disparity I am more wondering about how the story would flow.
So I have my group playing Carrion Crown in 2e right now, we are getting closer to the end, and my question is: does this story make a good sequel, or does it just make the ending of Carrion Crown feel worse? Or is there a possibility of using the same characters through both APs? I am already converting everything to 2e so I don't care about the level disparity I am more wondering about how the story would flow.
I previously posted a Warlock class for second edition and got some great critiques so I overhauled the entire thing. So a few things on the class: Warlocks are not a spellcasting class mathematically, they are a martial class which is flavored as spellcasting. That is why people tend to complain they just spam Eldritch Blast, but they are doing the same thing as the fighter spamming "Sword". This class is more like a champion than a spellcaster. My goal for this class was to allow conversions from 5e and to have a Focus points based class. It seemed like a great niche among the other 12 classes. Last but not least the Warlock Pledges, every other class that makes a promise or has an anathema truly believes in the thing. Clerics, Paladins, Druids, and Barbarians all want to follow their anathemas. The Warlock is different, he follows the pledge because it is more powerful, and will break the pledge if he can get away with it. My hope is that every pledge will present choices during the game. What do you guys think?
So for all of you who are moving a game from 5e to Pathfinder 2e I am working on a Warlock class. https://docs.google.com/document/d/11dfGAbsJB8dG-oq_dwxH8_7NGCksn6eY9qLx1iR i9vs/edit?usp=sharing Take a look and tell me what you think! Note: I have not finished the warlock feats past 6th level, still working on it.
|