magicplane's page

9 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


I've been running a PF2 game and I have made some poisoner feats to address the lack of feats for non-bombers.

Penetrating poisons:

When a creature succeeds on a save against your poisons stage 1 of the poison still takes effect, after which it runs its course and the creature is no longer effected by the poison.
On a critical success there creature is unaffected as normal.

Intense poisons:

When making poisons with advanced alchemy. You can make some poisons more intense. When you do so increase the DC of the poison by 2. This more intense poison takes more reagents to make. You instead make only 1 poison per batch instead of 2.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the vast majority of what people have said in this thread. Here are another set suggestions of how to fix it, along with the ideas I most strongly agree with.

1. I strongly support the idea of a spell pool, and allow the alchemist to did into the RP pool. This may eliminate the need for the 9th level class feature to get 1.5 x level of RP. In addition many feats would get you more SP.

2. The alchemist need a "cantrip". This could be some level 0 bomb that only an alchemist can make. This bomb is so quick and easy to make it doesn't cost RP, but it is unstable and so can only be made with swift alchemy. Perhaps it does d3 or d4 damage, scaling with empowered bombs.

3. To diversify alchemist strategies I suggest creating four alchemical disciplines which function similar to druid orders. The orders I suggest are:
i) Grenadiers (Bombers)
ii) Poisoners
iii) Mutants
iv) Mixologists (potions and elixirs)

Any discipline could learn feats from the other, but being of that discipline earns you a bonus.

I would like to see mutants get mutagens at level 1, but at that point can't share them with others. I could see a feat
True infusion, for the cost of 2 SP/RP can create an item that does not cost others RP to use, and the Mixologist this still only cost 1 SP/RP.

I think the feats are already there for bombers but they may need a few buffs, and to be honest I have not looked at poisons much.

4. Finally I agree the encumbrance issue needs to be dealt with and I really like Raynulf's fix for it.


The challenge with changing the numbers is its impact on AC and attack bonus. Certain classes will greatly outpace others in AC if the range is too big. On the other hand we want a bigger range in skills. I personally think untrained should not get the +level bonus. You can attempt things, but if you haven't practiced you are likely to fail. My frail wizard should not really have a chance to break grapple against a level 15 fighter without a nat 20.

They can also add untyped bonuses to skill feats to spread out a range more. I know they don't want as many floating modifiers, but these would be static, so it would not be much of a hindrance and wouldn't come into play until higher levels so it wouldn't effect the simplicity of the level one character.


What if were, switch styles as a free action at the end of your turn, and you can use this action to ignore the "open" quality of stances. Then you could go into a defensive stance at the end of your turn and use an action to go into an offensive one at the start of your turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I entirely concur with the gist of the post. I would also change constructs to potions/elixirs. I have been thinking about this also and I thought they could be called "Alchemical Disciplines".

Some of the feats could be tweaked (like separating lower level mutagens and quick onset mutagen feat)

In terms of the feats the increase the RP pool, I suggest using double your INT mod instead of just your INT mod.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
magicplane wrote:


1. Legendary can go to +4 just to emphasize legendary a little more for fighters attack and paladin AC. (It is already is differentiated for saves and skills due to no crit fails and feats).

An issue with this is that it puts a greater emphasis on attributes when it comes to skills.

Like as it stands an 18 CHA cleric who is legendary in diplomacy and a 22 CHA sorcerer who is an expert in diplomacy have the same modifier. If we made legendary even bigger, you'd make it so the cleric likely could never catch up to the sorcerer because of choices made at character generation.

I am confused by your post. Currently legendary is +3, so making it +4 helps the cleric catch up.


I want to say that I think proficiency overall is a good idea. It is very elegant that it replaces so many things, BAB, AC, skill progression, saves progression. The downside to this is that it leaves little room for playing with the numbers. Spreading out skills would also have drastic impact on AC and "BAB". Despite this I think there are a few changes they can make without disrupting the entire system. I am sure these ideas have been posted elsewhere but I could not find a thread for them. This thread seemed the most reasonable place for me to add my voice.

1. Legendary can go to +4 just to emphasize legendary a little more for fighters attack and paladin AC. (It is already is differentiated for saves and skills due to no crit fails and feats).

2. More importantly I think untrained should give no level bonus. This does not effect saves (everyone is at least trained in saves), it means those who are trained in a skill improve over time, while those who don't practice it don't improve. Finally, it means after the early levels I am usually going to critically fail with any weapon I am not trained in. As it stands now a level 20 wizard can pick up a great axe and have the same chance to hit as the fighter making a second attack with axe (-5 to compared to the fighters first hit). This seems off to me.


kaid wrote:
I think we will likely see a full prepared occult caster as one of the next likely classes after the core book. The bard is in a pretty good spot in that if you want some of the prepared feel you can get it but overall bards tend to be less studious and work well with the more limited spell list spontaneous casting option.

I am unconvinced we will get a prepared occult caster later. The way this system is designed we don't really need to. For instance, my favorite PF1 class is oracle. Those will now just be divine sorcerer bloodlines with different spell lists and powers. By making the bard a prepared caster, they can open up feats later to have the bard class play the role of a psychic or other occult classes.

As far as bards being less studious, I am not sure if I agree. Bards go around the world collecting knowledge, and have historically had access to all knowledge skills. A less studious class to me would be the druid, and they are prepared casters.


I know this is a pretty drastic change, but I think it makes a lot of sense. Wizards (Arcane), Clerics (Divine) and Druids (Primal) are all prepared casters. Sorcerer, whose casting list is based on blood line is prepared. This makes bard stand out as unusual. Furthermore Bard and Sorcerer are both CHA casters so if you want to be an occult caster you much be spontaneous and CHA based.

They seem to be moving slightly in this direction with the esoteric scholar feat, but from a game design point of view I think this would put the 4 types of casting on equal footing.