Which is why I want to try either the removed iterative attacks or the new action system: not because I think they're better, but because I want to see how they work...
Since iterative attacks don't come online until level 6, you could always start with the action system and review and adjust if need be.
I keep *almost* making VMC characters, and then backing off at the last moment because of the sheer number of feats it takes. It's especially bad if you aren't a full-BAB class, because then you can't get Power Attack or Weapon Focus until Lvl 5.
If you have a concept that requires multiclassing, it's worth at least a look. I think something like Fighter VMC Oracle or Witch, or maybe Ranger VMC Wizard could work well. But I'd want to be a full BAB base class that gets bonus feats, and VMC into something that you can't pick up via feats.
I'm running into the same issue. So many classes have a list of feats that are really pretty necessary to certain character concepts that VMCing with a class that doesn't get bonus feats of some sort makes the option not worth it.
For fighter, though, it is pretty brilliant. I keep thinking a Lore Warden VMC Bard would be a lot of fun.
Which is why I want to try either the removed iterative attacks or the new action system: not because I think they're better, but because I want to see how they work...Since iterative attacks don't come online until level 6, you could always start with the action system and review and adjust if need be.
I like it!
OK, 50+ posts in less than 48 hours suggests there's interest; I'll get to work on the recruitment thread.
Ya think? ;-P
If it's really going to be a playtest then how about *requiring* the applicants to be variant mutli-classed?
|
If it's really going to be a playtest then how about *requiring* the applicants to be variant mutli-classed?
That's probably going a bit far, but part of the application might be to explain what part of Unchained your build will help test. There are some things that are probably best tested by a single classed build.
If it's really going to be a playtest then how about *requiring* the applicants to be variant mutli-classed?
Nah. VMC works for classes with extra feats, or if you have a very specific concept in mind: we aren't forcing people to play one of the 4 UClasses, so I don't see why we would require to do that for VMCs. It seems we'll be using Automatic Bonus Progression and the new action economy, so that's still plenty of stuff to playtest.
Beside, it's a CotCT campaign first, and playtest second: forcing everyone to VMC would kill a lot of character concepts (Need those feats/doesn't fit the concept to VMC).
EDIT: What pH Unbalanced said. Me and my snail slow posting <.<
True true. I actually sat down and read over the Variant mutli-classing rules a bit more and it really does require a pretty careful build.
If it's really going to be a playtest then how about *requiring* the applicants to be variant mutli-classed?That's probably going a bit far, but part of the application might be to explain what part of Unchained your build will help test. There are some things that are probably best tested by a single classed build.
Yes. Great idea.
EDIT: on reflection, I think I will give the Limited Magic and Esoteric Components a go, unless anyone has really, really strenuous objections...
As a GM, I'm very eager to see this put into action. As a player, I'm just looking forward to playing CotCT!
When you do post the Recruitment thread, please link to it here.
EDIT: on reflection, I think I will give the Limited Magic and Esoteric Components a go, unless anyone has really, really strenuous objections...
Well... I'm not particularly fond of Limited Magic. The changed action economy (about which I've changed idea and I'm willing to try, even if to just see how it can be tweaked), despite it's numerous shortcomings, actually opens up some things(even if it removes a lot of others): Intimidate as a single act, buff to TWF, enhanced engagement mobility. Limited magic it's...just a nerf. It doesn't open up anything new, it only limits options.
Now I know that a lot of people say that full casters need a nerf, but I've been playing PF for only a year and an half, and only in PbP: I've never got to high levels, so I've only heard of Wizards breaking the game from other people here. Supposedly, they becomes flying, invulnerable, invisible death machines that get infinite wishes, spam SoS that always succeed, solo encounters with summoned monsters, create infinite numbers of explosives runes in their demiplane, and break down eery plot with divination and having always the right spell on hand.
It seems to me that Limited Magic's Minimum CL/DC solves none of those problems. Of the problematic spells I mentioned before, only the SoS ones are actually nerfed, and that creates a problem that I'll address later. Summoning spells are still going to be super powerful, Fly/(greater) Invisibility are still a "can't touch this" card that lasts a whole encounter, divination still picks apart investigation plot, and create a pit still creates a pit.
On the other hand, blasting is going to get its damage cut in two almost always, and most importantly, low level spells gets more and more useless as you level up. I think that it's cool to have some low level spells that keep their usefulness during your carrier (The Almighty Grease!) , actually get better and become your bread and butter later on (Mage Armor), or are just nice in a pinch (Burning Hands: setting things on fire is usually the best solution).
With how the system works, you'll use your low level spells less and less, losing options as you go on: applying you stat bonuses to your Silent Image, for example, keeps it a little more reliable later on (without mentioning that you get to make bigger illusions).
And that's what happens to (the majority) of full casters: partial casters get it even rougher, with some classes in particular that get really shafted. Before I get to those, however, I'd like to touch on the part I mentioned before about SoS.
The class I've been playing for the most time is the Witch: I've found that I find myself to soften up baddies with hexes, and then take them out with a spell with a save. Looking further down the spell list, it looks like that this is intended, with how much debuffs the class has in addition to support spells.
Limited magic kind of breaks it down: no matter how many hexes (i.e. Evil Eye+ Misfortune) you stack on that guy, you're never going to get a Blindness/Deafness to pass trough. I can't find the chart right now, but if I remember correctly the average Will save for a CR 4 monster is +5: with Evil Eye applied, they pass on a 10, and you have invested two turns to do the whole Evil Eye-Cackle+SoS turn later routine. It gets worse as you level up, and kind of forces you to pick the hex-who-shall-not-be-named(Of which I'm not really a fan) to have a scalable.
For other classes, while I can't talk for experience, the situation doesn't look better: every spell with a save/high scaling with levels lose much of their utility, and a couple of classes gets hit really hard by this, namely the Magus and the Warpriest.
The Magus sees his main source of damage severely reduced by both no scaling and low DCs, and the warpriest sees the self buffs that are supposed to make him proficient in melee severely nerfed: Divine Favor, his bread and butter buff, gets hit hard.
S**t- just previewed the post and I wrote another wall of text. <.<
Anyway, it looked from your post that you were pretty sure about using the system, but I just wanted to voice my concerns about it: maybe someone else can weigh in and offer another perspective.
I'm in two minds about it as well; that's why I want to playtest it.
Heh... Quite the appropriate moniker. And an even more appropriate avatar to be sure.