| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the arcanist change is because it's supposed to be a mix of wizard(int) and sorcerer(cha) and ended up being just int. Like dumping charisma to 7 like a wizard and still doing their thing wasn't what they wanted. They wanted it to be like the shaman where investing in Cha seems very rewarding.
Ravingdork used it correctly, he said it was a 4 feat chain, that comes online at lv15 and feels that something like that should be strong. He said nothing about a tax or that it's bad as you work towards it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come my friends, and weep with me for the Verminous Hunter and Hex Channeler. These nerfs lessen us all.
Come my friends, and weep with me for the Verminous Hunter and Hex Channeler. These nerfs lessen us all.
Those two are still vaguely playable, therefore they didn't get nerfed enough!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Come my friends, and weep with me for the Verminous Hunter and Hex Channeler. These nerfs lessen us all.Those two are still vaguely playable, therefore they didn't get nerfed enough!
[weeping intensifies]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is also a tax if the previous feat have nothing to do with the next feat. Assuming mobility and spring attack were great feats they are still taxes for whirlwind attack since the first two and the later works with completely different fighting strategies.
It's only a tax if the pre-req is something which isn't a solid choice in it's own right.
Indeed. That's why Combat Expertise is infamous as a common feat tax: 99% of the feats its a prerequisite for have nothing to do with Combat Expertise.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An excerpt from the "Ravingdork's Crazy Character Emporium" thread:
...
Due to the extensive new errata for the Advanced Class Guide, numerous characters have been modified (almost universally for the worse) to better fit these official changes, as follows:
[edited]...lots of affected chars[/edited]
Several more characters, though they have not had to have their sheets adjusted, nevertheless function very differently now than was originally
I really like RD's chars and the way he builds them.
but to me this is the proof that lots of things needed the nerf.if 75% of the chars were having divine protection : then it's too good.
(regardless of background)
if 50% of the chars were using spell consumption the whole day : it's too good.
if a feat is really good for you, whatever is your build, then it's too good.
I also think some feats were over-nerfed or have been nerfed while not needed.
but most of the changes are welcome and are based (as far as I can feel it) on forum's feedback.
"hey, 1 feat and I can give reach / fast healing to my whatever needs it" --> too good.
hey, I dip and I can access all arcane spells I want (+some other goodies) --> too good...
so yeah, keep on posting your builds/best ideas/nice combos (I do really like reading that) but don't be surprised when a build/idea/combo get nerfed because 95% of OP builds are using them
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the arcanist change is because it's supposed to be a mix of wizard(int) and sorcerer(cha) and ended up being just int. Like dumping charisma to 7 like a wizard and still doing their thing wasn't what they wanted. They wanted it to be like the shaman where investing in Cha seems very rewarding.
That's quite true, which is why I'm not too upset about the Arcanist change; it's how the class should have worked in the first place. It also means that I need to figure out something else to do with the Tiefling I currently have as a level 5 Arcanist, but it's worth taking down at least one 9th level caster a peg.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if a feat is really good for you, whatever is your build, then it's too good.
This is a bad metric to judge balance on.
"90% of all melee characters take Power Attack! Nerf Power Attack!" is the simplest example that bunks this logic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if a feat is really good for you, whatever is your build, then it's too good.
This is a bad metric to judge balance on.
"90% of all melee characters take Power Attack! Nerf Power Attack!" is the simplest example that bunks this logic.
I think it's a decent one actually, but with one caveat: If a feat should be taken in every build either it is too good or it should just be something characters can do without needing a feat.
I think the arcanist change is because it's supposed to be a mix of wizard(int) and sorcerer(cha) and ended up being just int. Like dumping charisma to 7 like a wizard and still doing their thing wasn't what they wanted. They wanted it to be like the shaman where investing in Cha seems very rewarding.That's quite true, which is why I'm not too upset about the Arcanist change; it's how the class should have worked in the first place. It also means that I need to figure out something else to do with the Tiefling I currently have as a level 5 Arcanist, but it's worth taking down at least one 9th level caster a peg.
Nash, it doesn't take them down. Just moves the ball a tiny bit for most Arcanists.
If you were tanking Charisma, use just drop Consume Magic Item exploit and get the Extra Reservoir feat. With the exception of the Occultist archetype, it will not make that big a deal since most things only require one point from the Arcane Reservoir.
Well, that kind of hurts my fencer magus. The whole point of doing him this way was to get the low and mid-level swashbuckler abilities to try and match the creature he is modeled after (The Night Fox enemy from the Dragon Quest series of games). Having your arcane pool not count as your panache pool, and that your swashbuckler level is zero for all abilities pretty much makes that arcana pointless. Some of the other changes I haven't read over in depth, because I have yet to play anyone else that it hurts (I just started my slayer, and the changes to the slayer don't hurt my character build).
|
|
if a feat is really good for you, whatever is your build, then it's too good.
This is a bad metric to judge balance on.
"90% of all melee characters take Power Attack! Nerf Power Attack!" is the simplest example that bunks this logic.
90% of all MELEE is not 90% of all characters (meeting pre-req)
only rarely will a wizard take power attack or a rogue...divine intervention was good for all classes whatever their build orientation.
it's not a bad metric, it's a good indicator
|
That analogy doesn't fit, and is completely skewed, since the feat in and of itself isn't overpowered and also didn't specifically call out the Oracle classYou mean except for the fact that one of the prerequisites is a class feature only oracles have
One. One of the prerequisites is the Mystery class Feature (Oracles).
Or Domains (Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors).
Or Blessings (Rangers with the Divine Tracker archetype and Warpriests).
So no, allowing a class to access a feat in addition to other classes is not the same as specifically calling out said class.
That analogy doesn't fit, and is completely skewed, since the feat in and of itself isn't overpowered and also didn't specifically call out the Oracle classYou mean except for the fact that one of the prerequisites is a class feature only oracles haveOne. One of the prerequisites is the Mystery class Feature (Oracles).
Or Domains (Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors).
Or Blessings (Rangers with the Divine Tracker archetype and Warpriests).
So no, allowing a class to access a feat in addition to other classes is not the same as specifically calling out said class.
Except it literally does call out that class.
It may call out several other classes in addition to the Oracle, but it definitely calls out the Oracle specifically unless I missed some new class with the Mystery feature they added.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if a feat is really good for you, whatever is your build, then it's too good.
This is a bad metric to judge balance on.
"90% of all melee characters take Power Attack! Nerf Power Attack!" is the simplest example that bunks this logic.
90% of all MELEE is not 90% of all characters (meeting pre-req)
only rarely will a wizard take power attack or a rogue...divine intervention was good for all classes whatever their build orientation.
it's not a bad metric, it's a good indicator
"Oracles" isn't 90% of all characters either so IDK what your point is. "This specific class" is an even narrower sub-set than "Any member of any class who uses Str as their attacking stat".
Divine Protection was not "good for all classes whatever their build orientation" it was only even available to like 7 classes (2-3 of those being archetypes) and only a "must have" for Oracles.
It was too good for Oracles, certainly, but it wasn't a must have for all classes. Or even everyone who qualified to take it. It wasn't even a vaguely OK choice for most of the classes who qualified (Warpriest and Inquisitor certainly can't spare the Cha for that, and probably not Druids either, and it was only available to them if they didn't take an Animal Companion).
The problem with that metric is that it assumes that when something is good, that something is TOO good.
Just because a lot of people want to take it doesn't make it too powerful. If it has a disproportionate effect on gameplay, it is too powerful.
|
|
That analogy doesn't fit, and is completely skewed, since the feat in and of itself isn't overpowered and also didn't specifically call out the Oracle classYou mean except for the fact that one of the prerequisites is a class feature only oracles haveOne. One of the prerequisites is the Mystery class Feature (Oracles).
Or Domains (Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors).
Or Blessings (Rangers with the Divine Tracker archetype and Warpriests).
So no, allowing a class to access a feat in addition to other classes is not the same as specifically calling out said class.
Except it literally does call out that class.
It may call out several other classes in addition to the Oracle, but it definitely calls out the Oracle specifically unless I missed some new class with the Mystery feature they added.
In addition to is almost the exact opposite of specific.
In addition to is almost the exact opposite of specific.That analogy doesn't fit, and is completely skewed, since the feat in and of itself isn't overpowered and also didn't specifically call out the Oracle classYou mean except for the fact that one of the prerequisites is a class feature only oracles haveOne. One of the prerequisites is the Mystery class Feature (Oracles).
Or Domains (Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors).
Or Blessings (Rangers with the Divine Tracker archetype and Warpriests).
So no, allowing a class to access a feat in addition to other classes is not the same as specifically calling out said class.
Except it literally does call out that class.
It may call out several other classes in addition to the Oracle, but it definitely calls out the Oracle specifically unless I missed some new class with the Mystery feature they added.
No, it isn't.
I have 20 people in my class.
I call out to Rysky, but additionally Jimmy, Timmy, and Billy.
I have specifically called out three of 20 students.
The exact opposite of that would be "Hey, kids!" to the entire class.
You seem to be confusing "specific" with "singular" you can be specific with multiples as well.
|
|
In addition to is almost the exact opposite of specific.That analogy doesn't fit, and is completely skewed, since the feat in and of itself isn't overpowered and also didn't specifically call out the Oracle classYou mean except for the fact that one of the prerequisites is a class feature only oracles haveOne. One of the prerequisites is the Mystery class Feature (Oracles).
Or Domains (Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors).
Or Blessings (Rangers with the Divine Tracker archetype and Warpriests).
So no, allowing a class to access a feat in addition to other classes is not the same as specifically calling out said class.
Except it literally does call out that class.
It may call out several other classes in addition to the Oracle, but it definitely calls out the Oracle specifically unless I missed some new class with the Mystery feature they added.
No, it isn't.
I have 20 people in my class.
I call out to Rysky, but additionally Jimmy, Timmy, and Billy.
I have specifically called out three of 20 students.
The exact opposite of that would be "Hey, kids!" to the entire class.
You seem to be confusing "specific" with "singular" you can be specific with multiples as well.
That's why I said almost. You're specifically calling out a group instead of one person, just like the feat is open to a group of classes instead of just the Oracle.
Honestly, if Divine Protection's prerequisite was "no levels in a class that grants spellcasting" rather than what it was then it would have been completely fine.
This!
But do you really think we will ever see something good with that kind of prerequisite?So in your opinion a feat that had a requirement of
bab +4 and either rage or bravery or flurry
and added your Strength bonus to all your saving throws would be balanced?
If it said that you may not have a class that gives spells, yes, absolutely.
|
|
So in your opinion a feat that had a requirement of
bab +4 and either rage or bravery or flurry
and added your Strength bonus to all your saving throws would be balanced?
Not really, needs another prerequisite (or more probably), otherwise you could just dip one level into any of those classes and get it.
|
|
Not really, needs another prerequisite (or more probably), otherwise you could just dip one level into any of those classes and get it.So in your opinion a feat that had a requirement of
bab +4 and either rage or bravery or flurry
and added your Strength bonus to all your saving throws would be balanced?If that's your only problem let me change the prereqs to:
Weapon spec or still mind or +2d6 sneakThat means at least 3-4 lvls in a martial class, which is exactly the same as 2nd lvl divine spells.
Getting there but aside from still mind the other two still leave it far too open, there's plenty of classes/archetypes that get sneak attack or qualify as fighter for the purposes of feats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Errata was great.
Delay was not.
People got used to a new normal for too long.
Obvious things that had to be nerfed were nerfed (Consume X exploits, Divine Protection).
Some good clarifications.
Lots of things left unaddressed though (Strangler Brawler losing Unarmed Strike so it's harder for it to qualify for Grapple?!?)
Class balance issues left unsolved (most egregiously, Charmed Life not being a free action still stumps me).
|
|
Getting there but aside from still mind the other two still leave it far too open, there's plenty of classes/archetypes that get sneak attack or qualify as fighter for the purposes of feats.Not really, needs another prerequisite (or more probably), otherwise you could just dip one level into any of those classes and get it.So in your opinion a feat that had a requirement of
bab +4 and either rage or bravery or flurry
and added your Strength bonus to all your saving throws would be balanced?If that's your only problem let me change the prereqs to:
Weapon spec or still mind or +2d6 sneakThat means at least 3-4 lvls in a martial class, which is exactly the same as 2nd lvl divine spells.
So?
According to you it is still restricted to "a group of classes"
So that makes it fine according to your logic behind the prereqs of divine bull.
If it is not, then you MUST agree that the feat was tailor made for Specific classes
No, Divine Protection was restricted to a handful of classes with some uniformity between them. You're example is "restricted" to a LOT of classes and archetypes with absolutely no rhyme or reason between them.
How about this as part of the prerequisites (not a construct commonly used, but it should do just fine): Four levels in at least one class that grants proficiency with all martial weapons at its first level.
Thematically sound.
How about this as part of the prerequisites (not a construct commonly used, but it should do just fine): Four levels in at least one class that grants proficiency with all martial weapons at its first level.
Thematically sound.
Well, it's certainly a good way to disincentive dex based magus builds(and they can get weapon spec too). I guess that makes their 11th level feat slots this feat+weapon spec if they are strength based.
|
|
No, Divine Protection was restricted to a handful of classes with some uniformity between them. You're example is "restricted" to a LOT of classes and archetypes with absolutely no rhyme or reason between them.Getting there but aside from still mind the other two still leave it far too open, there's plenty of classes/archetypes that get sneak attack or qualify as fighter for the purposes of feats.Not really, needs another prerequisite (or more probably), otherwise you could just dip one level into any of those classes and get it.So in your opinion a feat that had a requirement of
bab +4 and either rage or bravery or flurry
and added your Strength bonus to all your saving throws would be balanced?If that's your only problem let me change the prereqs to:
Weapon spec or still mind or +2d6 sneakThat means at least 3-4 lvls in a martial class, which is exactly the same as 2nd lvl divine spells.
So?
According to you it is still restricted to "a group of classes"
So that makes it fine according to your logic behind the prereqs of divine bull.
If it is not, then you MUST agree that the feat was tailor made for Specific classes
not really.
divine bull was available to every single divine casting class in the game with a single level dip
my version is available to all martial classes that have connection to non-casting classes
name it:
martial resolve, and there you have your "connection"you must agree to one or the other:
either divine protection was valuable ONLY for oracles, in which case it was a very, very good thing it got obliterated
OR
divine protection was open to a bunch more classes so it was more widely available, so there is no problem if every martial class had it's equivalentyou can't have it both ways, sorry
For starters it was not available with just one level, you still needed to be able to cast 2nd level divine spells and that's something you couldn't get with just one dip.
And demanding that the other side of an argument must pick option A or option B that you have put forth is not only annoying and petty but also needlessly antagonistic.
That really doesn't make for more prerequisites though, it just excludes the monks.
Excluding classes was the whole idea behind the Divine Protection prerequisites as well. The martial proficiency thing is of a similar kind of restrictiveness.
I'm not arguing that my proposed prerequisite is a good prerequisite, just that it gets the job done the same way DP did it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it's certainly a good way to disincentive dex based magus builds(and they can get weapon spec too). I guess that makes their 11th level feat slots this feat+weapon spec if they are strength based.How about this as part of the prerequisites (not a construct commonly used, but it should do just fine): Four levels in at least one class that grants proficiency with all martial weapons at its first level.
Thematically sound.
Just like the original DP wasn't very good for characters in applicable classes that didn't use charisma, the strength one shouldn't be very good for builds that don't use strength.
If we're going to make similar feats for thematically different classes, why not simplify things and just make 1 feat to rule them all:
Prerequisite: 5 ranks in at least one single skill.
Benefit: Add you highest ability score modifier to all saving throws.
Sounds like a good feat to me.
|
|
That really doesn't make for more prerequisites though, it just excludes the monks.Excluding classes was the whole idea behind the Divine Protection prerequisites as well. The martial proficiency thing is of a similar kind of restrictiveness.
I'm not arguing that my proposed prerequisite is a good prerequisite, just that it gets the job done the same way DP did it.
True, but there's a right way and a wrong way of excluding classes and "Everyone, except you, get's to use this nice thing" isn't the right way to go about it.
True, but there's a right way and a wrong way of excluding classes and "Everyone, except you, get's to use this nice thing" isn't the right way to go about it.That really doesn't make for more prerequisites though, it just excludes the monks.Excluding classes was the whole idea behind the Divine Protection prerequisites as well. The martial proficiency thing is of a similar kind of restrictiveness.
I'm not arguing that my proposed prerequisite is a good prerequisite, just that it gets the job done the same way DP did it.
Again, we're not making a good feat, we're making one just as bad a DP. It's supposed to exclude people for not having a class feature, just like DP.
|
|
For starters it was not available with just one level, you still...read again what i said.
every single DIVINE class with a level dip.
so it was available to:
(without dip)
oracles
clerics
warpriests
(with dip)
hunter
shaman
druid
ranger
inquisitor
paladinobviously, it isn't a GOOD choice for all of them
but also obviously, a STR to saving throws isn't a good option for more than half of the martials (all the dex based ones)divine protection, was ultimatly, an ORACLE feat.
the other 2 classes that could take it without dip, gained far too little from itsimilary, a feat that grants STR to saving throws and can be gained by
"any class without the spellcasting ability" , and bravery or flurry or rage
(as opposed to any class with the divine spellcasting ability and cl3-4)+(lvl 1-2 dips similary to the second requirement of divine)is similary restricted, offers equal amount of bonuses
(and is equally bonkers and OP)
This is the first time you've mentioned the no spellcasting as a prereq for the feat, and Inquisitors and Druids didn't need to dip in order to get the feat (I had honestly forgotten about Hunter and Shaman because I never use them).
That still doesn't change the fact that just because it was a good feat for Oracles doesn't mean it was built specifically for them nor were they the only ones allowed to take it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we please quit making up hypothetical feats and get back to discussing what was in the actual errata?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Errata was great.
Delay was not.
People got used to a new normal for too long.
Obvious things that had to be nerfed were nerfed (Consume X exploits, Divine Protection).
Some good clarifications.
Lots of things left unaddressed though (Strangler Brawler losing Unarmed Strike so it's harder for it to qualify for Grapple?!?)
Class balance issues left unsolved (most egregiously, Charmed Life not being a free action still stumps me).
Reposting before it gets buried by topic derailment.
I'd like some impressions to this.
|
|
Is it just me or did they give the Arcanist to much of a hit. The Arcane reservoir was the arcanists main class feature. You now need a 16 in charisma to get any good use out of consume spells making your Arcane reservoir extremely limited. You would most likely want to save one point to make sure you can use dimensional slide in case you get in to a jam. You would probably want to save a second point in case you need to use quick study to quickly get a spell that you didn't prepare. It also makes cthe occultist archetype (my personal favorite archetype) down right awful imho, especially when compared to a Summoner or wizard with acadmae graduate. It also makes it much harder for the Brown-fur transmuter to do its thing because they will use quite a lot of arcane reservoir points to increase to power of and hand out there buffs. Consume magic item can help alleviate some of the problem but it carries the same limitations as consume spells and is very expensive. Have a bit of an exploit tax also makes it harder to play any of the archetypes, who all give up a chunk of there exploits, and get all the exploits you want. I do except the arcanist was an extremely powerful class but I do think they nerfed it a bit to harshly. I think it would have been better implemented if they had done 3+cha or 2xCha.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For starters it was not available with just one level, you still...read again what i said.
every single DIVINE class with a level dip.
so it was available to:
(without dip)
oracles
clerics
warpriests
(with dip)
hunter
shaman
druid
ranger
inquisitor
paladinobviously, it isn't a GOOD choice for all of them
but also obviously, a STR to saving throws isn't a good option for more than half of the martials (all the dex based ones)divine protection, was ultimatly, an ORACLE feat.
the other 2 classes that could take it without dip, gained far too little from itsimilary, a feat that grants STR to saving throws and can be gained by
"any class without the spellcasting ability" , and bravery or flurry or rage
(as opposed to any class with the divine spellcasting ability and cl3-4)+(lvl 1-2 dips similary to the second requirement of divine)is similary restricted, offers equal amount of bonuses
(and is equally bonkers and OP)
Listen, what you're trying to do is admirable, but seriously, just give up.
He doesn't understand. On a fundamental level. No amount of explanation or example will make him. Anytime you give any sort of analogy he'll point out some way your analogy is different in a way that is in reality irrelevent but to him makes your analogy poor. It's absolutely pointless. Don't waste your time, just let him be wrong.
|
|
@shroudb: any of the classes that could pick DP could make use of it, Oracles just happened to get more since they're Cha based, but then most clerics I play with tend to bump their Cha up to if not equal to their wisdom for channels so they could make use of it, heck even with a 14 Cha that feat is still really useful.
Whereas your hypothetical feat was was open to almost anyone and everyone.
similary, a feat that grants STR to saving throws and can be gained by
"any class without the spellcasting ability" , and bravery or flurry or rage
(as opposed to any class with the divine spellcasting ability and cl3-4)+(lvl 1-2 dips similary to the second requirement of divine)is similary restricted, offers equal amount of bonuses
(and is equally bonkers and OP)
The big difference is that one benefits the strongest classes and the other the weakest. By that the first is bad but the second is good.
It would be even better with "BAB+4 weapon training or rogue talent class feature, can not be taken by classes with the ability to cast spells"
Barbarians have superstition which is equally strong so they don't need such a feat handed too easily.
Last year people talked about Wizards being obsolete with the Arcanist. Now people say it's s~#~.
Overreactions, I say. The class can buff its own Charisma and that 14 CHA is not a big deal. 18 INT, 14 CHA, 14 CON is easily obtainable, you can even dump STR to 8 to get a bit of DEX for initiative, but god knows you are gonna stack Reactionary on top of Improved Initiative so you don't even need to do that... you can just dump STR to 8 and take CHA to 15 to get it to 16 at level 4th, then go to town with INT.
I really like RD's chars and the way he builds them.
but to me this is the proof that lots of things needed the nerf.if 75% of the chars were having divine protection : then it's too good.
(regardless of background)
if 50% of the chars were using spell consumption the whole day : it's too good.
if a feat is really good for you, whatever is your build, then it's too good.
Just wanted people to know that 75% of my characters didn't have divine protection; it was more like two. Nor was was there any evidence that any of the arcanist characters used spell consumption all day.
I know that's not necessarily what you said, Vrischika111, I just wanted to avoid any possible confusion or incidental misrepresentation of my character gallery.
Your last statement, as has been said, just isn't a good metric to stand by. You want feats to be really good for you, but not necessarily must haves (the former makes characters more fun, the latter actually limits your options).