How much of a trap are the alchemist's bestial mutagen and the sorcerer's Dragon Claws and Glutton's Jaws?

[graystone]

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Curious; how would you say Bestial Mutagen interacts when used with Dragon Claws?

Dragon Claws has the Morph trait: "Your morph effects might also end if you are polymorphed and the polymorph effect invalidates or overrides your morph effect. The GM determines which morph effects can be used together and which can’t."

Bestial Mutagen has the Polymorph trait and "invalidates or overrides your morph effect" so IMO starting one ends the other.

[shroudb]

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Curious; how would you say Bestial Mutagen interacts when used with Dragon Claws?

one would attempt to counteract the other.

Dragon claws are Morph that affects your hands, and Bestial Polymorph that also changes your hands (alongside other things)

edit: lol didn't even see that there was a second thread page with an answer already^^

[Saldiven]

Malk_Content wrote:

And man these thread titles. I think it would be faster to just write 'is pf2 a trap option'

I agree. People are so melodramatic. Everything that isn't the best possible option is apparently "garbage" or a "trap."

[Mellored]

Frogliacci wrote:

I actually just realized that Sorcerers gain expert proficiency in simple weapons at level 11, which explicitly excludes unarmed attacks. Same goes for the simple weapon proficiency increase for Alchemists at level 7.

This now feels like a severe oversight to me rather than an intended rule and something a lot of people would end up houseruling, unless we receive an official errata.

A bit late, but they did say all classes should have unarmed proficiency equal to their simple weapon proficiency (except monk who get't better unarmed attacks). About 1/3 of the way though https://www.twitch.tv/videos/468201120

So Trained -> Expert unarmed strike for both sorcerer and alchemist.

And while I wouldn't do 3 attacks with a dragons claw, doing 1 dragon claw + a 2 action non-attack spell (like electric arc) would work out pretty nice.

[Charlesfire]

Mellored wrote:

Frogliacci wrote:

I actually just realized that Sorcerers gain expert proficiency in simple weapons at level 11, which explicitly excludes unarmed attacks. Same goes for the simple weapon proficiency increase for Alchemists at level 7.

This now feels like a severe oversight to me rather than an intended rule and something a lot of people would end up houseruling, unless we receive an official errata.

A bit late, but they did say all classes should have unarmed proficiency equal to their simple weapon proficiency (except monk who get't better unarmed attacks). About 1/3 of the way though https://www.twitch.tv/videos/468201120

So Trained -> Expert unarmed strike for both sorcerer and alchemist.

The alchemist already got expert in unarmed strike with the mutagenist path. It just means that the mutagenist path lost a feature...

[Mellored]

Charlesfire wrote:

The alchemist already got expert in unarmed strike with the mutagenist path. It just means that the mutagenist path lost a feature...

I am given them medium armor instead.

See how they works out.

[Dubious Scholar]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Frogliacci wrote:

I actually just realized that Sorcerers gain expert proficiency in simple weapons at level 11, which explicitly excludes unarmed attacks. Same goes for the simple weapon proficiency increase for Alchemists at level 7.

The Alchemist seems to be working as intended, as Mutagenists get Expert in Unarmed as well. The Sorcerer looks like a legitimate oversight, though.

Frogliacci wrote:

This now feels like a severe oversight to me rather than an intended rule and something a lot of people would end up houseruling, unless we receive an official errata.

I agree on Sorcerer. Alchemist seems to be functioning as intended.

I'd have to find the source, but I believe there's been an official statement that unarmed proficiency should increase when simple weapons do (so, 11 for sorcerer).

[Edge93]

Mellored wrote:

Charlesfire wrote:

The alchemist already got expert in unarmed strike with the mutagenist path. It just means that the mutagenist path lost a feature...

I am given them medium armor instead.

See how they works out.

You know, that's not a bad idea. I like it.

[tivadar27]

In short, yeah, I think they're a trap option in that they're decent as a back-up when you're in a pinch (so they're not explicitly bad), but you definitely don't want to be building around them.

Your cantrip attacks will be doing more damage than your claws/jaw, and while the Paladin multi does give you an okay armor option, you just don't have their damage mitigation or HP, and those are two class feats you could have spent making your actual spells better...

[Deadmanwalking]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

I'd have to find the source, but I believe there's been an official statement that unarmed proficiency should increase when simple weapons do (so, 11 for sorcerer).

You're absolutely correct. My post predates that statement.

[Arachnofiend]

tivadar27 wrote:

In short, yeah, I think they're a trap option in that they're decent as a back-up when you're in a pinch (so they're not explicitly bad), but you definitely don't want to be building around them.

Your cantrip attacks will be doing more damage than your claws/jaw, and while the Paladin multi does give you an okay armor option, you just don't have their damage mitigation or HP, and those are two class feats you could have spent making your actual spells better...

1d6+4 in two actions is not more damage than 1d4+1d6+3 in one. The claws are basically a simple weapon with sneak attack, damage numbers aren't a problem if you can find ways to mitigate the other issues (defenses and accuracy).

It's something you have to specifically build for and certainly involves some degree of multiclassing to use but I wouldn't write it off entirely.

[SuperBidi]

Arachnofiend wrote:

1d6+4 in two actions is not more damage than 1d4+1d6+3 in one.

That's just first level.

At level 20, it's 10d6+7 in 2 actions against 3d6+3d4+6 in one action. And I don't count range, better accuracy due to using Charisma instead of Strength... Dragon Claws will be at a cantrip level very quickly and stay that way. It doesn't make Dragon Claws bad, but you just can't build for it.

[Deadmanwalking]

At 20th level, you could be attacking with claws for 4d4+6d6+6 via Handwraps. That's 37 average damage vs. the 42 for two actions from a cantrip.

Of course, if you really want to do a lot of damage, you combine the two, specifically Electric Arc and a single Dragon Claws attack (at no penalty because Electric Arc involves no attack roll). That's one of the highest DPR rounds a Sorcerer can do without spell slots.

[SuperBidi]

You're right. I miscalculated quite a lot :)
But it doesn't change my point of view: You won't deal more damage with Dragon Claws than with cantrips. Maybe at the start of the game (which is quite nice as it's a first level ability), but very quickly, because of the accuracy issue and the short range (forcing you to use an action to move to melee position), you won't get more from Dragon Claws than from cantrips.

[ChibiNyan]

Saldiven wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

And man these thread titles. I think it would be faster to just write 'is pf2 a trap option'

I agree. People are so melodramatic. Everything that isn't the best possible option is apparently "garbage" or a "trap."

The opposite sentiment also eists on this forum, where all permutations of class/feats/stats provide satisfying gameplay from level 1-20. Not helpful either.

Specially in this thread you can't tell me your Sorc built from lv1 around leveraging Dragon Claws is going to be doing much except dying. If such builds exists/will exist that can do this properly, it will take intelligent decision-making to pull off and that's what we're trying to figure out. Worst case scenario at least convince someone to not attempt this build yet.

[tivadar27]

SuperBidi wrote:

You're right. I miscalculated quite a lot :)

But it doesn't change my point of view: You won't deal more damage with Dragon Claws than with cantrips. Maybe at the start of the game (which is quite nice as it's a first level ability), but very quickly, because of the accuracy issue and the short range (forcing you to use an action to move to melee position), you won't get more from Dragon Claws than from cantrips.

Yeah, -4 to hit relative to your spell attacks/saves is pretty much just disasterous. You're basically starting with a MAP before doing anything. One action vs. two means I might actually want to use this spell as my "thing to do when I'm not casting a spell", but building around it definitely feels like a trap. Granted, it could be you don't have a lot to do with those feats, which, then, is fine, but you want to focus on making your casting better where possible and not make your claws/jaw better at the expense of your spellcasting.

Also, speaking of stats, there's also the tangential point that if you're sinking points into strength and you need charisma (the plan wouldn't be to tank charisma I assume...), then you're missing out on either dexterity, wisdom, or constitution, which means you've got weaker saves along with the tangential stuff than another class would. I'm assuming the "+6" quoted above is 2 for weapon specialization and assuming a Strength of 18..., which actually then means you're at a -6 to hit relative to the cantrip caster.

My follow-up to this is is this feat good if you're MCing into sorcerer? If so, what build?

[Kelseus]

It feels like there is a mis-definiing of "trap" option.

A "Trap option" is an ability that looks cool at first glance but doesn't actually work in practice. P1 was replete with them, including two whole classes (monk and rogue) that were so bad that Paizo literally redesigned them to be functional. Focusing on maneuvers is another since CMD for high CR creatures will quickly outpace anything you do, even if you pump all your resources into it.

A mutagenist and claw/jaw sorcerer aren't "traps," they function just fine. Being Non-Optimal is NOT a trap. Just because your sorcerer isn't hitting as hard as the melee focused martial classes does not mean it's not functional. It works fine. The is no reason your Sorcerer should have a lower strength than 16 at level 1 and it's only a half step behind a Fighter or Barbarian for most of the next 15 levels. Even at a -4 to hit vs. a martial, you will still hit on your first swing. It's just not IDEAL to go for that 3rd attack, but guess what? YOU STILL HAVE SPELLS!

A draconic sorcerer in P1 was unusable after level 1, as your stats can't keep up and your BAB and AC very quickly make you more of a liability in melee than an asset.

In P2, while not as good as the Rogue or Champion, you are still competent in the front line. Starting stats of 14 16 12 10 10 16. Level 5 you are at 14 18 14 10 10 18. A rogue starts with 14 18 14 10 10 12, a 5th 16 19 16 10 10 12. Again not that far off.

[SuperBidi]

Kelseus wrote:

A "Trap option" is an ability that looks cool at first glance but doesn't actually work in practice. P1 was replete with them, including two whole classes (monk and rogue) that were so bad that Paizo literally redesigned them to be functional. Focusing on maneuvers is another since CMD for high CR creatures will quickly outpace anything you do, even if you pump all your resources into it.

Thanks for your insight.

Kelseus wrote:

It's just not IDEAL to go for that 3rd attack

Actually, it's not IDEAL to go for the first attack.

Dragon Claws are quite usable at low level if you manage to get around the survivability issue. At high level, it's crippled by low accuracy, subpar damage, lack of combat related feats in the sorcerer list and still the survivability issue. So, it's a trap option to build for it :)

[tivadar27]

Kelseus wrote:

It feels like there is a mis-definiing of "trap" option. A "Trap option" is an ability that looks cool at first glance but doesn't actually work in practice

I'd agree this is the definition. More specifically, is it a waste to take that feat, particularly in the context of other feats you could be taking/other things you could be doing when using that feat. We've been arguing this throughout.

Kelseus wrote:

A mutagenist and claw/jaw sorcerer aren't "traps," they function just fine. Being Non-Optimal is NOT a trap. Just because your sorcerer isn't hitting as hard as the melee focused martial classes does not mean it's not functional. It works fine.

No one has argued this point, literally, throughout the thread. The argument has been that the sorcerer isn't hitting as hard as a sorcerer casting a cantrip, which is kinda the point, there are better things you could be doing, and spending a feat and stats on this means you're not as good at doing those things.

Kelseus wrote:

The is no reason your Sorcerer should have a lower strength than 16 at level 1 and it's only a half step behind a Fighter or Barbarian for most of the next 15 levels.

Umm, there are lots of reasons not to have a 16 strength at level 1 for a sorcerer. Turns out other stats, particularly Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma, and Wisdom, generally matter a lot more for a sorcerer.

Kelseus wrote:

Even at a -4 to hit vs. a martial, you will still hit on your first swing. It's just not IDEAL to go for that 3rd attack, but guess what? YOU STILL HAVE SPELLS!

Changing this last part: It's -4 to hit vs a *sorcerer*, which is the fair comparison here. That's assuming you do start your strength at 16 and sink a stat boost into it each time. Otherwise it's -5 to hit.

After experiencing gameplay, I feel like it's fairly safe to say that second attacks (-5 to hit) are generally going to miss around 75% of the time. Granted, this is comparing to legendary proficiency, so that's likely closer to missing 65% of the time or so... That's still not good odds.

[shroudb]

Kelseus wrote:

It feels like there is a mis-definiing of "trap" option.

A "Trap option" is an ability that looks cool at first glance but doesn't actually work in practice. P1 was replete with them, including two whole classes (monk and rogue) that were so bad that Paizo literally redesigned them to be functional. Focusing on maneuvers is another since CMD for high CR creatures will quickly outpace anything you do, even if you pump all your resources into it.

A mutagenist and claw/jaw sorcerer aren't "traps," they function just fine. Being Non-Optimal is NOT a trap. Just because your sorcerer isn't hitting as hard as the melee focused martial classes does not mean it's not functional. It works fine. The is no reason your Sorcerer should have a lower strength than 16 at level 1 and it's only a half step behind a Fighter or Barbarian for most of the next 15 levels. Even at a -4 to hit vs. a martial, you will still hit on your first swing. It's just not IDEAL to go for that 3rd attack, but guess what? YOU STILL HAVE SPELLS!

A draconic sorcerer in P1 was unusable after level 1, as your stats can't keep up and your BAB and AC very quickly make you more of a liability in melee than an asset.

In P2, while not as good as the Rogue or Champion, you are still competent in the front line. Starting stats of 14 16 12 10 10 16. Level 5 you are at 14 18 14 10 10 18. A rogue starts with 14 18 14 10 10 12, a 5th 16 19 16 10 10 12. Again not that far off.

Mutagenist is in a MUCH worse spot than pf1 crb rogue/monk EVER were.

In fact, CRB rogue/monks in PF1 were GOOD compared to the state of mutagenist.

So, even using your weird definitions, he IS a TRAP.

[Deadmanwalking]

Mutagenist is indeed pretty bad right now. It's also almost certain to get significant errata in the next month or so.

[Garretmander]

I think the dragon sorcerer is another case of building off class within the class being a sub-optimal choice.

Building a dragon bloodline sorcerer who primarily attacks with claws instead of spells should be built as a fighter/monk/barbarian with MC sorcerer.

A sorcerer with claws as a backup should be a sorcerer.

But in this case it is a minor trap option. A new player may want to run into combat with their claws, when they should be a tertiary option after spells and cantrips. Especially at later levels.

[Squiggit]

Kelseus wrote:

A "Trap option" is an ability that looks cool at first glance but doesn't actually work in practice.

I agree with this definition, but I don't think it's entirely wrong to apply here either.

The game presents a player cool options for building a melee alchemist or sorcerer, but in practice actually attempting to utilize them effectively has really dubious returns compared to the investment required to keep them relevant.

Dragon's Claws are the least egregious here, because they're finessable and have auto scaling damage and Dex has natural value for Sorcerers, so they're going to naturally be at least a little relevant, even if the returns are a little questionable.

Glutton's Jaws are pretty worrying though. They're strength based, which means you're looking at 16 strength in your opening statline to make them work and they're forceful weapons, which suggests to players that you're intended to make multiple attacks per round with them. Both of those are a hard sell on a class with low accuracy, no armor and whose other class features generally cost 2 actions to use.

It's not as much of a joke as PF1 melee options were, but it's something that looks and sounds cool, requires a lot of specific investment and has some fairly dubious returns.

[kaid]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Mutagenist is indeed pretty bad right now. It's also almost certain to get significant errata in the next month or so.

At very least the fact that their most recent stated errata about unarmed prof being linked to simple weapon prof they will simply have to give mutagenists something at level 1 for their training benefit. Right now the first part is a left over from the play test and the second part has no effect at all. Its hard to judge how useful they will be when at the very base level its clearly and obviously missing something.

[tivadar27]

So while I've been defining this as a "trap" option, I feel it's also worth mentioning that it's not a trap option if you merely take it at level 1 as a utility and then retrain it later when you outgrow it.

It's a trap, but fortunately retraining exists. It only becomes an inescapable trap if you start sinking a bunch of other resources into it (stats, prioritizing it for item purchases/handwraps).

@Squiggit: I agree about Dragon's Claws being less worrying. Dumping points into Dexterity has other advantages, whereas Strength really does not.

[Daenemarker]

graystone wrote:

Aashua wrote:

Question does temp hp stack? Im guessing no but i suppose 2d6 every turn would still be pretty good. (I'm assuming you just end up with any amount thats higher then the current amount of temp hp you have would that be correct?)

"If you gain temporary Hit Points when you already have some, choose whether to keep the amount you already have and their corresponding duration or to gain the new temporary Hit Points and their duration."

Doing a bit of thread necromancy here: How long do the temporary Hit Points from Glutton's Jaw last? Cause as written it's till they were beaten out of the sorcerer as there is no clause like in other spells that states their duration. Do they vanish with the end of the spell?

[Themetricsystem]

Daenemarker wrote:

Doing a bit of thread necromancy here: How long do the temporary Hit Points from Glutton's Jaw last?

...

Do they vanish with the end of the spell?

Correct, the temp HP the PC gains are part of the effects of the Spell effects and should disappear when the duration runs out.