|
Samurai, really enjoying the changes you're making and have applied some to my own campaign.
Would it be possible to highlight your most recent additions to the document with every update? Perhaps have them in a different colour to make them easier to spot.
Well, I usually just announce the latest changes in a new post, and when there are enough changes, I update the version number. The current version is 1.51. I changed to 1.5 when the official errata came out, and added all official changes in green. Previously, I just had a list of the "known errata" (from designer videos or forum replies) listed at the end of the document.
If I just changed the latest change's text to red or something, people would probably ask "why is this line/section red?" And I don't know what is new since the last version they saw, only the latest changes I've made. And how would I color it if I removed something that was in the changes before? Ideally I would be able to create a change log so people could see what changed from one version to the next, but I have only kept partial track (I still have the last copy of the last of each major version change, such as 1.43, version 1.3, etc) and creating a full change log would be a big headache. I'll give it some thought though.
|
|
Daze: When Heightened, the damage increases by the +1d6 and the Stun value also increases by +1.You know that's ridiculous right?
Why? First, the target has to Critically fail to even be stunned at all. Second, Stunned 1 just reduces his 3 actions down to 2 actions. The whole point of the cantrip is to stun the enemy, not do a bunch of damage, there are better choices if you want to do that. Third, Heightening it costs +2 spell levels. So by the time you are 6th level (casting it as a 3rd level cantrip), you can do 1d6+ stat damage and Stunned 2 on a crit fail. That is lose 2 actions on your next round. By the time you are casting 5th level spells, it's 2d6+stat damage and stunned 3 on a crit fail(lose all 3 actions for 1 round and then you are fine. Back in 1e, I believe that is similar to how Daze worked, lose your entire turn worth of actions. !e did include a note that after being Dazed the creature is immune to the spell for 1 minute afterwards. I can add a similar note to 2e so a caster can't keep a target stunned continuously.
Edit: added the change that for 1 minute after being stunned by this spell, any further saves against Daze are improved by 1 step (crit fail becomes a fail, fail becomes a success, etc)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I usually just announce the latest changes in a new post, and when there are enough changes, I update the version number. The current version is 1.51. I changed to 1.5 when the official errata came out, and added all official changes in green. Previously, I just had a list of the "known errata" (from designer videos or forum replies) listed at the end of the document.
If I just changed the latest change's text to red or something, people would probably ask "why is this line/section red?" And I don't know what is new since the last version they saw, only the latest changes I've made. And how would I color it if I removed something that was in the changes before? Ideally I would be able to create a change log so people could see what changed from one version to the next, but I have only kept partial track (I still have the last copy of the last of each major version change, such as 1.43, version 1.3, etc) and creating a full change log would be a big headache. I'll give it some thought though.
A changelog would be a good compromise, I think. Doesn't need to start from the beginning, even just starting one up from now might be helpful.
|
|
I've made 2 additional changes in the last day or so, so I've posted the newest version if you want to download it (a few changes aren't enough to increase the version number yet, so it still says 1.51, but the change log in the back shows the progress)
First, I made a note for all ancestries that merely belonging to it gives Access to it's uncommon weapons. If you are otherwise trained in that weapon group, you are trained with them. The only reason now to take the (Ancestry) Weapon Familiarity feat is to allow martial weapons to be treated as simple weapons and advanced weapons as martial, or to give training in a select group of martial weapons if your class doesn't give martial weapon training.
Second, I had given Bomber Alchemists the Powerful Alchemy feat at 1st level for free. I've now specified that this only applies to bombs, not poisons or any other alchemical creations. This was my intention all along.
|
|
Small update again today, Haste now provides 1 free action with only 1 restriction: You can't cast 2 full spells. You can cast 1 normal spell and 1 cantrip though if you want (making Haste actually useful for spellcasters now), and if you use it to strike, it does not apply any MAP penalty. So a hasted fighter could potetionally have up to 4 attacks at +0, +0, -5, -10. Or the 4th action could be to drink a potion, step, hide, etc.
|
|
Data Lore's incredible work inspired me to try my hand at using InDesign. I'm no where near as good as he is at it yet, but I created my own version of the Thaumaturge class. I'm missing most of the fonts he used so mine is not as pretty. There are only 3 changes, and they are presented in my PF2 Changes document: Demonic and Diabolic Bloodlines use the Arcane spell list, and the Elemental Bloodline has unique granted spells for each element instead of just saying "Change the fire to bludgeoning damage"
|
|
I've kept working on my House Rules and have posted another update. There have been a few changes over the weeks but I haven't been posting all of them. The new version is 1.54, and the change log in the back has the list of changes I made.
The short version is:
I changed Haste again to only provide a Basic action. That includes all the single action Basic actions listed on 469 to 472.
I added a Primal Font for Druids. It gives just 1 level 1 spell slot at first level and increases after that. The Font also includes a Level 2, 3, and 4 sot when they can cast spells of those levels, and the spells are set based on their Level 1 Druidic Order choice.
I reduced the number of Rogue's free skill choices and instead gave them a Signature Skill ability. That skill must either be Stealth or one of their Racket's skills, and it advances to Expert at Level 1, Master at Level 5, and Legendary at Level 13, all for free. That is in exchange for 2 of their free skill choices at level 1 (they get 5 + Int instead of 7 + Int)
I altered the Alchemist's Perpetual Infusions, Potency, and Perfection abilities. They now provide free creation of all formulas of lower levels that are within their Field of Research. That frees the tracking of Infused Reagents only for items outside their Field or higher levels.
As always, I'm open to hearing your thoughts!
Samurai's latest Rules Changes
|
|
Made a note than each individual spell can only be Sustained once per round (so no pinball flaming spheres).
Also changed Hand of the Apprentice option for Multiclass Wizards to the Basic Arcana feat, but taking Hand of the Apprentice then forbids them from taking the Arcane School Spell feat. Not quite as simple as just saying it is the Universalist School Spell, but more technically correct. Let me know if you like it better or worse this way, there are not usually any "negative requirements", but I don't want someone taking Basic Arcana for the Hand and then also taking Arcane School Spell for another focus spell and trying to justify it by saying "oh, these are 2 different feats..." If people don't like it, I can just switch it back.
Your homebrew rules are quite good, but I have some questions.
First, allowing bards and sorcerers to effectively count all their spells as signature spells seems fine, but that makes signature spells meaningless. Maybe allowing bards and sorcerers to heighten their signature spells without spending higher level spell slots would help?
Second, what if reducing all cantrips to one action? Would it make spellcasters too powerful?
Third, according to this page the hand of the apprentice spell is too weak. Do you have a good idea regarding this spell?
Fourth, sorcerers can replace material components with somatic components, which means they effectively have the wizards' eschew materials feat for free. But I really hate the material components and wish to remove them from the game entirely. So I thought that giving sorcerers a 1st level class feat for free and removing their ability to replace material components with somatic components would be a good idea. Do you think it unfairly enhances sorcerers too much?
|
|
Your homebrew rules are quite good, but I have some questions.
First, allowing bards and sorcerers to effectively count all their spells as signature spells seems fine, but that makes signature spells meaningless. Maybe allowing bards and sorcerers to heighten their signature spells without spending higher level spell slots would help?
Second, what if reducing all cantrips to one action? Would it make spellcasters too powerful?
Third, according to this page the hand of the apprentice spell is too weak. Do you have a good idea regarding this spell?
Fourth, sorcerers can replace material components with somatic components, which means they effectively have the wizards' eschew materials feat for free. But I really hate the material components and wish to remove them from the game entirely. So I thought that giving sorcerers a 1st level class feat for free and removing their ability to replace material components with somatic components would be a good idea. Do you think it unfairly enhances sorcerers too much?
Thanks for looking over my changes and offering feedback!
First: Many people seem to think merely allowing them to Heighten all their spells (the effect of signature spells) is a rather powerful ability on its own. If they could Heighten and keep using the original spell level too for their "signature spells", that seems a bit too much, and it would completely outshine the Wizard and other casters.
Second: I've thought about allowing cantrips the option of being cast as 1 action. If they are damaging cantrips, what do you think of a rule like "If cast as 1 action, the target takes only half damage. If cast as 2 actions, the target takes normal damage."? I could also then create more individualized "If cast with 3 actions..." abilities, such as bouncing a lesser effect to a second target, or affecting all target in a radius around the caster, or increasing the effect some other way. Effectively many of the cantrips would act similar to Heal/Harm. But doing that and trying to keep it all balanced...
Third: I don't understand why that page doesn't like the spell. It has a range of 500 feet, it uses the caster's spell attack instead of his Dex like a crossbow, he applies his casting ability mod to the damage instead of his Str, and he gets a free weapon critical specialization if he crit hits! And the weapon then returns to his hands automatically. All of that for a 1-action spell seems tremendous to me. True, it costs a Focus point, but you can still do it once or twice per encounter, roughly, if you has 10 minutes to refocus afterwards. Compare that to Force Bolt: 30 foot range, only 1d4+1 damage for a single action spell. Force Bolt does scale a little bit, gaining another 1d4+1 per 2 spell levels, but I think it would be quite a few levels until it compares to the damage of Hand, and it never increases in range. A Wizard only needs to get Trained with a bigger weapon, like a Greatsword or Greataxe and he could then be doing 1d12 + Int mod at 500' with Crit specialization. A multiclass Wizard that already has the ability to use better than Wizard weapons should definitely take the feat IMO!
Fourth: Wizards can take the Eschew Materials feat too. You could just give it to the Wizards for free then both classes will automatically have it. I don't mind material components too much, they have now simplified them to just having a material component pouch that refills automatically during your daily prep. No more having to track whether or not you have any spider webs or bat guano left!
|
|
Christmas day, and I updated my PF2e rules changes once more. I added the following, after a discussion on a different thread.:
Stacking Trained Skills (pg 233): If you gain Training in a skill from 2 different sources, such as your Background and Class skills, you can either increase it to Expert, or select a different skill to become Trained in.
|
|
A couple more changes or clarifications today.
First, I made a note in the Multiclass General feat that if the Dedication grows (You move to another Multiclass that the first one is supposed to prepare you for, such as HellKnight Armiger -> Hellknight or Signifier, they all count as part of the same Dedication and retain the benefits of being able to use General or Class feat. (I know this just makes the General Multiclass Dedication feat more powerful, but if the "growth Dedication" has the ability to not require 2 feats before changing Dedications, it only makes sense to count them as all 1 Dedication).
Second, I changed the Champion's Litanies Duration. I had previously made them all last 1 minute, period. They are now Sustained for up to 1 minute. Yes, the Champion is thus losing an action each round to keep the Litany's effects going, but that just means the rest of the party needs to pitch in a bit more while the Champion is weakening the enemy. The Champion still has 2 actions each round to act.
I'm still thinking about making a single Sustain a Spell a Free action, and only if the caster wants to sustain 2 or more spells does the second and further Sustains become 1 action each. The more I think about it the more I think this is really needed to help the spellcaster's action economy, which is pretty terrible right now, especially if they are trying to Sustain a spell each round.
I'd love to hear people's thoughts on the idea! If I don't hear any negative thoughts, I think I'll do it by the end of the day.
|
|
To have an idea of how strong is giving One Free Sustain Action each round, we need to know the spells affected :
- Cantrips : Prestidigitation, Dancing Lights
- Focus 1 : Goodberry, Appearance of Wealth
- Spell 3 : Enthrall
- Spell 4 : Blink
- Spell 5 : Spiritual Guardian
- Spell 7 : Duplicate Foe
- Spell 8 : Divine Aura
- Spell 9 : Unfathomable SongSome spells ike Blink, Divine Aura, Duplicate Foe and Enthrall become more powwerful, but from this spell list nothing seem to be overpowered by that change. The concern I may have is future spells who could become much stronger, but for now, I will adopt that House Rules in my campaign
Thanks for the reply and analysis.
Goodberry doesn't list Sustain, it just has a duration of 1 day. Blink also is not Sustained, it just lasts 1 minute. Not sure what book you are looking at. I would add the Summon spells and Flaming Sphere are Sustained though. Even so, the caster's action economy is so generally terrible that I don't think it will make any difference. Hopefully some of the spells in upcoming books will be 1 action spells to help more, but this is something we can do now.
|
|
Once again I made a few changes to the rules based on a thread on these forums. They were asking "how does Int actually help the Alchemist?" I mentioned how my changes had already allowed Bombers to add their Int bonus instead of Dex bonus when throwing bombs and Chirurgeons can add their Int mod to damage healed my their Elixirs of Life.
But that got me thinking about the other Fields. So for the Mutagenist, I removed the free Medium Armor proficiency I had given them and instead they now have the option of adding their Int Mod to their AC instead of Dex mod. (Think of it like the Robert Downey Jr Sherlock Holmes movies where he analyzes and anticipates his foe's attacks).
For the Toxicologist, I replaced the free Poison Resistance feat with the ability to add his Int mod as a Circumstance bonus against all poison saves he has to make. (Harder to justify, but think of it as so much experience with poisons that he knows how to press certain arteries to keep the poison away from his heart or use some of his Infused alchemical material to help counteract it.)
Now, all the Alchemist's Fields get a unique way of using their Int mod tied to the field.
|
|
One more update tonight. After hearing so many complaints about casters being unable to hit and affect enemies with spells, I created the Amulets of Spell Power. They are new items, with the following description:
Amulet of Spell Power (new Item): These magical amulets come in 4 main varieties: Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal. They need to be Invested and worn to function, and they provide an Item bonus to the wearer’s spell attack rolls and spell DCs of the appropriate magical tradition. A Lesser amulet gives a +1 bonus, costs 35 gp, and requires expert in Crafting to make it. The Greater amulet gives a +2 bonus, costs 935 gp, and requires master in Crafting to make it. The Major amulet provides a +3 bonus, costs 8,935 gp, and requires legendary Crafting to make it.
The costs and creation rules are based off of the weapon Potency Runes.
|
|
First Rules update for 2020! Thanks to the "Did Wizards get nerfed?" discussion thread conversation, Lycar gave a great idea. Similar to how Fighters can specialize in 1 weapon group, Wizards that specialize in an Arcane School get +1 step proficiency bonus with that school. So, at 1st when they are Trained in Arcane spell attacks and DCs, they are Expert in their School specialty. This +1 step bonus carries through their career, so they get Master in most schools at 15th level, but Legendary in their own school. The Universalist has to wait until 19th, but they are the only Wizards that can get Legendary in all the schools, as 19th level Specialists get a free wizard class feat they qualify for instead. (That is an 18th level or lower free class feat at that point, but it helps balance against the one that the Universalists got at level 1.)
|
|
A new rule change for shield blocks. Reduce the attack by Hardness and then split the remaining damage between the shield and the character (any odd point goes to the character). This allowed me to removed the change to Crafting (Repair) rolls (they now work as written in the book). Druids also get a +1 Hardness for any wooden shields they use. Also increased the version number to 1.56. Use the same download link above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Samurai, could you clarify the wording on the Magic Weapon spell change.
Is there just one level of heightening that takes it straight to +3? Are there multiple steps, with the first going to +2 and then to +3? Does it also give the weapon improved striking effects?
|
|
Samurai, could you clarify the wording on the Magic Weapon spell change.
Is there just one level of heightening that takes it straight to +3? Are there multiple steps, with the first going to +2 and then to +3? Does it also give the weapon improved striking effects?
My intention was for that it means that at the basic level 1 spell, it adds the normal effects (+1 attack and Striking) to a non-magical weapon.
For a 3rd level spell slot, it adds that +1 Striking to an already magical weapon (Say it is already a +1 weapon, it becomes +2 to attack and adds 1 die of damage. If it is already a +1 Striking weapon, it becomes a +2 on attacks and +2 dice of damage.) Those bonuses can only add up to a +3 Striking weapon maximum, the max in the book. So if it is already +3 Striking, it has no effect.
Optionally, for a 5th level spell slot, it adds +2 Striking to a weapon (Still +3 Striking total max). For a 7th level spell slot, it turns a non-magical weapon into a +3 striking weapon for the duration of the spell, or increases an already magical weapon to +3 striking for 1 minute. I left those options open by just saying +2 spell levels to Heighten Magic Weapon, and left it up to you whether you want to allow it to be cast at 5th and 7th levels, or just cap it at 3rd level and +1 attack and damage dice to an already magical weapon.
My intention was for that it means that at the basic level 1 spell, it adds the normal effects (+1 attack and Striking) to a non-magical weapon.
For a 3rd level spell slot, it adds that +1 Striking to an already magical weapon (Say it is already a +1 weapon, it becomes +2 to attack and adds 1 die of damage. If it is already a +1 Striking weapon, it becomes a +2 on attacks and +2 dice of damage.) Those bonuses can only add up to a +3 Striking weapon maximum, the max in the book. So if it is already +3 Striking, it has no effect.
Optionally, for a 5th level spell slot, it adds +2 Striking to a weapon (Still +3 Striking total max). For a 7th level spell slot, it turns a non-magical weapon into a +3 striking weapon for the duration of the spell, or increases an already magical weapon to +3 striking for 1 minute. I left those options open by just saying +2 spell levels to Heighten Magic Weapon, and left it up to you whether you want to allow it to be cast at 5th and 7th levels, or just cap it at 3rd level and +1 attack and damage dice to an already magical weapon.
Thanks for clarifying. Another question related to balance - how have you found the new Tanglefoot bags after you added that Entangled condition? It seems like they went from "not that great" to "wow this is really good" with that change. Does it feel balanced in your games?
|
|
Thanks for clarifying. Another question related to balance - how have you found the new Tanglefoot bags after you added that Entangled condition? It seems like they went from "not that great" to "wow this is really good" with that change. Does it feel balanced in your games?My intention was for that it means that at the basic level 1 spell, it adds the normal effects (+1 attack and Striking) to a non-magical weapon.
For a 3rd level spell slot, it adds that +1 Striking to an already magical weapon (Say it is already a +1 weapon, it becomes +2 to attack and adds 1 die of damage. If it is already a +1 Striking weapon, it becomes a +2 on attacks and +2 dice of damage.) Those bonuses can only add up to a +3 Striking weapon maximum, the max in the book. So if it is already +3 Striking, it has no effect.
Optionally, for a 5th level spell slot, it adds +2 Striking to a weapon (Still +3 Striking total max). For a 7th level spell slot, it turns a non-magical weapon into a +3 striking weapon for the duration of the spell, or increases an already magical weapon to +3 striking for 1 minute. I left those options open by just saying +2 spell levels to Heighten Magic Weapon, and left it up to you whether you want to allow it to be cast at 5th and 7th levels, or just cap it at 3rd level and +1 attack and damage dice to an already magical weapon.
We don't have an Alchemist in the party, so it hasn't been tried in game yet. I just wanted Entangled to be more useful for lots of effects. I also increased the ability of bombs, if you noticed. The main target takes full damage on a hit, double on a crit hit, and half on a miss. The splash damage is 1 step less than the main target suffers, so full damage from a crit hit, 1/2 damage from a hit, and no damage from a miss.
I'm interested in what you think of Magic Weapon's changes. Do you think it should just be capped at +1 striking for a 3rd level spell, or also include levels 5 and 7 varieties too? It only lasts 1 minute, but I wanted to try and keep it somewhat useful even at higher levels. I don't think even with the changes I would often prepare it in a spell slot that high, there are better spells at those levels, but at least this way it is no longer dropped as soon as you get your 1st magic weapons in the party. I also made a note that the spell Ghostly Weapons works on magic weapons too, not just non-magical ones.
|
|
I just uploaded a new version of the rules changes. Thanks to a video on YouTube, I decided to experiment by offering a version of a change he's made to his game: the Finesse weapon trait can now add Dex to both attack and damage rolls if it is better than your Strength for any characters. Because this duplicates the Thief Rogue ability, the Thief's ability is now that he can treat any 1-handed melee weapon he is Trained in as if it were a Finesse weapon (So, for him, a club, or if he has Elven weapon training, a Longsword, become Finesse weapons.) I think this balances well against the Ruffian Rogue, but I'm interested in what others think of the change.
"Why should Thief Rogues be the only ones who can use Dex for damage" has been one of the more common questions I've heard, and it was interesting to hear that another GM has actually tried it, however he allowed it for any weapon in the game, while I limited it to just Finesse weapons. ( Pathfinder 2E: Dex to Damage House Rule? )
I think this change will help several character types: First, Rogues can choose a racket besides Thief and still use Dex for attack and damage with finesse weapons. Monks and Finesse weapon Fighters will get to focus on Dex more solidly if they choose to. A Wizard or Sorcerer can pump up his Dex and get decent dagger attack and damage totals as well as helping his AC score.
However, I'm not completely sold on the change yet. I'm interested in hearing what others think of it. Try watching the video at the link and give it some thought. My first thought was "No way, that makes Dex WAAAYYY too powerful," similar to how it used to be in 1e. But in D&D 5e Finesse Weapons can add to both Attack and Damage. And I think the video made a pretty good argument that Dex was reduced significantly in PF2e. (For instance, it is no longer the typical ability added to Initiative, Wisdom now is. It is no longer added to a ton of important skills, it now only affects 3: Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery.) But I'm interested in your thoughts and arguments about this change.
Use the same link above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't have an Alchemist in the party, so it hasn't been tried in game yet. I just wanted Entangled to be more useful for lots of effects. I also increased the ability of bombs, if you noticed. The main target takes full damage on a hit, double on a crit hit, and half on a miss. The splash damage is 1 step less than the main target suffers, so full damage from a crit hit, 1/2 damage from a hit, and no damage from a miss.
I'm interested in what you think of Magic Weapon's changes. Do you think it should just be capped at +1 striking for a 3rd level spell, or also include levels 5 and 7 varieties too? It...
The changes to the bombs are good ones and we've found them to help give the Alchemist more of an impact than he has as a baseline.
The change to Tanglefoots seems like a step -too- much. I think Clumsy might be too powerful and something like flat-footed might be better. Not sure if you've gotten further feedback on this.
Still thinking about the Magic Weapon option, since both options you mentioned are suitable. Might go for the one that just gives one step of Heightening and stop there.
|
|
I've made a few more changes, if anyone is still interested. It is now version 1.57.
The School Specialist ability that gives a +1 step bonus in your school now has a drawback of being unable to cast spells from 1 school of your choice. For instance, if you choose to be an Evoker, you begin as an Expert at Evocation spells, Trained in most of the others, and unable to cast (and thus Untrained in) a school of your choice, such as Necromancy or Abjuration. This drawback also helps highlight the difference vs the Universalists.
Next, the Universalist Wizard now gets a Free Spell slot for each level of spells they can cast instead of multiple Drain Bonded Item. The difference between those 2 features is that Drain Bonded Item just lets them recast a spell they had already prepared and cast that day, while the Free slot means they can cast any spell in their spellbook, whether they prepared it that day or not. This takes no time at all, they just need to have their spellbook at hand to read and cast the spell using the free slot. This should increase the versatility and flexibility of Universalists, especially combined with my change to the number of free spells per level for Wizards (They get their Int mod new spells learned each level, minimum 2.).
Some feedback on the change to allow Finesse weapons to use Dex as damage: I'm not 100% convinced on my opinion but I'm currently not a huge fan.
I like to consider flavour and balance when taking these things into account when possible and I think the flavour of having Finesse weapons increase their damage using Dex is covered by the Precision damage type.
So, aside from the fact it does make Dex slightly more powerful, I think it doesn't fully satisfy me on both sides of the argument.
Re: Entangled as a condition we're continuing to use it and see how it goes as it may not be as overpowered as I thought (at least at my table).
I will note that I made a change to your rule on bombs whereby you have the splash damage be one step lower than whatever the normal damage is. I removed that and splash damage does not change according to the success of the roll (apart from doing none on a critical failure). The alchemist continues to struggle for efficacy at times so this change doesn't help the situation for us.
|
|
I don't really understand what you did with the splash damage. "it does not change according to the attack roll", does that mean it always does 1/2 the bomb's main target damage in the area unless the attack was a crit fail? I can see that.
But you say it still hasn't helped the alchemist's damage enough? Are you using the "Int bonus for bomb's attack rolls instead of Dex," and he has the free "Powerful Alchemy feat" at level 1? Is there anyone helping to flank and make the target flat-footed to aid him in his attack rolls? The ability to remove the splash damage as a Bomber means it's safe for allies to help pin down a target and not get splashed. Is he running out of bombs, or having some other issues? Without knowing more, I'm not really eager to just increase his power without more guidelines. Is he leveling up his bombs as he increases in character levels?
I don't really understand what you did with the splash damage. "it does not change according to the attack roll", does that mean it always does 1/2 the bomb's main target damage in the area unless the attack was a crit fail? I can see that.
But you say it still hasn't helped the alchemist's damage enough? Are you using the "Int bonus for bomb's attack rolls instead of Dex," and he has the free "Powerful Alchemy feat" at level 1? Is there anyone helping to flank and make the target flat-footed to aid him in his attack rolls? The ability to remove the splash damage as a Bomber means it's safe for allies to help pin down a target and not get splashed. Is he running out of bombs, or having some other issues? Without knowing more, I'm not really eager to just increase his power without more guidelines. Is he leveling up his bombs as he increases in character levels?
The splash is always the regular damage, rather than one step lower than the main target. Your version has it simply be one step lower. So basically I'm running them with all your house rules but their splash damage remains as effective as it does in the core rules.
Flanking the enemy doesn't help because only characters within melee range would benefit from it being flat-footed (pg 476 of CRB).
I'm using all your other suggested rules for Alchemists and I've given the player a few suggestions regarding how he might want to optimise his playstyle to feel more effective.
Hopefully that helps the situation but in all honesty at this point I think it may be situational and optimal use of his bombs rather than the class continuing to be underpowered. For example, I pointed out the importance of having a backup weapon since his options once he ran out of bombs were a sling and a dagger (he's at -1 Str).
So just to be clear, I don't think you necessarily need to change anything :) only thing I've done is revert to standard splash rules where the full splash damage is done in any scenario except for a critical failure. This also removes your change to Calculated Splash.
|
|
So the bomb does the full damage in the entire area rather than full effect on 1 target and reduced effect in the splash area? As an example, lets use the Moderate Acid Flask. RAW, it does 2d6 persistent acid damage to the main target, +2 points of acid damage for the splash. Other targets only take 2 points of splash, they do not suffer any of the 2d6 like the main target.
In my revised rules, the main target takes 2d6+2 persistent acid damage on a hit, and targets in the splash take 1/2 of 2d6+2. If you are saying the target does not get a -1 effect level, then anyone in the area takes the full 2d6+2 persistent acid damage on a hit. There is no longer any "splash effect", but rather bombs are now an area effect, similar to a mini-fireball.
In that case, I'd say that throwing bombs would be better done as the target needing to make a saving throw to escape or reduce the effects, rather than an attack roll from the Alchemist. A Wizard hurling a fireball doesn't need to make an attack roll, he just decides on an area to hit and the targets must try to get out of the way. I think that may in fact be a better way to do bombs! I'll have to think about it and maybe make the changes in the next update, There is a general belief that in PF2e spells/effects that require a save are better than effects that require an attack roll. Simply making that change may be enough to make the Bomber more effective...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I misunderstood the wording, then. I thought you were halving the vanilla splash damage (2 splash damage for a moderate acid flask). Now I see that you roll the main damage and then apply half of that as splash damage to all splash targets.
Apologies for the misunderstanding. Yes, I think that looks like a pretty nice buff. Will try it out.
|
|
Oh I misunderstood the wording, then. I thought you were halving the vanilla splash damage (2 splash damage for a moderate acid flask). Now I see that you roll the main damage and then apply half of that as splash damage to all splash targets.
Apologies for the misunderstanding. Yes, I think that looks like a pretty nice buff. Will try it out.
Let me know how it goes, and if you could, what do you think of the possible idea of bombs acting as mini-fireballs, doing full damage in the entire area of effect (or just against a single target if the Bomber chooses to eliminate the area), with targets making a saving throw instead of the Alchemist making an attack roll?
Let me know how it goes, and if you could, what do you think of the possible idea of bombs acting as mini-fireballs, doing full damage in the entire area of effect (or just against a single target if the Bomber chooses to eliminate the area), with targets making a saving throw instead of the Alchemist making an attack roll?Oh I misunderstood the wording, then. I thought you were halving the vanilla splash damage (2 splash damage for a moderate acid flask). Now I see that you roll the main damage and then apply half of that as splash damage to all splash targets.
Apologies for the misunderstanding. Yes, I think that looks like a pretty nice buff. Will try it out.
I think that would make them A LOT more powerful by default, probably too much so. There's a high-level feat that lets that happen and I think it makes sense being locked behind that.
|
|
I think that would make them A LOT more powerful by default, probably too much so. There's a high-level feat that lets that happen and I think it makes sense being locked behind that.
I believe you are talking about the feat "Mega Bomb". I feel the major benefit of that is not just the "make a save instead of an attack roll", but rather the fact that it has a 30' radius effect with 60'.
Imagine if the base bomb has a 5' radius within 30'. The Far Lobber Level 1 feat could increase the range to 60'. The 10th level feat "Expanded Splash" increased that to a 10' radius of effect and adds Int mod to the damage. Then the 20th level Mega Bomb I would say increases the range to 120' (same as a Flame Strike, and well under the 500' range of a Fireball) and a 30' radius area of effect.
Targets on all of these would make a Ref save (though some of the bomb types could target Fort instead so the Alchemist is better able to target other saves vs certain enemies).
Crit fail = 2x damage,
Fail = full damage,
Success = 1/2 damage,
Crit Success = no damage
If this were the way Alchemists worked, I think the class would be much better, and maybe even make the Bomber over-powered compared to the other Research Fields.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll agree about them being much better. I honestly think their current state in your house rules is pretty good and I'm hoping over the next few sessions we'll see how the alchemist performs in my party.
Will give feedback if I think any is warranted.
|
|
I'll agree about them being much better. I honestly think their current state in your house rules is pretty good and I'm hoping over the next few sessions we'll see how the alchemist performs in my party.
Will give feedback if I think any is warranted.
Great, let me know how it goes either way! I'll leave it as it is for now, though.
A question on the heightening of the magic weapon spell. Does it simply increase the weapon potency when it heightens or does the striking also increase?
The latter seems like it would make it a lot better but curious as to how you would balance it.
|
|
A question on the heightening of the magic weapon spell. Does it simply increase the weapon potency when it heightens or does the striking also increase?
The latter seems like it would make it a lot better but curious as to how you would balance it.
Yes, IMO the Heightened Magic Weapon spell adds +1 attack and +1 die of damage to whatever the weapon normally has for the duration of the spell, capped at the maximum of a +3 Major Striking weapon. I could maybe spell that out better in the document...
|
|
There is the latest version of my rules changes. It is currently on version 1.57 as I type this. The Change Log in the back lists most of the changes, but I updated the Heightened Magic Weapon listing to clarify my intent just today. Previously, I made a few other spell changes (for instance, one big change was that Heal and Harm each do 1d8 + casting stat mod healing or damage, no matter how many action used to cast it (the real change is the range and number of targets that the spell can effect, going from 1 target touch, to 1 target within 30', to all targets in 30') This removes the massive +8 bonus for using 2 actions, which made Heal at 2 actions nearly always the best choice unless the whole party was injured and gathered in 1 place. Heightened just adds an additional 1d8 per spell level to the effect.
Another change before that, based on discussion here in the forums and my own experience as a Ranger, is that "Drawing Weapons" allows you to draw either 1 or 2 weapons with your action, and you can grip a weapon currently held in 1 hand with your other hand as a free action. I feel these changes help the action economy and allowed me to remove the "Regripping Strike" feat that I'd previously had in the rules changes).
Anyway, as always, I'm interested in hearing what people think of this and my other changes!
|
|
Due to another forum conversation, I just added a new 6th level Ritual to my rules: Ironwood. Druids can use this ritual to craft and create Wooden shields and armor that is as strong as steel, but not anathema for them. The ritual has 2 varieties: 10 minutes or 1 day. The 10 minute version costs only 15gp of powdered fossilized wood as a material component and only 1 primary Nature check, and the effects last for 1 day. This version could be used to reinforce a wooden door if the party is trying to sleep in a dangerous place. The 1 day casting time takes 150gp of powdered fossilized wood, requires a secondary check halfway through the ritual, and the effects of the ritual are permanent. This version is used to create wooden weapons and armor for Druids that are not affected by their Anathema.
Your changes to the lance are a bit unclear.
The Charge entry states that it replaces the Jousting trait, but you then go on to clarify the Jousting trait even though the lance is the only weapon in the game with that trait.
Btw, can I get your opinion/thoughts on the Stamina system from the GMG? Bit of a deviation but maybe relevant considering your many changes.
|
|
Your changes to the lance are a bit unclear.
The Charge entry states that it replaces the Jousting trait, but you then go on to clarify the Jousting trait even though the lance is the only weapon in the game with that trait.
Btw, can I get your opinion/thoughts on the Stamina system from the GMG? Bit of a deviation but maybe relevant considering your many changes.
The Jousting trait says you first lower the damage die from a d8 to a d6, and then you get a bonus equal to the number of weapon dice after moving 10' (which is just a +1 damage with a normal lance, but striking runes increase that bonus number further). Since 1d6+1 is not really a big change from 1d8, and the Deer Animal Instinct Barbarian has a Charge trait that was never printed in the game, I decided to fix 2 issues with 1 rule.
In the official errata, they said to just change the Deer's antlers to a 1d10 damage and replace Charge with the grapple trait, which is very similar to other animals (Ape, Shark, and Snake all do 1d10 and have grapple). So this leaves the Deer at 1d8 (+2 w/Charge).
So, going back to the lance, It still does 1d8, +2 when charging at least 10'. There is no reduction in damage die type to a d6, and the +2 circ. bonus is flat, not increased by the number of dice (So if it's a Striking lance, it does 2d8, +2 when charging). I should add some kind of note that when Charging with the Lance, you only need to use 1 hand, not 2, so that you can still carry a shield in your other hand.
Thanks to your comment, I noticed that I had added a Jousting fix as well, I'm going to delete that.
We don't use Stamina in our game, and I haven't heard anything massively positive or negative about it (no "this problem needs fixing" issues, nor "This fixes a lot of problems in the RAW PF2"). The ability to regain all your Stamina points in a 10 minute rest with 1 Resolve point seems like a version of the D&D5e short rest but without using Hit Dice. I don't see any issues in using my rules changes with the stamina system, I haven't changed any class's HP's, so do you have a specific question about it that I'm not seeing?
Ok, new version of my rules now posted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't use Stamina in our game, and I haven't heard anything massively positive or negative about it (no "this problem needs fixing" issues, nor "This fixes a lot of problems in the RAW PF2"). The ability to regain all your Stamina points in a 10 minute rest with 1 Resolve point seems like a version of the D&D5e short rest but without using Hit Dice. I don't see any issues in using my rules...
No issues in particular, was just curious as to your take on it since I tend to agree with almost all of your rule changes.
I've personally removed the Steel Your Resolve feat that lets you take an action to recover half your Stamina points since it's so overpowered it almost feels feat tax-ey using the system.
I've also decided that any magical healing can heal both health and stamina as this addresses the issue of typical casters losing a fair bit of their power using this system. RAW healing can only recover HP and not SP but as you can imagine that would make something like a divine cleric less effective. So magic healing > mundane healing now.
Don't want this to turn into a discussion of the system but was just curious about your take.
Thanks for clarifying the Jousting and Charge thing!
Just sort of skimming, wanted to wordsmith this section on crafting:
Crafting begins at a base amount of time of 4 days, but you subtract the level of the item you are
crafting from your own level to modify that amount of time. So a 5th level character who is an Expert
at Crafting is creating a level 4 item, so he subtracts 1 day for a total of 3 days. The Minimum amount
of time it takes is 4 days if you are Trained, 3 days if you are an Expert, 2 days if you are a Master, and
1 day if you are Legendary.
to
Crafting begins at a base amount of time of 4 days, but from there modify by adding the level of the item and subtracting the crafter's own level. So a 5th level character who is an Expert
at Crafting is creating a level 4 item, so he subtracts 1 day for a total of 3 days (4 + 4 - 5 = 3). The Minimum amount
of time it takes is 4 days if you are Trained, 3 days if you are an Expert, 2 days if you are a Master, and
1 day if you are Legendary.