But... it does work on critically failed saving throws. Nothing in the Feat says that it doesn’t.Permanently quickened, on the fastest class in the game. You got crit? ‘Nah man, reroll that.’ Those vs a Feat that only does something on a crit.You know, it's kinda interesting that Impossible Technique works against critical hits, from the wording, considering it doesn't work on critically failed saves.
"Fail" is a specific save result, distinct from "critically fail". There are a number of effects that say "when you fail or critically fail..."
Wow. Stoke the Heart is powerful. Up to +6 status bonus to damage for 1 minute once per combat. Nasty.Eeeeh it's also 10 actions to keep it up for 1 minute.
Much better to look at it like +6 damage/action at level 17. OK since it's at will, but nothing grand.
A single action for +6 damage on every martial attack for 10 rounds? That is indeed grand. What else can do that for a martial or archer?
Ruffian Rogue can give Weakness 5 to a physical damage type at level 10 as part of an attack. In most ways that's significantly better, especially compared to the +4 to damage the Witch is giving at the same level.
|
Given that the drake elixir is the first time their have been issues with the status AC bonus and there had been at least 2 functional and well used Feats providing status bonus to ac since the beggining (animal skin,mountain stance). It seems more logical to alter the one new thing than the two existing things.
It’s not though, scales and mountain have issues with Battleforms as well.
It's very easy to say that the item bonus from bracers stack with the one from Mountain Stance and Animal Skin.
Thinking more about it, yes, there is power creep in the APG in one specific domain: Archetypes. Old Dedications are now kind of worthless. You want your Wizard to be a good archer? Go Archer, not Fighter.
You can now have a Specialized Companion while in the past you were limited to Incredible Companion unless being a Druid/Ranger.
It will, in my opinion, enable more gish builds (and at least easier ones).
Has been mentioned before, but the Variant Heritages have made all the old heritages that granted darkvision to a low-light vision ancestry obsolete. Since now the variant heritage will do the same thing plus allow access to more ancestry feats.
Paizo seems to have realized this considering Catfolk & Tengu don't have a generic "upgrade vision" heritage unlike the previous low-light vision ancestries (though Ratfolk do, which is odd considering the same book invalidates its existence).
Also, with all new ancestries having low-light/darkvision, Humans/Halflings get to be a bit further behind as the only "normal vision" ancestries that can't get darkvision from level 1. Which makes them less useful as a base for a variant heritage and most likely to be the party's problem when they're the only ones who can't see perfectly in the dark (which is nothing new compared to PF1, but still annoying).
From another perspective, even if I like having darkvision for the utility, not every of my characters makes sense to be a dhampir/tiefling/aasimar/etc. The heritages you call obsolete might only be so from a power gaming perspective, not one that takes into the character itself.
Being a cavern elf and having an ancestry feat available might be more valuable than being an elf tiefling who has to spend his feat on darkvision to a lot of players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The heritages you call obsolete might only be so from a power gaming perspective, not one that takes into the character itself.
Well yeah, but the subject of the thread is power creep.
Being a cavern elf and having an ancestry feat available might be more valuable than being an elf tiefling who has to spend his feat on darkvision to a lot of players.
Elf tieflings don't need to spend a feat on darkvision.
The heritages you call obsolete might only be so from a power gaming perspective, not one that takes into the character itself.Well yeah, but the subject of the thread is power creep.
Being a cavern elf and having an ancestry feat available might be more valuable than being an elf tiefling who has to spend his feat on darkvision to a lot of players.Elf tieflings don't need to spend a feat on darkvision.
Yeah, I made a derp there, my bad. I realized too late the feat is for darkvision on non-low-light races.
This power creep sounds still subjective though. If we're talking power creep, wouldn't they still fall short of a basic human with an extra feat? Or a human-half elf if amount of heritage feats is the concern?
They seem really good if you focus on dark vision, but their heritage feats don't seem that power creepy in comparison to what we have. Then again, I never picked a heritage for their feats alone, so I might actually be the wrong person to comment on creep.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Darkvision Heritages were never top of the list in terms of power level. The new Versatile Heritages being better than them (which is actually only true if you intend to take any of the Versatile Heritage in question's Feats) is not power creep. Ancient Elf is still more powerful than they are, as are the other high powered Heritages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it's a single action for one round or a reaction for one round, for ten rounds.To be fair, a level 17 witch will almost always have effortless concentration.it's not a single action for 10 rounds.
it's a single action for ONE round
Free action, not reaction. But it prevents you from free sustaining better options, which is the real cost.
Yeah, taking the versatile heritages us cool if you actually want those feats. But you don't get what many ancestry feats anyway. As we get more books, you'll get more options for the base ancestry, which means even taking those tiefling or whatever feats will get harder to squeeze in.
|
Free action, not reaction. But it prevents you from free sustaining better options, which is the real cost.So it's a single action for one round or a reaction for one round, for ten rounds.To be fair, a level 17 witch will almost always have effortless concentration.it's not a single action for 10 rounds.
it's a single action for ONE round
Thanks, I'm not up on the action symbols yet.
Thinking more about it, yes, there is power creep in the APG in one specific domain: Archetypes. Old Dedications are now kind of worthless. You want your Wizard to be a good archer? Go Archer, not Fighter.
I don't think it makes Fighter entirely worthless; if you want your wizard to be good with both bows and polearms, for example, or good with both swords and shields, then the new APG archetypes aren't going to cover you as well as Fighter.
But certainly if you want to just be good at the fighting style the archetype covers, the archetype is better than Fighter Dedication.
Thinking more about it, yes, there is power creep in the APG in one specific domain: Archetypes. Old Dedications are now kind of worthless. You want your Wizard to be a good archer? Go Archer, not Fighter.
You can now have a Specialized Companion while in the past you were limited to Incredible Companion unless being a Druid/Ranger.
It will, in my opinion, enable more gish builds (and at least easier ones).
It feels much less like creep and more like things are starting to work as intended. There were a lot of mixed concepts that didn’t work with just the multiclass options, or didn’t work until too late since we had to double the requirements. It seems like the increased archtypes just let you hit a concept sooner, at the cost that your concept is more limited. Essentially what I mean is that I don’t think Archer is just better than MC Fighter or Ranger, but it is better for specifically shooting a bow. So an option but not something you automatically take.
Thinking more about it, yes, there is power creep in the APG in one specific domain: Archetypes. Old Dedications are now kind of worthless. You want your Wizard to be a good archer? Go Archer, not Fighter.I don't think it makes Fighter entirely worthless; if you want your wizard to be good with both bows and polearms, for example, or good with both swords and shields, then the new APG archetypes aren't going to cover you as well as Fighter.
Just take 2 Dedications, then. You'll end up better than Fighter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just take 2 Dedications, then. You'll end up better than Fighter.Thinking more about it, yes, there is power creep in the APG in one specific domain: Archetypes. Old Dedications are now kind of worthless. You want your Wizard to be a good archer? Go Archer, not Fighter.I don't think it makes Fighter entirely worthless; if you want your wizard to be good with both bows and polearms, for example, or good with both swords and shields, then the new APG archetypes aren't going to cover you as well as Fighter.
Sure, and out quite a lot of class feats.
Wow. Stoke the Heart is powerful. Up to +6 status bonus to damage for 1 minute once per combat. Nasty.Eeeeh it's also 10 actions to keep it up for 1 minute.
Much better to look at it like +6 damage/action at level 17. OK since it's at will, but nothing grand.
A single action for +6 damage on every martial attack for 10 rounds? That is indeed grand. What else can do that for a martial or archer?
it's not a single action for 10 rounds.
it's a single action for ONE round
Most rounds you will use sustain, though once a witch gets Effortless Concentration will be a single action for one around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter Dedication and its ilk are still useful if you want to poach fighter feats and abilities that remain unique to the fighter alone.
Fighter Dedication and its ilk are still useful if you want to poach fighter feats and abilities that remain unique to the fighter alone.
But between the various archetypes, the number of those feats gets thinner and thinner. There are ones for archer, TWF, 2 hander, etc.
This power creep sounds still subjective though. If we're talking power creep, wouldn't they still fall short of a basic human with an extra feat? Or a human-half elf if amount of heritage feats is the concern?
Power creep has nothing to do with if the new option is the current meta pick. Nor does it matter if there are thematic reasons for picking an inferior option. If new option B is just better than old option A, then it is power creep. It may not necessarily be by a large amount, and it could even be a good thing if option A was under-powered to start, but that doesn't change what it is.
Old Heritage Option: You go from low-light to darkvision.
New Heritage Option: You go from low-light to darkvision + gain access to more stuff.
At worst, without picking any variant heritage feats, the variant heritage is mechanically identical to the old option. Otherwise, picking even 1 feat from the variant heritage makes it better since you wouldn't have had access to that feat otherwise.
Yeah, taking the versatile heritages us cool if you actually want those feats. But you don't get what many ancestry feats anyway. As we get more books, you'll get more options for the base ancestry, which means even taking those tiefling or whatever feats will get harder to squeeze in.
Of course, at the same time we'll simultaneously get more variant heritages (genie-kin seem to be next) along with more options for existing variant heritages that will make it more tempting to squeeze one into your build. So "more options" doesn't change the situation unless new options are specifically created that either require the old heritage or can't be selected if you have any variant heritage - which don't currently seem to exist and have no current indication of any plans to do so. (Especially when that would likely annoy many players who don't see why option X should have such a restriction.)
-----
To be clear, I'm not too concerned with this power creep since I already hated the "upgrade vision" heritages since I first saw them (+will be thankful to see less cave elves in my games) & am more concerned that variant heritages have uneven mechanical effects based on your base ancestry's vision (low-light has it best, darkvision has it worst since your heritage option effectively does nothing on it's own, and humans are kinda in the middle with getting low-light and some variants having a feat option for darkvision).
But in a thread asking about power creep, a heritage that reads as, "mechanically identical to a previous option, but with more options available to pick later" certainly qualifies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uncommon doesn't mean more powerful. However, AP-specific feats are far more likely to accidentally become more powerful due to receiving less testing and balancing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But we do have ancestry feats that hinge off those original ancestries, e.g. a cavern elf is one of the entrances to Wandering Heart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Power creep has nothing to do with if the new option is the current meta pick. Nor does it matter if there are thematic reasons for picking an inferior option. If new option B is just better than old option A, then it is power creep. It may not necessarily be by a large amount, and it could even be a good thing if option A was under-powered to start, but that doesn't change what it is.
Perhaps we are working by different definitions here, but - for it to be power creep, doesn't it have to be the best option out of all options? That is, the maximum possible power "creeps" forward?
If dhampir is better than cavern elf but worse than ancient elf, that's not really "power creep" imo because the power ceiling for heritages hasn't moved.
Not necessarily. I do think Charon is correct in that a feat or heritage that completely overrides a previous feat would be power creep, if only vis a vis that previous option.
I just don't think that accurately describes what's going on. Maxastro, you nailed it upthread: the cost of the Tiefling feat is that you're now playing a Tiefling instead of an Elf. And that is also the reward. I think it is a good thing to have this simply be a value neutral option that eliminates some further options and adds others to your pool.
My impression based on perusing the APG with my current PFS builds in mind is that there are good things here but they are mostly on par with the good options we previously had.
So in the end, not more power but a greater variety of good options.
This is probably most accurate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two words
"Exploding Zombies"
Final Sacrifice is going to be very, very fun. Especially with a healthy supply of undead due to Animate Dead.
And while it is using multiple slots compared to just dropping fireballs, it also ends up slightly more action efficient due to the summoned creature getting something close to about four actions before you pop them on the following turn.
Basically, I just don't see myself using fireballs when I could just be popping low level zombies for close to the same price. Maybe they're not going to be fireballed IMMEDIATELY, but I would already want to wait on my allies to inflict some kind of debuff first.