| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah Explosion is not my jam at the moment. Seems fraught, and doesn't really fit with my idea of a lot of things.
As a feat maybe. As a basic, core ability I'm not really into it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah Explosion is not my jam at the moment. Seems fraught, and doesn't really fit with my idea of a lot of things.
As a feat maybe. As a basic, core ability I'm not really into it.
Same.
Honestly the idea of my weapon exploding is weird. Companion and armor I get and can at least visualize, but weapon is weird.
Now if the explosion changed in a way (and maybe wasn't called explosion) then that could work.
Like maybe Armor is an emanation, Companion is a breath weapon, and weapon is a line would feel a lot more like I'm not being forced to "explode" so much as I am releasing energy in a way my innovation supports.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably silly question as I'm probably just not seeing something obvious. If I have a construct innovation and am riding it, then use explosion, do I get hit for the damage too since I'm not "wearing or holding" it and thus the emanation is coming from the construct rather than me?You are in range of the explosion and not in the eye of the storm, so yes. If you have the explosion emanate from it, you are hit with current RAW.Thanks. My initial thought was that since we effectively occupied the same square, this would mean the explosion's emanation didn't hit me. Unfortunately that means if you want to use your construct as a mount, the explosion class feature is almost unusable.
That really kills my enthusiasm as I was looking forward to having a truly viable character who invented a smart wheelchair to allow for adventuring despite not being able to walk :(
Hmm, good point. Sounds like I should potentially write an option for the construct inventor that gives you protection from your construct's explosion in case you want to do that with impunity. :takes notes:
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, good point. Sounds like I should potentially write an option for the construct inventor that gives you protection from your construct's explosion in case you want to do that with impunity. :takes notes:Probably silly question as I'm probably just not seeing something obvious. If I have a construct innovation and am riding it, then use explosion, do I get hit for the damage too since I'm not "wearing or holding" it and thus the emanation is coming from the construct rather than me?You are in range of the explosion and not in the eye of the storm, so yes. If you have the explosion emanate from it, you are hit with current RAW.Thanks. My initial thought was that since we effectively occupied the same square, this would mean the explosion's emanation didn't hit me. Unfortunately that means if you want to use your construct as a mount, the explosion class feature is almost unusable.
That really kills my enthusiasm as I was looking forward to having a truly viable character who invented a smart wheelchair to allow for adventuring despite not being able to walk :(
I think a good option might be to say that you can ride IN your construct, rather than on it; maybe even give an innovation option to gain cover while riding in your construct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see one or a couple of feats that support armor unarmed combat, something like a level 1 piston punch feat that gives you a d8 forceful, shoving unarmed attack.
Or spiked pylons/pitons that shoot into the ground for stability to keep from being moved forcibly. Or perhaps a spring-loaded shield that unfolds like a fan from the armored bracers for a shield reaction bonus to AC for one round. Or ablative armor where pieces of the armor chip off to fly into the attacker's face for a reaction-based Attack of Opportunity counterattack. Or maybe a sticky substance or magnetic field that disarms or grapples the enemy as a reaction.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see one or a couple of feats that support armor unarmed combat, something like a level 1 piston punch feat that gives you a d8 forceful, shoving unarmed attack.Or spiked pylons/pitons that shoot into the ground for stability to keep from being moved forcibly.
Or perhaps a spring-loaded shield that unfolds like a fan from the armored bracers for a shield reaction bonus to AC for one round.
Or ablative armor where pieces of the armor chip off to fly into the attacker's face for a reaction-based Attack of Opportunity counterattack.
Or maybe a sticky substance or magnetic field that disarms or grapples the enemy as a reaction.
All great ideas. And showing the range/breadth of concepts that aren’t purely offensive but still combat conversant and way more interesting than just resisting stuff...better.
P.S. Also Glitterboys thank you for holding their beer.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah Explosion is not my jam at the moment. Seems fraught, and doesn't really fit with my idea of a lot of things.
As a feat maybe. As a basic, core ability I'm not really into it.
I hadn’t really thought about this much beyond “Whoa, the first ability listed is literally one where the thing you make a) explodes, and b) doesn’t take any damage.”
For that alone it’s weird, and casts *every* inventor as the dad from Gremlins who couldn’t make anything stable. It’s a great trope but shouldn’t be universal.
I could see that beyond your Innovation choice, there could be Design Paths that provide further specification - in how the Inventor approaches things. The MacGyver oranges, twine and paperclip battery builder, the Jury-rigger/Exploder, the methodical Engineer etc.
I know that adds word count, and that Innovations *are* the current suites, and it could become overwrought...but still, Explode clearly isn’t for everyone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that all three types of innovations could use options for a ballistic net, bolas, or something for a tethered ability to grapple at range/reach kind of like the net or bolas from APG.
Also, the armor needs options to add stuff that shields and gauntlets can get like shield bash, shield boss, shield spikes, or even retractable blades/claws.
It would also be nice if the armor could have some options like a retractable whip, spiked chain, flickmace, or war flail.
A compartment for shooting darts or attaching a hand crossbow or firearm would be pretty cool, too.
May have to add all your ideas to RD’s Innovation brainstorm thread Ashanderai...I’m currently travelling, so...too lazy to do it myself...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello,
A few questions:
1) Is the Overdrive ability (pag 18) meant to give an untyped bonus?
2) The Reconfigure ability (pag 18) claims in the first phrase: "You’ve become an expert in all crafts and always adjust your inventions to achieve the perfect configurations."
Is this a language figure, or are we meant to gain Expert proficiency in Craft?3) In "Breakthrough Weapon modIfIcations" (pag 20), the Integrated Gauntlet mentions a free-hand trait, which is not described.
4) Is it possible to add a modification that removes the nonlethal trait from the weapon?
Overdrive is additional damage. There is no such thing as an untyped bonus.
Reconfigure is an artifact from my initial draft where the inventor got some free Crafting proficiency bumps, disregard.
Free-hand is a normal trait.
I am thinking of tinkering with the one that adds nonlethal to make it so you can choose lethal/nonlethal on the fly, making it both stronger and good for more weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see one or a couple of feats that support armor unarmed combat, something like a level 1 piston punch feat that gives you a d8 forceful, shoving unarmed attack.
more stuff like this for sure.
Almost feel like it might be better to just let armorers pick two energy types instead of having a whole bunch of paired sets.
I'd like to see options for armorers to either lean into other kinds of defensive options options or into gadgetry.
May have to add all your ideas to RD’s Innovation brainstorm thread Ashanderai...I’m currently travelling, so...too lazy to do it myself...
Thanks for the suggestion. I did just that and added a few more suggestions while I was there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whelp, it appears that RD's thread wasn't really a clearing house for these kind of ideas, after all. So, since I added some suggestions to the ones I made here over in that thread, I'll just repost them all here for completeness in case my post over there gets deleted for being off-topic:
Some of these ideas might be good for innovations or for Class feats that require a specific innovation.
I think that all three types of innovations could use options for a ballistic net, bolas, or something similar with the tethered trait to grapple at range or with reach; kind of like the net or bolas from APG. Then maybe add another feat to stack on it to electrocute and stun grappled enemies with, like a taser.
For Companion Construct Innovations:
- I think a good option might be to say that you can ride IN your construct, rather than on it; maybe even give an innovation option to gain cover while riding in your construct.
- A Tunneling/Burrowing travel mode to move underground so I can make a mole man inventor. Maybe it can have a follow-on option/feat to build pit traps/snares or small avalanches when adjacent to walls/cliffs/boulders/trees.
- "Rumble Seat/Passenger Car/Side Saddle/Backseat Driver/Turret" Room for an extra rider/passenger who can use an action to provide a command to your companion, but that cannot make the construct companion do anything you would not want it to do. They are not driving it and cannot make it stride or step, but can activate a special ability or a make a strike; like a gunner in a turret.
- "Junk in the Trunk" as an option for storage space similar to Built-In Tools, but without the tools just for extra storage space - enough to transport a body in...
For Armor Innovations:
- Spiked pylons/pitons that shoot into the ground for stability to keep from being moved forcibly.
- A spring-loaded shield that unfolds like a fan from the armored bracers for a shield reaction bonus to AC for one round.
- Ablative armor where pieces of the armor chip off to fly into the attacker's face or sparks and electrical charge or ignites a brief burst of flame for a reaction-based Attack of Opportunity counterattack.
- A sticky substance or magnetic field that disarms or grapples the enemy as a reaction.
- Options for the armor innovation to add stuff that normally only shields and/or gauntlets can get like shield bash, shield boss, shield spikes, or even retractable blades/claws.
- Weapon Options like a retractable whip, spiked chain, flickmace, or war flail.
For both Armor and Companion Construct Innovations:
- A compartment for shooting darts/shuriken or attaching a hand crossbow or firearm for added offensive capability.
- Rocket Boost as an option to increase speed by a lot for one round only and only in a straight line, but can be used for whatever mode of movement the companion and/or inventor is currently doing, whether it be over land, while swimming, climbing, burrowing/tunneling, or flying.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the final book can we get an option for a clockwork familiar? I had the idea for getting a minion to be the autoloader for my crossbow, but "Transform Construct" implying that in *compact* form your construct is at least 2 bulk, then permanently bolting your prototype construct to your clockwork crossbow probably isn't a good solution.
Maybe add a feat for a guided explosion to change it into a line or cone. Another idea, maybe change the name to discharge instead of explosion. Sounds less like you just screwed up.
It's actually named Explode, which I think makes it sound more deliberate.
I've seen it referenced incorrectly more often than correctly (like 5:1), though, so a name change is maybe worth considering.
I do like Explode. It reminds me of the Solarian in a lot of fun ways.
The CRB implies but never has an explicit "positive damage only damages undead and negative only damages living", though the reading of the damage section and traits does seem like it should say that.
I'll be honest, I don't see another way you can read it than that they are immune to both positive and negative energy. Both energy traits specify what they do to living and undead creatures, and constructs are specifically called out as neither.
Effects with this trait heal living creatures with positive energy, deal positive energy damage to undead, or manipulate positive energy.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=128
Effects with this trait heal undead creatures with negative energy, deal negative damage to living creatures, or manipulate negative energy.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=118
The CRB implies but never has an explicit "positive damage only damages undead and negative only damages living", though the reading of the damage section and traits does seem like it should say that.I'll be honest, I don't see another way you can read it than that they are immune to both positive and negative energy. Both energy traits specify what they do to living and undead creatures, and constructs are specifically called out as neither.
Yeah, it is already explicit. Nevertheless, reminder text doesn't hurt!
May have to add all your ideas to RD’s Innovation brainstorm thread Ashanderai...I’m currently travelling, so...too lazy to do it myself...Thanks for the suggestion. I did just that and added a few more suggestions while I was there.
Er...sorry about that. I thought it was something different. Carry on!
Okay, then they are affected by any negative or positive effect that doesn't specify what kind of targets it deals damage to, or is not a necromancy effect.
I have not been able to find an effect that doesn't either say "living"/"undead", or is without the necromancy tag. I did however find a spell that specifically effects constructs (Curse of Lost Time), so therefore they aren't immune after all.
Just mostly, as specified by each individual effect. I'm not particularly bothered by the idea of a barbarian getting to use their spirit instinct rage against constructs. Edit: No, wait, that's necromancy, never mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Overdrive is additional damage. There is no such thing as an untyped bonus.
Hi Mark,
Sorry as it's not the subject of this thread but as you are speaking of additional damage I wanted to ask you if it's possible to explain it clearly somewhere (even in these boards). There are really a lot of rules questions around damage, additional damage and persistent damage like for example:
- Do you add the additional damage from Weapon Specialization to Battle Form damage (for Wild Shape Druids for example)?
- Do you apply a Resistance to all damage to Precision damage before adding it to the normal damage and applying the Resistance to all damage again?
- How an ability like Tempest Touch ("Your touch calls forth a churning mass of icy water that clings to your target, dealing 1d4 bludgeoning damage and 1d4 cold damage. ") works (are you adding bludgeoning and cold damage before applying bonuses like Inspire Courage (and then how do you determine what is cold and what is bludgeoning damage) or do you apply Inspire Courage twice, what happens when the target makes its save and you deal an odd number of bludgeoning and an odd number of cold damage)?
- Does a status bonus to damage apply to Persistent Damage when it's applied, does a resistance to all damage apply to Persistent Damage when it's applied, is Persistent Damage multiplied on a crit?
I can go on and on on damage and additional damage and persistent damage rules as they are not defined enough. And I know about the notion of additional damage, which is not the case of all players.
This actually comes up from an effect in a scenario that apparently does in fact not have the Necromancy tag and doesn't specify living.Okay, then they are affected by any negative or positive effect that doesn't specify what kind of targets it deals damage to, or is not a necromancy effect.
I have not been able to find an effect that doesn't either say "living"/"undead", or is without the necromancy tag. I did however find a spell that specifically effects constructs (Curse of Lost Time), so therefore they aren't immune after all.
Just mostly, as specified by each individual effect. I'm not particularly bothered by the idea of a barbarian getting to use their spirit instinct rage against constructs. Edit: No, wait, that's necromancy, never mind.
Sounds like it should damage them according to your reading of that rule. What is the scenario?
|
I wanted to bring up a couple things. At least two feats, Explosive Leap, and Searing Restoration mention that they cause an explosion. Given that a base class ability is called "Explode" Should we read this as they give an explosion? It doesn't make sense that it would, but the phrasing is confusing. It's just a thought.
To go along with what someone else said renaming "Explode" to "Discharge" or "Explosive Discharge" would remove this confusion, and give a rise to a modification feat down the line to make it the same energy as your Offensive Boost
Overall LOVE this class. Small note, Megaton Strike clearly needs to be all caps and requires three exclamation points.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanical effects need to be explicit, not implied.
It is quite explicit, actually.
Negative damage saps life, damaging only living creatures.
There is no reasonable reading of that as descriptive text.
The Shadow Wisp? Well, like I said, according to your read Shadow Tendril should damage constructs. Same with Shadows.
I would point out that you actually do have such a rule. Or, at least, I have such a rule. I am fine with adjudicating as if that sentence is defining what is allowed, and so anything not mentioned is not allowed without an exception (such as with Curse of Lost Time), not merely describing possibilities. I can now understand your logic though, even if I don't agree with it, so thank you for that.
Edit: Stricken text rendered irrelevant.
Constructs have the construct trait. The construct trait says they are immune to, among other things, necromancy. Are there any positive or negative damage spells that aren't necromancy?
Constructs have the construct trait. The construct trait says they are immune to, among other things, necromancy. Are there any positive or negative damage spells that aren't necromancy?
A couple spells are evocation and transmutation, yes. And there's other effects like a Shadow's strike or the Shadow Wisp mentioned above that aren't typed at all.
Environmental effects like the negative energy plane would also not be necromancy in my view (unless someone has something that proves me wrong). Since that specifically targets living creatures, its moot though.
Mechanical effects need to be explicit, not implied.It is quite explicit, actually.
Negative damage saps life, damaging only living creatures.There is no reasonable reading of that as descriptive text.
Interesting. That is not what is up on AON, though looking at the CRB itself I can see it.
Two special types of energy damage specifically target the living and the undead. Positive damage harms only undead creatures, withering undead bodies and disrupting incorporeal undead. Negative damage saps life, damaging only living creatures.
vs https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=335
Positive energy often manifests as healing energy to living creatures but can create positive damage that withers undead bodies and disrupts and injures incorporeal undead. Negative energy often revivifies the unnatural, unliving power of undead, while manifesting as negative damage that gnaws at the living.
Now the second I would certainly say is descriptive, given the introduction of the word "can". Which is why I hadn't quoted it. But they seem to have errata'd that.
Thank you for catching that, GM.
There were a lot of responses that didn't load on my page when I responded, apparently. It seems the conversation was well ahead of me, haha.
Did the errata touch positive/negative damage? I think it did.
There were a lot of responses that didn't load on my page when I responded, apparently. It seems the conversation was well ahead of me, haha.
Did the errata touch positive/negative damage? I think it did.
Looking at the appendix in the back of the CRB, no. I haven't checked everywhere though.
I got one thing to say... The two weapon subclasses of the gunslinger should probably get dual weapon reload at least for the playtest. Without it both classes are completely inviable dual wielding guns.
I got one thing to say... The two weapon subclasses of the gunslinger should probably get dual weapon reload at least for the playtest. Without it both classes are completely inviable dual wielding guns.
@oholoko - This is the main Inventor welcome thread - if you go to the Gunslinger threads you’ll find a lot of discussion on just this topic.
Yeah Explosion is not my jam at the moment. Seems fraught, and doesn't really fit with my idea of a lot of things.
As a feat maybe. As a basic, core ability I'm not really into it.
And seeing as Explosion has now been corrected to scale even more impressively, it kinda feels like there won’t be a lot of movement on giving the Inventor options to replace it with.
It now feels like the 1e Alchemist’s bombs schtick, which was always odd for those folks who didn’t see an Alchemist as a bomber. I guess 1e style class-specific archetypes could reframe Explosion...
Mmm. I'm still willing to discuss it. Free damage scaling better doesn't make me like it as a base ability any more.
|
Hmm, good point. Sounds like I should potentially write an option for the construct inventor that gives you protection from your construct's explosion in case you want to do that with impunity. :takes notes:Probably silly question as I'm probably just not seeing something obvious. If I have a construct innovation and am riding it, then use explosion, do I get hit for the damage too since I'm not "wearing or holding" it and thus the emanation is coming from the construct rather than me?You are in range of the explosion and not in the eye of the storm, so yes. If you have the explosion emanate from it, you are hit with current RAW.Thanks. My initial thought was that since we effectively occupied the same square, this would mean the explosion's emanation didn't hit me. Unfortunately that means if you want to use your construct as a mount, the explosion class feature is almost unusable.
That really kills my enthusiasm as I was looking forward to having a truly viable character who invented a smart wheelchair to allow for adventuring despite not being able to walk :(
That would be fantastic and shouldn't be unbalanced at all I wouldn't think. Might need to jump a creative hurtle to explain why he/she is immune to said explosion, but the payoff to allow for more builds would be great. I've always wanted to make a battle-chair for a paraplegic character and the Inventor is really opening up that option. Unfortunately losing out on a whole class feature is bad, but then that is what these playtests are for, to test out new things.
Thanks for considering Mark, I love your work!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm ready to make an orc inventor who is basically a Mekboy from 40k. His inventions are ramshackle and completely inoperable to anyone else who uses them bc they're actually powered by WAAAHG magic.
"YOU SAID WOT, YOU MANGY GROT TICKLING GIT!?!? 'DIS AIN'T NO PILE A' JUNK! ITS ME DETH CHOPPA!!!"