| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like much of the class, but I'm not super sold on everything being ONLY explosion and fire - themed. Why can't my invention zap with lightning or leak acid or even begin flailing uncontrollably? I feel like adding a choice of base energy type would further increase the diversity between different inventors.
I agree with those who said breakthrough should come earlier, but I think maybe it can be left where it is and instead a second modification from the list of initial modifications could be added around levels 4-6.
I would like to see a way to focus the construct companion on the ranged strikes (perhaps I missed it?) to stay at least on par with a simple ranged weapon user, and to give it at least limited speech, to go full-on HK-47 on people. In fact, right now it's not very clear how the Intimidate skill given by the cortex modifications works when by RAW the construct does not speak a language.
Also, the zany over-the-top flavor on everything is not my jam either. Why does the healing ability have to vaporize herbs with explosions (lolwut) instead of just injecting a cure or nebulizing it with ultrasound? Why couldn't the strikes be named Kilo and Mega ton/volt instead of Mega and Giga? A kiloton explosion is still hell of a lot (actually, a kilogram is very deadly already!) and a kilovolt zap easily kills a person at touch range (actualy, the volts have more to do with the range of electric strike than deadliness). Currently the absurd names and descriptions create a disconnect with what's actually happening in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, right now it's not very clear how the Intimidate skill given by the cortex modifications works when by RAW the construct does not speak a language.
Actually, it's pretty clear, and the construct suffers the same problem that every Intimidation-focused creature with no language has: You can Demoralize using Intimidation without speaking any language, but it will be at a -4 penalty.
|
In fact, right now it's not very clear how the Intimidate skill given by the cortex modifications works when by RAW the construct does not speak a language.Actually, it's pretty clear, and the construct suffers the same problem that every Intimidation-focused creature with no language has: You can Demoralize using Intimidation without speaking any language, but it will be at a -4 penalty.
Exactly, this was a problem with the Summoner's Beast Eidolon last playtest. Really hope they write in some quick language to say they do not suffer the penalty for not sharing a common language.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like much of the class, but I'm not super sold on everything being ONLY explosion and fire - themed. Why can't my invention zap with lightning or leak acid or even begin flailing uncontrollably? I feel like adding a choice of base energy type would further increase the diversity between different inventors.
There are specific feats that grant you the ability to shoot and charge with lightning, though I agree something that modifies your explosion's base damage would be interesting.
Also coolant spray, just to round out the main 4 damage types.
Some questions which I posed to my GM I am also posting here just in case they aren't supposed to be left to GM discretion:
1) Can the Specialty Crafting feat received from the Tinker background apply its +1 bonus to the checks made to repair/stabilize the invention?
2.1) Does the construct invention count as an item for the purposes of Improvise Tool feat, negating the need for a repair kit to repair it?
2.2) Does an unstable invention count as a damaged item for the same purpose on a check to stabilize it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did say this earlier but wondering if anyone else here feels the same - does anyone want auto scaling weapon/armor? As in the effects of fundamental runes when the character levels up to the appropriate level? I would personally love it as I hate runes in the first place but also it would be cool flavour wise, as you can make such crazy things that you don't even need magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did say this earlier but wondering if anyone else here feels the same - does anyone want auto scaling weapon/armor? As in the effects of fundamental runes when the character levels up to the appropriate level? I would personally love it as I hate runes in the first place but also it would be cool flavour wise, as you can make such crazy things that you don't even need magic.
That's an okay idea but it mostly is a way to save money. Unless your GM is making things hard, you should be able to keep up with runes easily with money on top.
And it's also completely invalidated by automatic bonus progression, which is a pretty popular way to run the game from what I gather.
I mean a way to save money in itself could be really useful, giving the player more money to spend on other fun toys. I guess it feels a little odd to me that you would have to pay for runes to upgrade your own invention, and use magic. I suppose I might be in a starfinder mindset a little; the mechanic has a very similar alternate feature where they get an auto upgrading weapon or armor and I love that. But without paying for additional runes, an inventors innovation is pretty weak. Such is 2e I guess. At least the construct can be made stronger with just feats
Does a level 1 Inventor with the Weapon Innovation have to pay for that weapon during character creation? Sorry if this has been asked before, I haven't spotted it.
Loving the class, players are very happy too. One in particular has their next two characters planned out with it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a few thoughts I had recently:
-Would it be possible to give this class free advancement for crafting, and maybe some extra skill feats for crafting? It feels weird to me that a rogue can not only be a better crafter faster than a class based on superscience crafting, but also be able to pick up a more broad range of skill feats for crafting too. Like, nothing crazy like thw rogue or investigator's feat every level, but, like, even something like a proficiency boost and skill feat for crafting at levels 2, 7, and 15 would really enhance the fantasy of being a mad (and brilliant) inventor without changing it's overall power much
-while I know unstable is already being looked at, but what about the possibility of making it based off of crafting? It would do wonders for making Int feel like your key stat, without having to steal the investigator's shtick, plus it just feels right that your personal skill at crafting helps determine how good you can technobabble your way into making your gizmos work.
They have patched the alchemist a couple of times in the errata. Like they straight up added medium armor to the mutagenicist in the 2nd printing.
Am I out of order in thinking alchemist could use an unchained makeover? Just because they did it wrong in the crb doesn't mean it needs to continue being that way.
Nah, it's okay to muse on. Personally, I don't think alchemists are very far from working okay. Frankly, just fixing their attack proficiencies and maybe giving the mutagenist a 10 HP setup instead of 8 would get them really pretty much in the ballpark.
Monks don't get free acrobatics proficiency increases, wizards don't get arcane, and so on. If inventors get it, it will be something new and specific to them, not a feature all classes should have.
Giving free skill ups isn't *that* unprecedented. The investigator already has a nerfed version of the rogue's thing, with it having a mental skill only limit on the bonus stuff. Locking it into crafting only is just an even more specific refinement.
On the alchemist thing, it actually is a slight beef of mine that my alchemist progresses crafting slower than a rogue, and on that matter, use bombs worse than a ranger, but I don't think this is the right place to do any deeper than that on this topic
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Over-the-top, hyperbolic mad science chicanery is what I love most about the class.
Also, to answer your questions, because SCIENCE!
Well I don't want to be badwrongfunning anyone, but currently I feel that mad science lovers get much more mileage out of the class than old-school hard sci-fi lovers like myself. For me part of the appeal of Golarion is that it manages to preserve a degree of verisimilitude behind the fantasy trappings and I would love to see some more bits to the inventor which could be conceivably traced to real-world science.
Well I don't want to be badwrongfunning anyone, but currently I feel that mad science lovers get much more mileage out of the class than old-school hard sci-fi lovers like myself. For me part of the appeal of Golarion is that it manages to preserve a degree of verisimilitude behind the fantasy trappings and I would love to see some more bits to the inventor which could be conceivably traced to real-world science.Over-the-top, hyperbolic mad science chicanery is what I love most about the class.
Also, to answer your questions, because SCIENCE!
For my tastes, that sounds completely uninteresting. I want a class that helps provide the vibe and flavor for pulpy, goofy, techno-babble speaking, “different”, and capital “E” Evil mad scientists and engineers like the ones in Deadlands and Castle Falkenstein. We already had that to an extent with the Alchemist class, but we never really had the engineering and gadgeteer side of the trope in Pathfinder; at least not really as players.
Examples that come to mind for inspiration include MacGyver, Q from the James Bond movies, Dr. No, Dr. Evil from Austin Powers, Megamind, Doctor Who, Dr. Strangelove, Dr. Brainard from The Absent-Minded Professor/Flubber, Wayne Szalinski from Honey I Shrunk the Kids, Bulma from Dragonball Z, Winry Rockbell from Full Metal Alchemist, Dr. Stone, the engineering officers from the various Star Trek shows (Scotty, Seven of Nine, Be’Lanna Torres, Geordi LaForge, Miles O’Brien, Reginald Barclay, Rom, Trip Tucker), Julius Kelp and Sherman Klump from The Nutty Professor movies, Dr. Horrible from Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, Dr. Okun from Independence Day, Charles Luther from Runaway, Dr. Bunsen Honeydew (& Beaker) from The Muppets, The Brain from Pinky & The Brain, Caitlin Snow from The Flash, Edna Mode from The Incredibles, Dr. Finklestein from Nightmare Before Christmas, Dr. Frank N. Furter from Rocky Horror Picture Show, Emmet "Doc" Brown from Back to the Future, Egon Spengler from Ghostbusters, Agatha Heterodyne from Girl Genius, Doctor “Doc Ock” Octopus, Rocket Racoon, Forge from the X-Men, Tony Stark, Dr. Arnim Zola, Bruce Banner, Dr. Hank Pym, Shuri (Black Panther's sister), Moon Girl (& Devil Dinosaur), Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four, Doctor Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, Jack Griffin from The Invisible Man, and Dr. Moreau. There are a lot more that I am forgetting at the moment, but I have said more than enough of them here.
There are obvious picks from real life too, like Einstein, Tesla, Oppenheimer, Leonardo DaVinci, and many others. But, most of these I am not excited or inspired enough by to make a character in Pathfinder; probably because they are not portrayed quite as over-the-top in the history books I have read or represented in popular media to the same degree or flair as the list of fictional characters above. The mad scientist trope is one that I, personally, have not seen very much of in Pathfinder, though I know there are a few characters like this in some of the adventures out there. But, I feel we need more, especially in heroic roles like Doc Brown or Rocket Racoon. I know some of the examples I provided are more appropriate for alchemists (Jack Griffin, Bruce Banner, Dr. Jekyll, Julius Kelp, etc.), but I still take inspiration from them for an Inventor, as well. Also, I just want to be able to spout nonsensical technobabble at the gaming table and shout, "Because SCIENCE!", as well, and not worry about being corrected by someone regarding whether or not what I said make any real sense according to real world scientists, engineers, or physicists - professional or otherwise. That just sucks the fun out of the moment.
To make the Inventor class capable of participating in combat and keep on par with the other classes in a balanced way, while also occupying a unique niche and flavor, requires some over-the-top abilities for the class, I think.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Giving free skill ups isn't *that* unprecedented. The investigator already has a nerfed version of the rogue's thing, with it having a mental skill only limit on the bonus stuff. Locking it into crafting only is just an even more specific refinement.
On the alchemist thing, it actually is a slight beef of mine that my alchemist progresses crafting slower than a rogue, and on that matter, use bombs worse than a ranger, but I don't think this is the right place to do any deeper than that on this topic
The main argument for Inventors to get free Crafting boosts is that they are locked into class features which have to use the skill.
No other class has core class features which rely on a single, specific skill proficiency. The Swashbuckler gets close, but you have five subclass options to choose which skill you're locking into.
The Swashbuckler gets close, but you have five subclass options to choose which skill you're locking into.
Yeah, but you still end up stuck with a specific skill you're expected to max out in order to function properly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just give the Inventor some low level (1st or 2nd) class feat that includes automatic progression in Crafting and some othe minor bonuses. Much like the Swashbuckler can pick up Acrobat Dedication.
Come to think of it, if Guns and Gears focuses on crafting a lot, there might even be some sort of Tinker Archetype that does this already.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Examples that come to mind for inspiration include ...
Well, I confess to only being familiar with maybe 20% of what you listed, but I am not saying "take all the mad science away", I am saying "give at least one viable build that's about more serious and less slapstick science". Leonardo DaVinci is actually a good example here, if I could just play a character that can implement all of his drafts I would be pretty happy already without gigaton explosions being involved. The most powerful real-world explosion was 5% of that and destroyed everything within 50 miles, while the shockwave has circled around the whole world three times. A gigaton of TNT would probably be close to what Golarion experienced during Starfall. Maybe the strike could be named after Starfall to get away from the real-world references?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I confess to only being familiar with maybe 20% of what you listed, but I am not saying "take all the mad science away", I am saying "give at least one viable build that's about more serious and less slapstick science". Leonardo DaVinci is actually a good example here, if I could just play a character that can implement all of his drafts I would be pretty happy already without gigaton explosions being involved. The most powerful real-world explosion was 5% of that and destroyed everything within 50 miles, while the shockwave has circled around the whole world three times. A gigaton of TNT would probably be close to what Golarion experienced during Starfall. Maybe the strike could be named after Starfall to get away from the real-world references?
Examples that come to mind for inspiration include ...
I'm totally cool with incorporating a build like that for the class. After all, a more inclusive class that has a wider variety of playstyles can only be a good thing. I just don't want to lose my mad science, Sci-Fantasy -inspired stuff. Even for what I want, grounding it with a little, actual science is good; just don't kill the crazy! I want this class to have builds that say to me, "Science is fun, but Science with Crazy Cream, Techno-Babble Sprinkles, and a Mad Cherry on top is the best fun!"
The reason I like inventor of it's extra customization of things you normally cannot customize. As well as the extreme in combat versatility you can build for.
Then the occasional super moves is the cream on top.
Well, I confess to only being familiar with maybe 20% of what you listed, but I am not saying "take all the mad science away", I am saying "give at least one viable build that's about more serious and less slapstick science". Leonardo DaVinci is actually a good example here, if I could just play a character that can implement all of his drafts I would be pretty happy already without gigaton explosions being involved. The most powerful real-world explosion was 5% of that and destroyed everything within 50 miles, while the shockwave has circled around the whole world three times. A gigaton of TNT would probably be close to what Golarion experienced during Starfall. Maybe the strike could be named after Starfall to get away from the real-world references?
Examples that come to mind for inspiration include ...
I could be wrong but I don't think the Gigaton in lets say Gigaton strike, is meant to be an actual gigaton, it's a hyperbolic flashy title. I can see how that still can rub you the wrong way especially in a science themed class. It would be like assuming lightning snarees( from the ranger class) literally has you moving at the speed of lightning, when really lightning is what you mentally need to know to mean " really really fast." Gigaton here doesn't mean a literal gigaton of force it means, " really really strong." If you still don't like it, I think thats fair even if we disagree, but I figured I would point that out at least.
I won't get into into spells that utilize concepts that if we we're to take it 100% literally with our real world physics would be way more devastating, because those can be somewhat handwaves by magic.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"GIgaton Strike" is like "Ten Cranes Unfolding Waterfall Punch". It's an evocative name, rather than a literal one.
Well, we're going to have actual gunblades in the rulebook, it would need to measure up against that. Having the same damage die but unable to accept melee innovations (while a gunblade can) might work.
|
|
I just noticed as it came up. My construct companion can be frightened and demoralized! None of his immunities include "fear" and while he is a construct, I don't see any statement that he is mindless (in-fact there is a rudimentary intelligence mentioned).
I find the visual of this hilarious honestly. An inventor who must console his frightened little construct.
|
Well, we're going to have actual gunblades in the rulebook, it would need to measure up against that. Having the same damage die but unable to accept melee innovations (while a gunblade can) might work.That's fair. I'm spitballing but if it's covered by equipment already it's probably not worth an innovation spent... hmm...
I think my second one still works as an option though. ...wait, I'm just stepping on Gigaton Strike or whatever there aren't I?
I know this wasn't the intent of your post but something here sparked my brain and now it wants some means to use a dual Melee/Ranged weapon to Gigaton Strike an enemy back and then follow it up with a ranged shot at the now-pushed back opponent. I don't care how it happens, but this should absolutely be in there somehow.
I know this wasn't the intent of your post but something here sparked my brain and now it wants some means to use a dual Melee/Ranged weapon to Gigaton Strike an enemy back and then follow it up with a ranged shot at the now-pushed back opponent. I don't care how it happens, but this should absolutely be in there somehow.Well, we're going to have actual gunblades in the rulebook, it would need to measure up against that. Having the same damage die but unable to accept melee innovations (while a gunblade can) might work.That's fair. I'm spitballing but if it's covered by equipment already it's probably not worth an innovation spent... hmm...
I think my second one still works as an option though. ...wait, I'm just stepping on Gigaton Strike or whatever there aren't I?
Teraton strike!
If the target is successfully pushed back by your Gigaton strike, you can strike at that target with a ranged weapon as a free action. This ranged attack is made using your highest attack bonus.
Emphasis mine.
First edition wording. Nowadays I believe it would be "you don't take Multiple Attack Penalty on this Strike."
I've got a player looking at the Devastating Weaponry feat at 18, and they noticed that as written you can make the strikes with a ranged weapon that has reload above 0. We aren't sure if this is intentional since reload 1+ weapons are usually excluded from these kinds of feats, but its the inventor, so maybe its an intentional exception that you fire arm or crossbow doesn't need to be reloaded for this feature?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm personally seeing devastating weaponry as a sort of Yondu style area attack, where your melee weapon or arrow whips around and attacks everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if I should make a separate thread for this, but since the survey mentions a gadget pool ability, would it be possible to give us the gadget pool at level 1 as a class feature and making explode a feat?
Explode, albeit a really fun ability for melee inventors, isn't very good for ranged characters due to it's point blank range, and doesn't fit the flavor of every inventor, but I can't think of a single inventor concept that wouldn't benefit by having utility gadgets.
Having feats to expand how much gizmos you get, and broaden the effect of them I think would also be a great way of reconciling those of us who want to play utility/skill focused investigators (who would just spend feats to improve their gadget pool) and those of us who want to play iron man (who will sink those feats into the superscience weapons and such)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that Explosion isn't really there to fill any particular gap in ability; it is the default unstable action for all inventors.
Now, if you want to swap out Clockwork Celerity for Explosion, that might get more traction. I don't think it is far out of line with Ki Rush or Ki Strike, so it should be well enough as a general ability.
I like your pool idea, but I'd rather it swap out for Overdrive. It's useful, but kind of weird flavor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tbh clockwork celerity is a good pick for a universal unstable power, since it's effect is also really easy to work in flavor wise to any inventor
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, "My armor has an overclock mechanism where it lets me move faster, but it tends to overheat the servos, so I can't use it for long" is a lot easier to justify as something someone would build on purpose than "my armor can explode while I'm wearing it" which seems like a bug not a feature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, "My armor has an overclock mechanism where it lets me move faster, but it tends to overheat the servos, so I can't use it for long" is a lot easier to justify as something someone would build on purpose than "my armor can explode while I'm wearing it" which seems like a bug not a feature.
Yeah, an Unstable power unique to each innovation makes a lot more sense and will help to make each type of Inventor more distinct from one another. The Explosion might be best for the construct innovation, but only if you are not riding it, like a drone, or if you are immune to it (like if you were riding IN it and not ON it). The weapon innovation could possibly have something like a cone-shaped discharge for its Unstable power. Maybe the construct you are riding ON as a mount, could get celerity for its Unstable power, as well.
|
Yeah, "My armor has an overclock mechanism where it lets me move faster, but it tends to overheat the servos, so I can't use it for long" is a lot easier to justify as something someone would build on purpose than "my armor can explode while I'm wearing it" which seems like a bug not a feature.
For armour, it’s probably intended to be less “explode on cue” and more “vent all power”, which makes the armour harder to function until rerouted from backup, hence the unstable trait. But I agree a different default would be better.
I actually don't have a problem with explode flavor wise for any innovation route; in fact, 2 of the 3 theorycraft inventors I made; an inventor/wizard scholar of lost magical tech, and my inventor/barbarian numerian scavenger; both use explode as a mainstay attack (the wizard channels it through their staff as a pseudo magical spell, the barbarian just decided to weaponize the violent heat venting from his high tech armor, respectively)
That said, for my inventor/alchemist, who's innovation is an alchemical crossbow (I know it's uncommon, this build presumes I can either use a feat to get access or the DM just says I can use it), explode is a poor choice; she doesn't want to be anywhere near combat! Something like megaton strike would be a much better representation for putting in an extra explosive kick into her attack, or searing restoration to represent a more benevolent application for the reagents and elixirs she stores in her weapon.