| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi everyone!
I'm really excited to be your contact for the inventor class, the first brand-new class for Pathfinder 2nd edition. There's so much that I want to discover with you and discuss over the course of the next month, and I can't wait to see what innovations we can make together.
However, as we start, I'm going to need to give you a request: We've never really had two back-to-back books with playtests like this before and a lot is happening right now because of it. As a result, I need your help now more than ever to make sure I can keep up with all the great feedback you have. While the swashbuckler playtest I was able to read every post and follow every discussion here and even in some other places, for the summoner that wasn't the case. It was filled with gems of incredible feedback but buried in a few repetitive discussion topics. So I'd like to ask that we try to focus, like the inventor class itself, on new playtest experiences, analyses, reactions, and ideas, rather than get too distracted in lengthy debates with other playtesters or re-iterating a point we've already made in other threads. It can be very tempting to do so, but I guarantee you that I read and thoroughly digest playtest results and new analyses (if I can find them amidst the other posts) while I skip repeat posts, so if your intended audience is the designers, repeating your message is not helping your case. It might particularly seem challenging when a new playtester makes a point again that you've already seen before, perhaps in a new thread, to come back into that thread to reiterate your own opinion, and perhaps instead of doing so (in either support or disagreement), we can post a reply thanking the playtester and linking to the prior discussion in case they want to see some support or counterpoints there.
To help me find things, I'm also going to create a new thread for you to post links to new playtest posts or analyses, and I need your help to build it. If you see one, drop a link in that thread. I will be moderating out any post to that thread other than such links, so it can be a nice place for us all to check together to find something new.
I can't wait to work together with you to make the inventor even cooler. For science!
This is also the place for special announcements to look out for, so watch this space:
1) I'd like to avoid too much discussion on the fact that attempting to use an unstable innovation again with the fail chance is pretty much definitely not a good use of actions; that bit got mixed up a little along the way and is going to receive a new look no matter what, so you don't need to convince us.
2) Kickback Strike has a one-letter typo. The last sentence mentions each Strike but means each Stride (there is only one Strike).
3) A transformed construct in compact form can't act except to turn back to its normal form.
4) Something went wrong with explosion's damage scaling. Starting at level 3, it should do 1d6 damage per level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going to admit, I'm honestly a bit surprised you went the direction I was hoping for. The reason I felt so strongly there would be an Inventor class was all the hints dropped in LO books, but those also led me to believe it would be more like the alchemist and deal with consumables. There was even a specific character who's schtick was talismans.
As I've said in other threads, focusing on building permanent items makes a lot more sense as a counter to the alchemist, and opens up more possibilities down the road for, say, and inventor that focuses on a Staff or other suitable magic permanent item.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going to admit, I'm honestly a bit surprised you went the direction I was hoping for. The reason I felt so strongly there would be an Inventor class was all the hints dropped in LO books, but those also led me to believe it would be more like the alchemist and deal with consumables. There was even a specific character who's schtick was talismans.
As I've said in other threads, focusing on building permanent items makes a lot more sense as a counter to the alchemist, and opens up more possibilities down the road for, say, and inventor that focuses on a Staff or other suitable magic permanent item.
We are likely to include some feats to make consumables too but much lighter in mechanical scope than the expansiveness of the alchemist (which eats away at the alchemist's other features). You can even give your opinion on which way to go with that on the survey.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, you can be very assured I am not complaining about this choice.
Lunch break is over, but I look forward to taking a deeper look into this class and the gunslinger this evening.
And scratching two classes off my "should I homebrew them myself?" pile :P.
Edit: Though I'm tempted to try and homebrew an Aeon Stone innovation path just to kick the tires on the class's thematic limits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, you can be very assured I am not complaining about this choice.
Lunch break is over, but I look forward to taking a deeper look into this class and the gunslinger this evening.
And scratching two classes off my "should I homebrew them myself?" pile :P.
Edit: Though I'm tempted to try and homebrew an Aeon Stone innovation path just to kick the tires on the class's thematic limits.
I'd say do it but maybe still playtest with the main options to get a view of the class as-is. You might find something that isn't future-proofed during your homebrew. For instance, I think when we specified the innovation might be held, worn, or a minion, aeon stones work out because they do have Usage worn, but it could have been a miss if aeon stones had a different implementation.
|
Hi everyone!
I'm really excited to be your contact for the inventor class, the first brand-new class for Pathfinder 2nd edition. There's so much that I want to discover with you and discuss over the course of the next month, and I can't wait to see what innovations we can make together.
However, as we start, I'm going to need to give you a request: We've never really had two back-to-back books with playtests like this before and a lot is happening right now because of it. As a result, I need your help now more than ever to make sure I can keep up with all the great feedback you have. While the swashbuckler playtest I was able to read every post and follow every discussion here and even in some other places, for the summoner that wasn't the case. It was filled with gems of incredible feedback but buried in a few repetitive discussion topics. So I'd like to ask that we try to focus, like the inventor class itself, on new playtest experiences, analyses, reactions, and ideas, rather than get too distracted in lengthy debates with other playtesters or re-iterating a point we've already made in other threads. It can be very tempting to do so, but I guarantee you that I read and thoroughly digest playtest results and new analyses (if I can find them amidst the other posts) while I skip repeat posts, so if your intended audience is the designers, repeating your message is not helping your case. It might particularly seem challenging when a new playtester makes a point again that you've already seen before, perhaps in a new thread, to come back into that thread to reiterate your own opinion, and perhaps instead of doing so (in either support or disagreement), we can post a reply thanking the playtester and linking to the prior discussion in case they want to see some support or counterpoints there.
To help me find things, I'm also going to create a new thread for links to new playtest posts or analyses. If you see one, drop a link in that thread. I will be moderating out any post to that thread other than...
I wish you the very best, Mark. Thanks for all you give us.
I really am happy this class exists. This channels all the manic steampunk energy I could possibly want to include!
First curiosity is the hit dice. 8+con seems to be pretty light for a mostly martial class.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far looks really cool. After a once-over, my initial thoughts are:
- Takes waaaaay too long to get a Breakthrough. Easily could be level 5 to coincide with things like Rogue Sneak Attack damage boosts, 3rd-level spells, big proficiency boosts, etc. and then keep the cool things coming. I get that there are feats that fill in the other levels, but why am I waiting until level 9 to turn my super-specialized awesome armor into HEAVY armor?
- Explode is kind of weird as a basic class ability. It's also kind of difficult to picture in a narrative sense for a lot of the inventions a player could pick.
- Lack of an unarmed attack, "power armor" line of support from level one for the armor innovation seems like a miss.
- Curious lack of interaction with alchemical bombs. I get that they're for the Alchemist, and I think Alchemist should be the best with them, but it seems like there's a lot of opportunity to crossover a bit into combining alchemical items and inventions.
- Proficiencies are great. I really like that we're working with a base martial chassis. 10hp might be a better fit, with that in mind.
- More stuff like the Megavolt feat! That and Megaton Strike are really cool, and using the Unstable tag to put a bit of spicy danger into everything is rad.
- The constructs seem really solid. I like the options available, and the descriptions are great.
Excited to start rolling some test Inventors up. And Wayne Reynolds' illustrations are excellent.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the flavor of this class and the mechanics seem genuinely cool.
At first glance though I think it runs into the same problem as the playtest Investigator and in that Int doesn't seem all that important for an Int-primary class.
Int runs your class DC, your crafting checks and Overdrive, but there aren't a ton of things that force class DC checks (tamper is cool though), you don't NEED to make all that many crafting checks and Overdrive doesn't scale great.
On that last bit, a little worried about their combat potential between starting with a 16 in their offensive stat and their martial mechanic being a little bit on the weaker side.
my very initial impressions is that the Minion type Inventor (initially) gains "more" than the rest of them:
take as an example the initial discovery:
armor is basically breastplate (a few gp) + modification
weapon is basically a weapon (a few gp) + modification
minion is basically animal companion (a feat) + a modificationso, in effect, the other two paths trade a whole "class feat" for a few gold pieces.
Well, it's also the only Invention that desperately NEEDS 3 more feats to remain viable. That's quite an investment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
HOLY FREAKING NETHYS!
You can be IRONMAN!?!?
Well one of my players this weekend is already sold on that. Guess we will be playtesting!
Haha that's what most of the reviews of the 5e Artificer said. They couldn't have been more obvious about it. The Inventor here manages to have some distinct flavor though.HOLY FREAKING NETHYS!
You can be IRONMAN!?!?
Well one of my players this weekend is already sold on that. Guess we will be playtesting!
Yeah but Transform Armor and Megavolt are just so on point.
Heck, even the Diving Suit is pretty on point.
Honestly for someone who loved crafting customized weapons in 1E, so I am very curious about this class. I love all the customization and special moves it can do. I really want to mix it up with Magus and see how my sword-nerd goes !
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does an inventor's weapon need to look like what it's based on?
Like if I wanted my character to wield "a one-of-a-kind impossibly complex mechanical self-loading repeating crossbow" nothing in the class lets me reload the thing faster, so can I just base the thing on a weapon without a reload statistic?
Otherwise, I'd really appreciate something that lets me reload faster or lets me have a magazine for my reload weapon.
I feel like you can use the weapon option for the Inventor to make a surprisingly close Green Arrow with a few of his trick arrows as well!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh man, one group is doing it LIVE:
3 Inventors, one of each path.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thermal Insulation seems like a no brainer for low level Armor as you can ignore the fire damage to you when you crit fail tamper and overdrive.
Link? Link!?Oh man, one group is doing it LIVE:
3 Inventors, one of each path.
Oh apologies, my group is doing this. Doing it the weekend of the 17th :)
I might record it, but not sure I'd feel comfortable posting a recording lol. I'll document thoroughly though!
Mark if you can hear me, I want to try Captain America on the Inventor using Shield as Weapon and was wondering if "Complex Simplicity" might in the future be allowed for Shields (since they are 1d6). Pretty please :)
First thoughts upon a completed read-through:
(I’m aware Mark said this was already on the chopping block, but whatever) I feel like the flat check for unstable stuff should be scaling (no check the first time, DC 4 the second, DC 7 the next, etc.).
Explosive Leap: ACTUAL rocket jumping! Thumbs up!
Visual Fidelity seems way too powerful; it gives a mundane PC at level 6 what it takes casters two 5th level spell slots to do. I could see this being a feat chain, but this is a bit too much for a level 6 feat.
Diving Armor seems to come online a bit too early, especially given what it gives you. I would suggest making it a level 8 or 10 feat.
I’m wary of how Reconfigure works. It’s a single day to essentially change a class feature. I don’t know if it’s balanced, but it makes me scared of the super power-gamers.
why is it uncommon?
Because the kinds of technology that the inventor uses aren't well-known in every part of the world.
First page of the playtest document says:
Some regions in Golarion are familiar with clockwork but not gunpowder. The city of Absalom, naturally, has access to engineering techniques from across the world. Further to the north, the nation of New Thassilon has the combined clockwork knowledge of multiple historical eras. Near the border between Osirion and the Mwangi Expanse, the Uomoto people scavenge rare technological wonders from the ruins of the Shory Empire. Characters from these regions have access to the inventor class but not the gunslinger
So getting access to this class is as simple as "the GM says you can play a character from Absalom (etc.)" If a specific campaign is about "you are citizens of a specific place" then it's a matter of asking the GM about it, just like any other uncommon option you'd need at chargen (Are there Iruxi in Irrisen? I dunno, ask the GM!). Presumably since the Pathfinder Society is based in Absalom, the Inventor class will be an auto-unlock for PFS.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Explosive Leap is a really good level 1 feat. Jump is a powerful spell.
Searing Restoration is hilarious and completely cracked me up. Excellent job channeling the madness of a true inventor in the description.
Many thanks! I listed off some of my inventor flavor text at one point while chatting with Eleanor and she provided the name "No! No! I Created You!" which is the best feat name in the bunch imo, so that one was all her idea.
Wondering if there'll be some tweaks to support a Weapon inventor who doesn't put it all on one chassis but builds a bunch of lesser gadgets. ("Hm, pass me the grappling crossbow, would you? This is NOT a job for my cogspear....")
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Inventor feels very close to what I imagined if the Occultist dropped all its magic and used technology. It's got a very similar mechanical chassis and feels like it has a lot of gradual build up of permanent buffs and limited-use abilities that replicate some spell effects all while being a class based around a customized set of equipment. Not only that but it is also a class that seems that it can have much more build versatility than most classes so far.
Looking at the overall view of this class I'm getting a lot of vibes that make me recall the Tinkerer archetype of the 1e Alchemist, was that an inspiration at all for this class?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very much love the class. I'll list my initial likes and dislikes here.
- Likes -
Proficiencies are great how they are.
Overdrive as a mechanic (no pun intended) is actually super strong, potentially as good as rage early on.
Love the ease of reconfiguring, fits with the theme of the class and will make it super easy to keep your character exciting.
Offensive boost is so simple but so good, especially for triggering weaknesses.
Unstable I do really like. If it's made a little more stable that would be good, but you guys are already on that.
Built in tools is my kind of feat. Love anything that reduces bulk and builds things into other things is great.
Tamper is a great thing to do with a last action.
Transform armor and contruct are both great.
Dual form weapon is very cool, like maze core from starfinder.
Megavolt is awesome, far and away the best unstable quirk.
Devastating weaponry/engine of destruction are both perfect high level feats, any kind of whirlwind strike is the best.
- Dislikes -
Explode scaling is wierd, rather it did more damage then increased area.
I like most of the innovations, except armor. Almost all the feats are different options for damage reduction. I understand it's not meant to be an offensive option but I do wish it had cool things to do except hope you get hit with a certain type of damage.
Constructs scaling could be better, at least their attack - max of 30 is pretty abysmal at level 20. Even animal companions can have better if the right options are picked. Maybe a way of spending more feats to gain more stats, like how animal companions can have multiple specializations?
Special mention - I would really like it if the innovation picked automatically gained fundamental runes. It would make changing your innovation a lot easier as well (infinite invention). I would be okay with spending feats or modifications to do so. It would also make weapon and armor innovations more attractive as they would save the player a good amount of money.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was a bit of a hot topic during the Summoner playtest, but I have to say that the Inventor hits the perfect balance of mechanics and freedom of flavor for me. Like, there's plenty here to make what I want. I can make a robot frog companion that spits acid and still have it feel mechanically distinct without having a super complex system in place. All in all, after first impressions it feels the most complete out of any playtest class PF2 has seen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was a bit of a hot topic during the Summoner playtest, but I have to say that the Inventor hits the perfect balance of mechanics and freedom of flavor for me. Like, there's plenty here to make what I want. I can make a robot frog companion that spits acid and still have it feel mechanically distinct without having a super complex system in place. All in all, after first impressions it feels the most complete out of any playtest class PF2 has seen.
I'd argue Swashy was pretty good on release, but the expansiveness I totally agree.
The fact that we are going to actually try a group of all Inventors and none of us are going to feel "too similar" in that regard, is really cool.
An added bonus of the Inventor is that because they are INT based, we'll all be chock full of Skill differentiation too!
Yeah I think a lesson I've taken from the Alchemist and the Investigator is that you *need* the option for a combat key stat (Str or Dex), or else you need to go the Investigator route and let that key stat fill in when you meet a condition.
Not having their accuracy stat be their key class stat isn't really that much of a disadvantage. They're really only at a -1 to a barbarian for a bit over half the levels. It's not necessarily ideal but it won't break their accuracy in the same way that it does for alchemists or warpriests, since they also are stuck on a slower, expert-curved proficiency.
It does make the class a bit MAD, obviously. And frankly it means CON will be hard to keep at a solid value--which is why I've argued several places that they should have full martial health at 10+CON instead of 8+. I haven't playtested yet but I'm thinking for what are frankly largely melee martials they will feel a bit too squishy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not having their accuracy stat be their key class stat isn't really that much of a disadvantage.
Hard disagree.
It absolutely is because it forces them to make either their DEX or their STR their secondary max, which IMO, is a pretty heft ability score tax to place on the Class.
If it weren't for Crafting being so heavily integrated to the Class's features, INT would be possible to be dumped (and honestly, I haven't done the math, but I'd be curious when/if Assurance could alleviate this entirely).
It's not just a disadvantage in combat, it's a disadvantage that's easy for a new player to walk into unknowingly and it heavily stifles character concepts if you don't push one of those bad boys to 16.
Now that said, a Weapon Innovation Dual Weapon Rapier/Gun (or other ranged weapon) with DEX as secondary max is solid and probably doesn't need that much help.
Armor in particular is in a really weird spot IMO because it basically forces you to go secondary max STR and you have to use sudo-Breastplate.
It could use a little air to breath IMO
Also wondering, since we can get the diving armor at level 4, is there a reason why their is no climbing variant? Did it seem like it would become redundant due to Soaring Armor at 16 (hope that is not the reason, cause that is a long wait)
I'd say Explosive Leap fills this role.
|
|
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 :(