Welcome to the Inventor Class Playtest!

[Midnightoker]

Schreckstoff wrote:

true but at only a 25% failure rate

Uh... it's a 20% success rate, not a failure rate.

[Schreckstoff]

Midnightoker wrote:

Schreckstoff wrote:

true but at only a 25% failure rate

Uh... it's a 20% success rate, not a failure rate.

well there goes that plan back to wondering how good a glaive with trip is

[CrimsonKnight]

The class especially the armor inventor seems weird to me. Forcing Players to maximize Strength and likely Intelligence really takes away a lot of options.
personally I can't think of a super muscular inventor in history or fiction especially around the time of the renaissance (the approximate time pathfinder is set in) through modern.
When I think of an inventor my mind jumps to Leonardo da Vinci,
Johannes Gutenberg, Michael Faraday, Nikola Tesla, Thomas Alva Edison or fictional ones like Mei Hatsume, Adelheid von Schugel, MacGyver, Hiro Takachiho. They are not exactly Strength 16+.
I figure the point of the inventor is to use engineering/machines (Intelligence) to overcome the body's limits.
Strength 16+ at level one almost forces the character into a melee role. because Strength will most likely be the main attack stat.

most classes can focus on keeping WIS, DEX, CON growing along with a preferred stat such as CHR for sorcerers. With two stats that are not part of the WIS, DEX, CON trinity reduces the defensive capability of the class

idea:

improved engineering Feat 1
<INVENTOR> <MODIFICATION>
<armor> <weapon>
substitute Intelligence for Strength when using the invention this includes attack, damage, and Strength requirements.
fluff text. regardless if it is pullies, gears, motors, hydraulics, clockwork, exotic muscle fibers, or technological/magical means your inventor not only figured out how to allow the invention to support itself but to also amplify the limited body of the inventor

[Alchemic_Genius]

CrimsonKnight wrote:

The class especially the armor inventor seems weird to me. Forcing Players to maximize Strength and likely Intelligence really takes away a lot of options.

I'm not really seeing how the inventor forces you into a str build though. My playtest group has 3 inventors, and only one went the str/int route; the other two are dex/int and use guns. Even with the armor one, you don't HAVE to max out str, the 16 is only needed to offset the armor check penalties.

Now, I do think the armor innovation should function similar to the weapon one, where you just choose a suit of level 0 armor to be your cool, high tech armor, just to make it easier to make ranged armor users, and to open up cool concepts like some high tech cyber soldier with special stealth armor or whatevs. You don't really need to make a new stat substitution feat, and imo, feat taxing dex builds is a bit of a feelbad anyways, and not a great solution

[Dubious Scholar]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

CrimsonKnight wrote:

The class especially the armor inventor seems weird to me. Forcing Players to maximize Strength and likely Intelligence really takes away a lot of options.

I'm not really seeing how the inventor forces you into a str build though. My playtest group has 3 inventors, and only one went the str/int route; the other two are dex/int and use guns. Even with the armor one, you don't HAVE to max out str, the 16 is only needed to offset the armor check penalties.

Now, I do think the armor innovation should function similar to the weapon one, where you just choose a suit of level 0 armor to be your cool, high tech armor, just to make it easier to make ranged armor users, and to open up cool concepts like some high tech cyber soldier with special stealth armor or whatevs. You don't really need to make a new stat substitution feat, and imo, feat taxing dex builds is a bit of a feelbad anyways, and not a great solution

Should note that weapon innovation isn't picking a weapon, it's picking a weapon's stats. This leaves the aesthetics of the weapon up to the player (within reason). Presumably the implication is you started with that and tinkered it into something entirely new. But as written...

[Invictus Novo]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

CrimsonKnight wrote:

The class especially the armor inventor seems weird to me. Forcing Players to maximize Strength and likely Intelligence really takes away a lot of options.

I'm not really seeing how the inventor forces you into a str build though. My playtest group has 3 inventors, and only one went the str/int route; the other two are dex/int and use guns. Even with the armor one, you don't HAVE to max out str, the 16 is only needed to offset the armor check penalties.

Now, I do think the armor innovation should function similar to the weapon one, where you just choose a suit of level 0 armor to be your cool, high tech armor, just to make it easier to make ranged armor users, and to open up cool concepts like some high tech cyber soldier with special stealth armor or whatevs. You don't really need to make a new stat substitution feat, and imo, feat taxing dex builds is a bit of a feelbad anyways, and not a great solution

Should note that weapon innovation isn't picking a weapon, it's picking a weapon's stats. This leaves the aesthetics of the weapon up to the player (within reason). Presumably the implication is you started with that and tinkered it into something entirely new. But as written...

While I agree in theory with everything your saying and would love for the Armor innovation to work similarly to the Weapon innovation, there aren't nearly enough armor traits for that to work. Now if you're just saying that we should be able to choose any armor as a base, then yes, that would be good.

That said, I think the point that was being made is that, unless you are going with a ranged weapon, Inventors seem to be pushed very hard to max STR which feels off. I prefer to think of the inventor as somebody who can stand up with the martials, not because he's worked out her/his muscles, but because he/she works smarter rather than harder.

Also, working around the Armor Check Penalty is not a solution, it's just a band-aid fix.

[Midnightoker]

Yeah, honestly resistance being your only choice is a huge letdown.

Why not an armor that has camouflage? Why not one with springloaded jumping? Why not one with saw-gauntlets? Spikes?

Now one could argue those are feats, but it would be really cool if the type of armor you picked (light, medium, heavy, maybe even none) had options you could pick in the same vein as how Weapons work.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

Yep, there have been plenty of posts detailing Armor abilities that aren’t just resistances.

[Ashanderai]

Yeah, I think armor innovations would do well to have expanded mobility, utility, and sensory abilities, as well as some counter-attack/active defense options.

[Verzen]

Personally, for armor inventor, there should just be ONE option - Pick two resistances from this list. Gain 2+half level to resist it.

That saves a lot of space for a lot of COOLER options like everyone is talking about.

[Verzen]

CrimsonKnight wrote:

The class especially the armor inventor seems weird to me. Forcing Players to maximize Strength and likely Intelligence really takes away a lot of options.

personally I can't think of a super muscular inventor in history or fiction especially around the time of the renaissance (the approximate time pathfinder is set in) through modern.
When I think of an inventor my mind jumps to Leonardo da Vinci,
Johannes Gutenberg, Michael Faraday, Nikola Tesla, Thomas Alva Edison or fictional ones like Mei Hatsume, Adelheid von Schugel, MacGyver, Hiro Takachiho. They are not exactly Strength 16+.
I figure the point of the inventor is to use engineering/machines (Intelligence) to overcome the body's limits.
Strength 16+ at level one almost forces the character into a melee role. because Strength will most likely be the main attack stat.

most classes can focus on keeping WIS, DEX, CON growing along with a preferred stat such as CHR for sorcerers. With two stats that are not part of the WIS, DEX, CON trinity reduces the defensive capability of the class

idea:

improved engineering Feat 1
<INVENTOR> <MODIFICATION>
<armor> <weapon>
substitute Intelligence for Strength when using the invention this includes attack, damage, and Strength requirements.
fluff text. regardless if it is pullies, gears, motors, hydraulics, clockwork, exotic muscle fibers, or technological/magical means your inventor not only figured out how to allow the invention to support itself but to also amplify the limited body of the inventor

I am also bothered by this, tbh. I think that we should be able to use intelligence, instead of strength, for things like an increase in attack/damage simply because inventors aren't usually strong people. They can pack a punch by creating a hydraulic hammer or some such that replaces the need for strength and I honestly think this is the route Mark should take with this.

Think of it this way..

https://www.cnet.com/news/guardian-xo-a-powered-exoskeleton-that-makes-you- 20-times-stronger/

If I am weak, I should still be able to use my machines to pack a punch even if I am swinging it or hitting with it. Intelligence and con should be our only real needed stat for combat.

One of the other issues is martial characters just need strength and con as a secondary and dex as a tertiary.

The inventor needs strength as a primary, int/con/dex as a tie for secondary stats. They are far far more MAD than fighters, barbarians, or rangers are.

[Midnightoker]

Verzen wrote:

Personally, for armor inventor, there should just be ONE option - Pick two resistances from this list. Gain 2+half level to resist it.

That saves a lot of space for a lot of COOLER options like everyone is talking about.

Bonus points if you put the more common kinds (fire, cold, lightning, etc.) in one category (main resistance) and then a secondary resist (force, negative, sonic, etc.) option in another and let each scale but the latter slower. Would help deal with the most common resistances being more valuable to select, and the lesser common resistances being too high on the numbers side while still allowing both to be valuable.

[Dubious Scholar]

Midnightoker wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Personally, for armor inventor, there should just be ONE option - Pick two resistances from this list. Gain 2+half level to resist it.

That saves a lot of space for a lot of COOLER options like everyone is talking about.

Bonus points if you put the more common kinds (fire, cold, lightning, etc.) in one category (main resistance) and then a secondary resist (force, negative, sonic, etc.) option in another and let each scale but the latter slower. Would help deal with the most common resistances being more valuable to select, and the lesser common resistances being too high on the numbers side while still allowing both to be valuable.

I've been wondering though if the rarity of some damage types is inherently balancing. Fire resist is great because fire damage is common to run into. Sonic resist is valuable because it's hard to resist it, but it's also rare to encounter it.

[Midnightoker]

You could leave them alone, but allowing like cold and fire at the same time probably shouldn’t be a thing.

Then again idk, depending on if they change configurations so you can change them more often, then it probably wouldn’t matter all too much what the rarity is if you can prepare.

[Alchemic_Genius]

Midnightoker wrote:

You could leave them alone, but allowing like cold and fire at the same time probably shouldn’t be a thing

Many insulators that resist one resist the other irl. A heat/cold resistance combo makes a lot of sense from a material science and engineering standpoint.

[Verzen]

Midnightoker wrote:

You could leave them alone, but allowing like cold and fire at the same time probably shouldn’t be a thing.

Then again idk, depending on if they change configurations so you can change them more often, then it probably wouldn’t matter all too much what the rarity is if you can prepare.

Agreed. Cold/fire is way too powerful and will be selected almost every time. I like your idea of having a main energy (fire/cold/electricity) mixed with a less common energy resistance (negative/sonic/force etc)

[Verzen]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

You could leave them alone, but allowing like cold and fire at the same time probably shouldn’t be a thing

Many insulators that resist one resist the other irl. A heat/cold resistance combo makes a lot of sense from a material science and engineering standpoint.

But NOT a balance standpoint.

[Alchemic_Genius]

How does it not make sense from a balance standpoint? It might be a go-to type combo if you aren't for sure going up against, but thats kinda like saying piercing resistance is too strong for ranged characters because they get better bullet resistance, and most damage they have to worry about is piercing and spells. If the fire/cold combo is too OP, your problem almost certainly lies in running tons of enemies that use that type and not mixing it up, rather that the resistances themselves being overpowered

[Squiggit]

Worth noting for the people talking about cold/fire being OP if you could just pick any two you want that cold/fire is already an armor innovation option.

[PossibleCabbage]

My thermos keeps cold things cold and hot things hot. So resisting cold and fire at the same time makes sense to me.

[Verzen]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

How does it not make sense from a balance standpoint? It might be a go-to type combo if you aren't for sure going up against, but thats kinda like saying piercing resistance is too strong for ranged characters because they get better bullet resistance, and most damage they have to worry about is piercing and spells. If the fire/cold combo is too OP, your problem almost certainly lies in running tons of enemies that use that type and not mixing it up, rather that the resistances themselves being overpowered

It's just basic statistics. You're far more likely to run into fire/cold than literally any other energy type.

[Verzen]

And because of that over abundance of fire dmg and cold dmg, it's clearly the best choice literally every time. I prefer the sonic/force option myself but only because of the novelty of it and I am fully aware that the amount of sonic/force effects I encounter will not be nearly as much as fire/cold.

[Alchemic_Genius]

You're only more likely to run into if you mostly use monsters that use it.

Saying, idk, 80% of the sources of elemental damage crops up, is fire or cold (just, for the sake of argument, not an actual number) is not actually an indication if how often you'll encounter it. If you're running an undead themed campaign, theres a good chance you'll actually see more negative energy and evil damage than you would fire or cold (though both damage types are present on some undead stat blocks). If the big bad is a black dragon, they will probably be flinging acid far more often than either element, adventures near the Eye of Abendago would rarely feature fire damage; the most common elements would be electric, cold, and sonic.

If you're in a monster of the day kinda game, then sure, but in many games, theres going to be some kind of theme, and in any and all cases where the inventor has some indication of what they'll face, the best choice is not fire/cold, but the two most dangerous types for their specific situation.

Furthermore, disallowing probably the single most easily justified combo of resistances not only breaks immersion, it peels away customization options in the name of fixing balance issues, which, for the reasons above, don't actually exist

[Midnightoker]

Squiggit wrote:

Worth noting for the people talking about cold/fire being OP if you could just pick any two you want that cold/fire is already an armor innovation option.

Considering it was stated it will not be that way on launch, I think that more speaks to the point than it doesn't.

Alchemical_Genius wrote:

You're only more likely to run into if you mostly use monsters that use it.

Which are the most common damage types monsters deal besides physical (you could maybe argue Acid/Lighting are about even and Negative is more common than force).

If the damage types are already balanced around their commonality (higher resistance is more valuabel resistance), then maybe it's fine.

But they are the most common spell damages, the most common item damages, the most common rune damage, etc.

If we're going to debate that Fire/Cold the commonality of Fire/Cold vs. Sonic/Acid/Force, then let's just not go down that route. We won't agree. Fire is the most common damage in the game by a good measure (especially for an Inventor who does this damage to themselves on some abilities), and I'd put Cold at a close second.

This "pick two" scenario is a hypothetical, I was only pointing out that it would likely have to be balanced because they already stated the Fire+Cold was unlikely to remain an option (likely due to commonality).

[Alchemic_Genius]

The point you try to make is refuted by the post that you quoted. Fire and cold are not always the safest bets. Just because a lot of monsters run fire and cold damage doesn't mean they are your most likely encounters. If I'm in a swamp filled with shock lizards, will o wisps, restless dead, and ruled by a black dragon, the resistances that are most likely to be relevant arent fire and cold.

The inventor can retain their breakthroughs in a day, part of the class is rekitting yourself to tackle challenges. I actually favor a "pick any two" because it actively rewards players for doing their homework, and saying "these two types, and only these two types can't ever be paired" is at best silly and arbitrary, and at worst, immersion breaking because of how insulation works

[Midnightoker]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

The point you try to make is refuted by the post that you quoted. Fire and cold are not always the safest bets. Just because a lot of monsters run fire and cold damage doesn't mean they are your most likely encounters. If I'm in a swamp filled with shock lizards, will o wisps, restless dead, and ruled by a black dragon, the

You and I have different definitions of "refuted".

Arguing that you may never face fire/cold damage does not change the fact that it is the most common damage type for more than just creatures you face. The creatures being more common.

Alchemist Fire, Inventor critical failures on Overdrive, Flaming Runes, Fire damage in general from burning buildings, etc.

If we're going to be all up in arms because IRL insulation is both heat and cold resistant, then I would remind you we're playing a game that is primarily concerned with balance and not representing 100% IRL things.

If it's changeable with daily preparation, then it probably doesn't matter because one could consider whatever type they wanted for the current day, but if there's any amount of "barrier to change" (such as the current state of things), Fire/Cold is objectively the best default choice period. It's not really debatable because you are guaranteed to deal with Fire damage as an Inventor.

[Alchemic_Genius]

Inventor having a safe pick that will generally always help is a feature, not a bug. Why would you want a primary class feature not be useful?

And while I'm not really one to harp on my game being realistic, breaks in reality generally should serve to the benefit of the story. "I can draw runes in the air to make flame shoot from my hand" or "my somehow not magic using chemist can resuscitate the dead with an elixir I mad in literally 2 seconds" are acceptable breaks because they are cool and fun; my iron man suit which can both fly and dive can only protect me from the cold of the ocean depths OR the heat coming from the volcanic vent at the bottom of the ocean depths because bestiary 1 and 2 have asymetrical element distribution" is neither cool nor conducive to telling a good story.

I'd also like to point out the inventor only has 8 class hp, but is expected to carry a martial role. It's resistances *should* proc often

[Tea4Goblins]

Midnightoker wrote:

Puna'chong wrote:

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.

This wouldn't be a bad idea if you decided the form that your explosion took at level 1 and stayed that way from then on.

[Mark Seifter]

As I mentioned in the main thread, thanks to everyone for participating in the playtest. You've been productive and focused, with lots of good insights that will help us dramatically moving forward!

I'm really excited about some of the new ideas for inventor based on your feedback. Thank you so much!

[Gaulin]

Were we going to get a summary of dev thoughts about the playtest, in a blog or the like?

[Mark Seifter]

Just like for SoM, we will, but don't expect it for a bit. We need to finish off the playtest, close the surveys, analyze the data, make decisions, write a blog, and then put the blog through a process that has a surprising number of extra steps beyond writing it. But all that starts next week!

[Gaulin]

Sounds good! Thank you for all you guys do!