| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After reading Overdrive, I had a thought.
Since Unstable is in such a rough place right now and INT as a Primary is struggling so much, I got to thinking that maybe adding a Crafting DC akin to Overdrive as a mechanic for Unstable might be able to address the Proficiency issue (INT not being addressed but required as Primary) and the Unstable mechanic.
Unstable changed:
Unstable actions rely on experimental functions of your innovation that even you can’t fully predict. After an unstable action is used on an innovation, using another one is dangerous. If you attempt to use another unstable action on it, you must attempt a hard DC of your level with the following outcomes:
Critical Success You successfully execute the Unstable action with no consequences
Success As Critical Success, but you increase the Crafting DC for actions with the Unstable trait by 5
Failure You complete the action but take your level in fire damage and cannot attempt any further actions with the Unstable trait.
An innovation’s creator can spend 10 minutes retuning their innovation and making adjustments to return it to functionality, making it safe to use an unstable ability on that innovation again and returning the Crafting DC to use an Unstable action back to the original Crafting DC.
To use an unstable action, you must be using your innovation (for example, wearing an armor innovation or wielding a weapon innovation). If you have a minion innovation, some unstable actions are taken by the minion instead of you. In these cases, only the minion can take that action—you can’t—and the minion needs to have been Commanded that turn to take the action.
Then you change Overdrive to read:
You gadgets whir with overwhelming power. Whenever you successfully use an action with the Unstable trait, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your Strikes and they deal additional damage equal to your Intelligence modifier until the end of your next turn.
This would do a few things (In my mind):
1. Now that Unstable is on the table more often, it prompts playstyles that revolve around using Unstable actions, which is thematic (using Explosive Leap and then punching someone sounds pretty on point). And unstable actions, while good, are not altogether broken to the point IMO. Using them two times in an encounter isn't earth shattering, and 3 times in an encounter (while rare) would be possible with this setup (which I think is okay in the right circumstances).
2. With Crafting DC being factored into Unstable, there is HIGH incentive to go INT now because INT gives you more reliability on your best types of actions and your damage access in Overdrive.
3. Overdrive's mechanic is good in theory, but it's basically flat damage and doesn't solve the to hit problem. You can't just give it to hit, because it's already decent as a damage booster and the buff lasts too long (plus INT to hit is already done). It's also a bit disconnected from the rest of the Class, like an action-tax Rage that's not altogether needed for other things (no Overdrive feats really).
4. Overdrive, the idea of "pushing your innovations past their limits" and tethering that to Unstable actions (by definition dangerous moves/unstable) makes a lot of thematic sense. You're rewarding people using Unstable actions with benefits (almost like an action triggered "rage" of sorts).
__________________________
It was just an idea I had, that maybe bring Overdrive and the Unstable trait together under Crafting DC as a governing mechanic can foster the choice of INT in an organic way as well as encourage Inventors to be using their Unstable actions more often.
Since we already know Unstable is changing, I figured I'd see how this one "tastes" to some people.
Will get to play more inventors tomorrow, so maybe I'll have more insights/thoughts then (heck maybe I'll dislike this tomorrow), but I like how the above isn't just "Give them INT to hit" while also greatly incentivizing INT as a class Primary and binding together some stuff.
Happy Gaming!
I do like the idea, though I would surprised if this level of rewrite is on the table. Conceptually, however, it looks pretty cool.
In a way, I can see how it might require a little more tuning than just the above, but we already know Unstable is going to change as it's currently written.
I guess my question becomes: "Is a Flat check the right way to handle Unstable when INT not being a huge part of the Class is already a problem?"
Overdrive as written is where the influence of INT is rolled in to the Class but its kinda meh to me (and seems really disconnected) and isn't that much of an incentive on its own.
I figured instead of separating Overdrive into its own action, it could benefit as an Inventor ability that operates as a function of Unstable itself (which the name even sort of implies).
You would maybe have to tune some of the Class Feats, but it doesn't seem too far outside the realm (at least maybe not as written, but similar).
I hear ya though.
It would probably need to tune the unstable actions for that, because right now a lot of them have power similar to spells, and are balanced with 1 use per battle.
Explosion with Mark explanation is 1d6 per lvl, that is basically 2d6/spell level that is the same as spells per example. And Megavolt is only 1d12 behind max lvl lightning bolt.
It would probably need to tune the unstable actions for that, because right now a lot of them have power similar to spells, and are balanced with 1 use per battle.
Explosion with Mark explanation is 1d6 per lvl, that is basically 2d6/spell level that is the same as spells per example. And Megavolt is only 1d12 behind max lvl lightning bolt.
To be fair, Mark has already stated that Unstable actions are likely to be allowed to succeed two times per combat already, with a "penalty" (presumably damage) after so you don't lose the action.
If we look at Hard DC:
At level 1, the DC is 17 Crafting check, which means an Inventor at level 1 with Max INT and crafting has a 50 chance to succeed.
Then, a third attempt would be at a 25% chance of success (or another 50% chance if they critically succeeded the first check).
But if we adjust to a Very Hard DC, the check goes to DC 20 Crafting Check:
At level 1, Inventor has a 35% chance to succeed on the second check if they maxed INT. That's only 15% better than the Flat check right now (which Mark has said is too punishing).
Then a second attempt after a success on the first goes to a 10% chance to succeed (technically this is lower percent chance of success than it is with the DC 17 Flat check).
This is a lot closer to fair where the current Unstable traits land (and incentivizes maxing Crafting and INT to keep up with DC rates).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A penalty, but he also said that the first draft was that you could not use unstable actions for the rest of the day after that.
So the penalty if it have will be at least harsh enough that people will think well before using twice (like breaking the innovation).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for int being more useful to the class. But crafting already gets enough checks baked in, we don't need everything to be a crafting check.
The proposed change there is exactly the same number of Craft checks. Overdrive already exists, we're simply attaching the benefits of Overdrive to the userof Unstable actions.
B) Lower the DC of the flat check, and/or make it an int check
Uh.. yeah. I obviously agree.
he key thing to consider with this of course is the power level of unstable actions. Megavolt and Explode are strong. That damage scaling is on par with highest-slot blasting spells. Just getting one use per fight is probably fair.
One, the above proposal with a Very Hard DC is actually about a net-even in terms of total Unstable actions per encounter.
Two, Explode is nothing compared to Focus point spells. Tempest Surge has a 30ft range (about even with a 5ft emanation you can't ignore allies IMO) that deals 1d12 damage with Clumsy 2 and Persistent Electricity damage on failure. That's the same average damage but it also applies a penalty and Persistent damage on failure.
And it gets worse as it goes, at level 7, Tempest Surge deals 4d12, Clumsy 2 and 4 persistent compared to just 4d6 Fire damage. Even when the emanation increases, I would rather have Tempest Surge.
Megavolt, a level 6 Class Feat, does 3d12 damage at the time you gain it... the same damage as Tempest Surge (a level 1 Class Feat) but again, no penalty for Clumsey or Persistent.
Now hey, it's a line, so if you have more than one enemy and a Stride to set it up, you can likely get 2 targets, but I'd consider losing out on Clumsy 2 (-2 to AC) and Persistent damage about a net even. Though it is at least the ONE actual Unstable action that's at least close to a Focus spell. It however, IMO, is not better than one.
So accounting for that difference is another concern, I suppose.
While Unstable and Focus Points obviously have parallels, there are some major differences that make Unstable worse:
1. There are no mid-combat recharge mechanics for Unstable and Focus have several ways to gain this.
2. There is no scaling pool of "Unstable usage" that you get like Focus points do when you gain additional Focus points. At level 2 Human Witch I can have 3 Focus points and a familiar recharge point. That's 4 potential Focus spells in a single combat, a threshhold which Unstable cannot dream of attaining, even with the proposed changed.
So if you want to make the comparison of Unstable being Focus spells, which they aren't even close to as powerful at the moment, we also have to consider there's really no support for getting Unstable multiple times in a combat at all. and Focus points absolutely do.
And it gets worse as it goes, at level 7, Tempest Surge deals 4d12, Clumsy 2 and 4 persistent compared to just 4d6 Fire damage. Even when the emanation increases, I would rather have Tempest Surge.FYI, Explode would be doing 7d6 at that level, per Mark's stickied post at the top of the forum.
That makes more sense but the damage once again is even with Tempest Surge and then still loses the failure battle.
Where was the sticky?
Basically, what I'm trying to point out is even if the Unstable actions and Focus actions were roughly equivalent, Focus points are rechargeable in combat, can stack up to 3 times, eventually support getting multiple recharges at mid level, and you can get a good chunk more out of them earlier.
It doesn't matter if I have Exploding Leap and Explode, if I use either, I can't use the other in the same combat right now. That's distinctly different from Focus spells/actions which allow one of each or two of either.
If they are going to be as infrequent as "once per combat or else you lose them for the day" and not simply damage penalties with a lock out of that encounter (which is what it sounded more like was being said to me), then they need to be a lot better IMO.
EDIT: And I would say Unstable actions on average are definitely worse. Searing when compared to Lay on Hands comes out behind on versatility and raw output. Exploding Leap is pretty mild as a once per encounter ability.
It feels like the expectation is "twice per encounter, but that comes with risk", because the power level as they currently stand is on-point if that is the actual expectation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And it gets worse as it goes, at level 7, Tempest Surge deals 4d12, Clumsy 2 and 4 persistent compared to just 4d6 Fire damage. Even when the emanation increases, I would rather have Tempest Surge.FYI, Explode would be doing 7d6 at that level, per Mark's stickied post at the top of the forum.That makes more sense but the damage once again is even with Tempest Surge and then still loses the failure battle.
Where was the sticky?
You can find it right here.
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.
|
I have an idea for a catch-all feat/ability for this
Gadge (Gizmo/doodad): Free action. You've cafted a so many little devices, you have one for all situations. once per minute, when attempting a skill check, you can perform a crafting check against a normal class DC (If the check requires trained or better, the Crafting check is against a hard DC, if it requires master, make this against a very hard DC) If you pass the DC, you may attempt the check, substituting your Intelligence modifier for the ability modifier normally used for this check.
I have an idea for a catch-all feat/ability for this
Gadge (Gizmo/doodad): Free action. You've cafted a so many little devices, you have one for all situations. once per minute, when attempting a skill check, you can perform a crafting check against a normal class DC (If the check requires trained or better, the Crafting check is against a hard DC, if it requires master, make this against a very hard DC) If you pass the DC, you may attempt the check, substituting your Intelligence modifier for the ability modifier normally used for this check.
Think you might be looking for a different thread, not sure how this would apply considering the current check is a Flat check.
I know they were talking gadgets of some kind in the main inventor thread, assuming this is for that.