Unstable Redundancies considerations

[HumbleGamer]

It seems to me one of those "mandatory feats", no matter what your specialization or build.

Wouldn't be better for those kind of feats to be instead some baseline perk?

I know that a player might have different possibilities for its lvl 14 class feat, as:

- An archetype feat
- A low level class feat
- A dedication feat
- Another lvl 14 feat

but in my opinion, given what the feat gives and how enhances the inventor class, all the other possibilities outshine in terms of performance, versatility and efficiency.

Finally, given the current situation, this "seems to be" just an issue for the construct inventor ( which shares at the same level its final step to improve its construct ).

Unfortunately, in order to take either the improved construct and the unstable redundancies feat, he will eventually give up to:

- Soaring Armor
or
- You failed to account for... THIS!

Personally, this is enough to keep me from even considering the construct specialization, because even though its progression is really good, the trade off is insane in terms of gameplay, compared to the other 2 specializations.

[shroudb]

Soaring armor is only for armor specialization so the construct one can't even pick it.

and for the most part "you failed to account for this" is just a react for around +3-+4 AC (depending on level) vs 1 attack, so while it's good enough, it's not that vital to a build or a gamechanger. (it does have some upsides as not taking penalties to your AC from stuff like flat-footed, but you also do not get bonuses to your AC from stuff like buffs or shields)

to take into perspective, the level 1 rogue feat "nimble dodge" is almost identical to "fail to account for this" and is just 1-2 points behind it for being level 1 instead of level 16. (but it can also stack with other sources of bonuses to AC)

[HumbleGamer]

Good that I missed that Soaring armor was only for armor specialization.

That mostly solves what I thought was an issue.

I agree with you that "you failed to account for this" is not mandatory, but it's really good and may work perfectly on any secondary hit.

Also, even considering to take/use:

- the rogue dedication and the nimble dodge feat
- the fighter dedication and the reactive shield feat
- the raise shield action

The difference would be huge:

- more class feat required
- tied to a specific dedication
- less effective ( +3/4 vs +2 )
- unable to ignore the flat footed condition ( which may bring the difference even to +5/6 )
- no shield required ( being able to use a 2h weapon, since the feat does not even require a manipulate/interact action, nor a free hand )

But as agreed before, it's not mandatory at all.
I recognize that it's just me that consider it really good regardless the build.

[Verzen]

Speaking of unstable redundancies. I dislike that they all fall under one pool when used. It prevents me from wanting to use any unstable feats except for my favorite of the week one.

[pendothrax]

I believe that the limitation for unstable actions should be closer to an actual focus pool, so that using more than one unstable action in combat is available at a much lower level. I already have both explode and explosive leap at first level, and will be adding searing restoration at 2nd. And will be taking megavolt at sixth...