I figured the boards are slow enough now and we're close enough to the end of the playtest that we could maybe get some more discussion going. My initial impressions have definitely changed, partially through discussion from others. So what do people think of the following frequently brought up discussions?
Proficiencies
Not too much discussion here, though I have seen some say that the armorer innovation at least should have heavy armor proficiency right off the bat. I personally don't feel strongly about this.
Key ability score
Definitely some divided opinions on how much that extra point of strength matters, and if it would be okay to have an unintelligent inventor. Personally think it might be kind of cool to be able to choose between the two, like how some classes can choose between strength and dex, etc.
Skills
Some posters have pointed out that an inventor that doesn't invest in crafting is making a really bad decision and should maybe automatically improve over time. While I agree that would be good, it may be stepping on toes of other skill classes. On the other hand, I don't think many other classes have so many features tied to a skill. Tough one.
Unstable
This one has been a huge topic of discussion, buuut personally think it should be flat out ignored since it sounds like it's going to be super different in the final version. I feel its best to leave this topic alone.
Armor innovation
Probably the topic most discussed. Some have said a lot of the options are too similar and would like some more variety in its modifications. I agree that would be nice, but again stepping on the toes of other innovations (especially weapon) might be an issue. I'm sure we'll get more options in the final version regardless, so this might just fix itself, but all for more cool stuff!
Construct innovation
Two main issues with this guy - healing and low stats. A lot of the actual play write ups have said it's hard to keep alive, and I could definitely see that being an issue. Lower stats than an animal companion is another thing that's been brought up, but it seems like it's mainly an issue in later levels which haven't been playtested much. I'm all for being able to spend extra feats to make it slightly stronger, like how a druid or beastmaster or cavalier can specialize their companion multiple times. One thing no one seemed to complain about were the actual modifications for the construct, which is awesome after the crazy discussions in the summoner playtest!
Weapon innovation
Seemingly the most well liked option, a lot of posters had a good time with this one. Lack of ranged weapon options and some modifications that are too similar (multiple modular options for example) are the only things I remember that have been brought up.
Overdrive
One of the few things almost everyone can agree on, overdrive is great early, but as the game gets to higher level its not worth using for the action.
Feats
A pretty huge topic, but as this is basically a summary, I will summarize the main feats that people have brought up.
- Tamper is cool on paper, but in practice there are too many weaponless/armorless foes for it to be worth it.
- Overdrive ally/Shared overdrive/ubiquitous overdrive are problematic just because of how strong overdrive is in general.
- A lot of talk on the unstable feats, but again I'm going to mostly ignore them.
And that's about it! Pretty concise playtest I think, very solid job by the devs. My own personal wish is that innovations get a sort of automatic bonus progression, half to make a magicless character but also to make it a lot easier to change up your innovation without the headache of transferring runes. I'm very much looking forward to the full class, or even just the playtest roundup blog post!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as Unstable goes, I actually liked the mechanic in theory, or at least the version of it Mark describes, where you still get to do the thing, THEN the bad stuff happens. But I still would prefer Clockwork Celerity to be the default unstable action instead of explosion. Not only does it fit more character concepts, but then you get to rename the level 20 feat from "Full Automation" to "Finally Stable: You clockwork celerity action no longer has the unstable trait."
Honestly I kind of think that is how that particular feat should be written anyways. That way when they inevitable add new innovations, they can merely add new parts to the clockwork celerity feat, instead of adding it to both that feat and Full Automation. As is, they'd need to add new feats at both levels for new innovations. Which seems annoying as the game goes forward.
-
Overdrive I already mentioned my thoughts on a different thread, but I think by 20 you really need to be able to normally crit on that check, so I think you should get 1 degree of success higher. Perhaps at level 17, or even level 9 if that's where the math works.
I would have preferred a more support oriented class, built around shared overdrive and shared innovations, and said so in my survey. I don't hate this martial version, but I was honestly expecting something more like the alchemist in proficiencies.
I have changed my mind on a small pool of trinkets/talismans though. I would rather that be an optional thing, unless the shared overdrive ties into that (which it sounds like I could going by the descriptions).
I found the construct companion a lot easier to keep at full house than an animal companion, myself. Repairs go much more quickly than treating wounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I found the construct companion a lot easier to keep at full house than an animal companion, myself. Repairs go much more quickly than treating wounds.
Yeah, quick repair makes healing the construct ridiculously fast. I wish it followed the normal dying rules though, so persistent damage and ongoing damage didn't destroy it so easily though
Imo it's the accuracy that the construct really needs work on. Animal companions get away with this because they have support abilities that are still really helpful that don't use it's stats;constructs only have attacking options, so they need to be able to hit consistently
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A "Lock On" action the inventor could take to improve the construct's accuracy would be interesting to see. Otherwise it takes a lot of flat-footed and Demoralize to feel like hits are landing.
A lock on function tied to the constructs actions would be really cool.
I'd also like to see a feat that lets you pilot your construct, which could let you user your own proficiencies and the like, too