How are you defining variant? It is the draconic bloodline but only changes magic tradition?
Additional bloodline are exactly what I expect, as well as possibly a feat to pick up a focus spell from a different bloodline. I don't think any of that is counter to the design of the system.
As far as I know the Wyrm-Blessed bloodline has the same focus spells as the Draconic bloodline but is of a different tradition, yes. I think the tradition is a bigger part of a bloodline's power/balance than the focus spells in most cases, especially given how many feats key off of your tradition.
I'm pretty sure that "a feat to pick up a focus spell from a different bloodline" is exactly the sort of idea that wegrata was talking about, which is why I couldn't understand why you would have a problem with it from a balance standpoint.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I totally understand why it would be fun for players to be able to pick and choose every option that you get with your character, but it is also possible that things like sorcerer bloodlines, wizard schools, and druid orders are very much designed around all of the components you get them with together. If that is the case, making it too easy to just switch one element for another could make maintaining balance very difficult if the options become a total free for all.
It kind of seems like if first level focus power switching was going to be a game element, that would be something that needs to be available within the core of the game and not something that is going to be introduced in a later book, especially if it is not happening in Secrets of Magic. It seems like characters that want more flexibility with their focus spells are pretty strongly encouraged to do so by picking up an archetype that grants one.
If you are a demonic sorcerer desperate for a different focus power, you can have 1 by level 4, and a much more powerful one by level 6. PF2 is much more inclined to grant new options rather than swapping options. We see this with attributes to damage, focus spells and class abilities. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.
I mean, Bards already get to grab whatever muse options they want, and their focus powers are generally stronger than Sorcerers'. Druids and Clerics as well. Given that any non-Sorcerer class can grab literally any bloodline's initial Focus Spell with the archetype, I find it quite difficult to believe that a feat that gave Sorcerers the same option would destabilise the finely tuned balance of 2e. So since it is probably balanced (given no other class has had an issue with grabbing Sorc focus spells) and people pretty clearly would like some choice regarding the focus spell they're shackled with (because some people perceive some of them as garbage), I don't think your argument holds water.
I don't want the PF2 system to go as far as the PF1 system where is you had one tiny thing on your character that you couldn't swap out for a better option you felt suboptimal. I like that there are some limitations on abilities and certain combinations have limits. For all Mark went on about there being gazillions of combinations of feats there are some real limits in the game. It is required for balance clearly and it does add to the flavour.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers have a chassis that is not meant to be melee. They have full casting. THAT is what the class is built to do. If you want to DEVIATE from what the class chassis is built for, it will be an uphill battle.
But we're talking about an option attached to that chassis. Something that the sorcerer gets automatically as part of the bloodline.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, just because it's an option doesn't mean it has to be optimized.
This is an outdated idea for PF2. In a "Short&Wide" system like we have, optimisation comes through the diversity of applications, not functionality.
It's not like PF1 were being 5 behind someone wasn't a big deal. Small probability changes have huge impacts.
It's an option and you can build around. Building around it is a choice, like every other class if you want to be good something that your class normally isn't then you have to figure out a work around and what you are willing to give up.
Have you got some secret options the rest of us don't?
Casters aren't meant to be in melee
You should really tell that to Paizo, they keep making things that put casters in melee.
Also - as a general trend, I've noticed that this thread is swinging into a "martials = melee" theme. We all know this isn't the case and ranged martials are in a healthy place and have expanding option with guns coming out in a few months.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dragon claws are very thematic for their bloodline. Doesn't mean it was meant to be built around on the chassis it's on.
An thematic option that cannot be used well is THE example of "how to create a Negative Player Experience".
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo said they don't belong there with there d6 hp, lack of armor training and little to no weapon proficiency. That's why they don't belong in melee. Now can you? Sure, is it going to cost you because your class isn't meant to do that?
You've just listed the costs.
It's a high-risk situation with a much higher mortality rate, in addition to opening yourself up to every reaction that cares and introducing the chance of your abilities being interrupted.
Also, once again, there isn't much in the way of this "cost" with ranged martials.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could get behind sorcerers getting an option to trade out this bad (IMO) focus spells to choose another 1.
Being saddled to something that your character can make good use of is lame.
I'd still prefer to see the spells changed to add static attack modifiers that scale from level 1 to 20 (and damage) that would put them close (but behind) martial levels. It would be like a Battle Form- Spell (as opposed to Battle Form+ or even on the same level as Battle Form spells).
My preference is to make the focus spells something that a sorcerer would at least consider using in some situation from level 1 to 20. Currently using any of these melee focus spells is rather fruitless beyond level 5 unless you absolutely build your character around (and even then you lag behind).
And if you're going to do that, you might as well play a fighter who multi-classes with sorcerer and picks up that focus spell instead.
Which to me illustrates how bad this is, if the easiest solution to make the sorcerer class ability work is to play as a different class and poach it, to me that's an obvious problem.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both rogues and barbarians get feats that are pretty much designed around you being a multi class caster. It’s not that uncommon for there to be game options that synergize better out of class than in it. Dra conic claws grant resistance. You could never use the attack option and still make use of your focus spell, especially if you plan around it with your team. Resistance to fire is INCREDIBLY useful, especially at low levels, preventing on going damage. It there is a flame Oracle in your party and a champion of sarenrae, the three of you can stay close together and have a lot of fun. (Just don’t go all in on fire only. Have a counter ready to go for when you run into fire elementals).
The dra conic bloodline is very good. The dragon claws are excellent back up melee weapons for a sorcerer. Having a back up weapon doesn’t mean you need to rush forward into melee combat to use it.
This thread is all over the place because everyone seems to have different expectations and desires for what a class offers. Some people think it is totally unfair that druids HAVE to get shield block when they are stuck with wooden shields. Or that ranged fighters have to get armor proficiencies and shield block. All classes include features that are only going to be useful if you build around then, and no one character builds around all of them.
Draconic sorcerers get very powerful focus spell options later in, plus the most versatile spell list and great bonus spells. There level 1 focus spell is a little more situational. It doesn’t seem like a mistake. If their level one focus power was much better they would be making the rest of the arcane bloodlines look like a joke.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then why give them a melee ability if they are not meant to be in melee? So you see the contradiction?
I'm currently tempted to start a thread about how druids utterly suck because their shield block reaction is almost completely useless given that druids must use wooden shields. They're been given a defensive ability that they just aren't meant to use defensively.
To me, this argument about a single focus power for a single archetype of sorcerer is pretty much equally silly.
Yeah, some options are generally poor. This is true across just about all classes. In some cases they have situational uses and might be useful in particular campaigns or for specially built characters, in some cases they can easily be fixed with a little GM tweaking, in other cases they're just objectively poor choices.
Live with it. Its pretty much part of PF2 being a class based system. Things come in packages and you're not always going to like EVERYTHING in the package.
That said, PF2 is significantly LESS limiting than most class based systems.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters aren't meant to be in melee
That is an overstatement. Warpriests and Druids are viable melee characters right out of the box.
A plate wearing wizard/sorcerer/witch/etc is also viable, at least at low to medium levels (the highest I've seen one actually in action).
I think it IS fair to say that (currently) all casters are expected to not be ONLY melee characters. Their value to the group always includes using ranged attack spells, AoE and the ever important utility spells. If their ONLY contribution to the group (or even their MAIN contribution) is melee or ranged weapon damage then they're probably not pulling their weight.
The converse is also pretty much true of martials. A martial who has spent all their feats multiclassing into caster class(es) is still expected to have, as their PRIMARY contribution to the group, martial type effects (generally damage but sometimes things like damage mitigation, battlefield control, etc).
THAT is the fundamental design split of martials and casters. Casters primarily cast and sometimes do other stuff as a sideline. Martials primarily do martial stuff and sometimes cast spells as a sideline.
That may change with the Magus or Summoner but right now that is the split. And I think it is (generally) working very well. My rogue/wizard and my wizard/rogue will be reasonably balanced but will have notably different strengths and weaknesses and will contribute to the groups success in notably different ways.
|
|
I'd still prefer to see the spells changed to add static attack modifiers that scale from level 1 to 20 (and damage) that would put them close (but behind) martial levels. It would be like a Battle Form- Spell (as opposed to Battle Form+ or even on the same level as Battle Form spells).
This is too powerful.
Right now, the Battle Form spells have two main uses
1) Your character occasionally casts one of these. Often for the utility, sometimes for the sheer fun of going Raargh, sometimes as the actually most useful option (when fighting a golem, for instance). My cleric druid falls into this category. The battle form is a fairly small (although important) part of their inventory but isn't central to the character.
2) The character is largely built around wild shape. Either a druid spending at least 1/2 their feats on wild shape, or a martial dipping into druid.
Even the first character has spent more resources than a single focus spell (my cleric, for example, has spent 2 feats and has gained druids Anathema).
The second character has spent WAY more resources than a single focus spell (at least 1/2 their feats in the case of the druid, several feats together with bumping wisdom and gaining Anathema for the martial).
Given their higher investment they need to gain considerably more than a focus spell.
And currently what they gain is about right (in my opinion, obviously). Arguably as a martial they gain too much (I personally think so) IF the most martial favourable rules interpretations about how wild shape works are taken.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, if a 1-action focus spell that gives you a martial-tier weapon plus an auto-heightening version of a 2nd-level spell is a trap, I don't want your definition of a good spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd still prefer to see the spells changed to add static attack modifiers that scale from level 1 to 20 (and damage) that would put them close (but behind) martial levels. It would be like a Battle Form- Spell (as opposed to Battle Form+ or even on the same level as Battle Form spells).
This is too powerful.
Right now, the Battle Form spells have two main uses
1) Your character occasionally casts one of these. Often for the utility, sometimes for the sheer fun of going Raargh, sometimes as the actually most useful option (when fighting a golem, for instance). My cleric druid falls into this category. The battle form is a fairly small (although important) part of their inventory but isn't central to the character.2) The character is largely built around wild shape. Either a druid spending at least 1/2 their feats on wild shape, or a martial dipping into druid.
Even the first character has spent more resources than a single focus spell (my cleric, for example, has spent 2 feats and has gained druids Anathema).
The second character has spent WAY more resources than a single focus spell (at least 1/2 their feats in the case of the druid, several feats together with bumping wisdom and gaining Anathema for the martial).
Given their higher investment they need to gain considerably more than a focus spell.
And currently what they gain is about right (in my opinion, obviously). Arguably as a martial they gain too much (I personally think so) IF the most martial favourable rules interpretations about how wild shape works are taken.
The druid that spends their class feats on wildshape isn't really any better off stat wise than anyone else.
The class feats expand what options they to transform into with their focus spell and also to affect duration. That's basically it.
The difference between something being central to a character and something not being central in this system is usually about how versatile that option becomes.
Changing glutton jaw, eldritch nail, or dragon claws to provide scaling attack and damage (depending on spell level) that would put them behind martials wouldn't be a problem. They haven't really gained anything in versatility expect the ability to actually use the focus spell. And battle form spells are typically on par with martials, so if these theoretical changes happened they would still be behind actual battle forms and martials.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should really tell that to Paizo, they keep making things that put casters in melee.
If they didn't, the low caster HP wouldn't much matter, would it?
They need to reign in the sniper casters a bit, lest they never ever have a chance of getting hurt.
I should know. I've played a lot of long-range casters in my day. Rarely took any damage compared to the other members of the party.
Its also the definition of a trap option.Dragon claws are very thematic for their bloodline. Doesn't mean it was meant to be built around on the chassis it's on.An thematic option that cannot be used well is THE example of "how to create a Negative Player Experience".
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well this is disingenuous. People have plenty talked about how wooden shields don't keep up because of their HP and Hardness. Go look at any of the shield threads complaining about sturdy shield being almost mandatory.
Sure. I know that it is very well known how useless shield block is for a druid. My point is that one crappy class feature on a class hardly makes the class bad. Just like losing a first level focus power is hardly all that big a deal
.
an option that is outright suicidal.
Now you're grossly overstating things. I've seen 6 hit point casters in melee quite a few times and they never died (they sometimes went unconscious but never died). In fact, they work quite well if
1) They only do it occassionally when the situation warrants it (eg, bravely go forward when the rogue desperately needs a flanking buddy or when you're hoping to draw some fire) OR2) They are specifically built for it (very often with a champion dedication so they get armor, hit points and a useful reaction all by level 6)
It IS a bad idea to just take a focus spell and assume that you're now melee capable. But then, its a bad idea to just take a monk archetype and assume that you're now melee capable. Or, heck, be a fighter and assume that alone is sufficient. The game assumes that you'll look at your strengths and weaknesses and take options to capitalize on the former and compensate for the latter.
To continue with my druid example, if you decide to be a Leaf Order druid you get a healing spell and a familiar. To effectively be a healer OR to effectively use that familiar you need to do more than that.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its also the definition of a trap option.Dragon claws are very thematic for their bloodline. Doesn't mean it was meant to be built around on the chassis it's on.An thematic option that cannot be used well is THE example of "how to create a Negative Player Experience".
Dragon claws are not an option they are a feature of a specific class option.
The draconic bloodline is very much not a trap. It offers a whole lot to players and is probably the most common sorcerer I see in games.
Using dragon claws gives you a +1 AC, resistance to a specific damage type, and gives you a strong finesse melee weapon. Thinking that getting a melee weapon means the expectation is that you rush forward into melee to prioritize using that weapon over using spells, and leave yourself exposed to attacks is a bad tactical choice, but one that might be easy for new players to fall into. It turns out it is a bad tactical choice for many martial classes too though, and many newer players have to learn it by experience.
Dragon claws is not a bad focus spell on an option that is generally pretty strong. It is not a strong candidate for "Needs Errata."
As a player, learning when it will be useful to spend an action to activate your claws in advance will take time, but don't underestimate the fact that it gives you a +1 bonus to your AC that stacks with a shield spell and also provides resistance to an energy type on the turn you activate it. Then you have the claws out if you need them or an opportunity presents itself for you to take advantage of.
IF you are a GM and you have players choosing to be dragon sorcerers and feeling like their choice is not working out for them, you have a lot of options to help them beyond demanding an errata to the game system. It does what it is intended to do. If you GM a player of a dragon sorcerer, consider making enemies try to spend actions closing in on the sorcerer to create more opportunities for your player to have cause to use the power. Also, consider adding more enemies that use damage types that the dragon sorcerer can resist, so activating the focus power is worthwhile on its own. Responding to your players build choices as a GM helps them feel like they are the heroes of the story.
The demonic bloodline has many more problems than the draconic bloodline, especially for good characters. It is much more of an NPC bloodline than a PC bloodline. Personally, I think that is ok. You can build into it, and some players thumbing through the bloodlines might be overly attracted to both the narrative cool factor of glutton jaws and the surface level mechanical benefit of getting a D8 melee weapon that grants temp HP, but your bloodline magic, your spell list, and your bonus spells are much more complicated to make work to support you, but the narrative of the ability does suggest "Not Good" pressing on downright "Evil" and evil options don't really need to easy for players to build a character around.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if people would have a problem with Dragon Claws if it was called Dragon Resilience instead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if people would have a problem with Dragon Claws if it was called Dragon Resilience instead.
I would care a lot less, I guess.
If it was a focus spell exclusively to give you scaling energy resistance to whatever dragon type you chose for your draconic bloodline.
But I would expect it to offer a bit more resistance in that case.
But it's almost like someone wrote dragon claws, and realized if you didn't add the energy resistance part on it, it was pretty bad!
So they prettied it up a bit, but now the energy resistance part of is more attractive than what the ability was originally intended to be.
At least that's my take.
Also I think some people are really over valuing it.
Having energy resistance is awesome, but really depends on how often you encounter that energy type. Which can be very inconsistent and campaign dependent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its also the definition of a trap option.Dragon claws are very thematic for their bloodline. Doesn't mean it was meant to be built around on the chassis it's on.An thematic option that cannot be used well is THE example of "how to create a Negative Player Experience".Dragon claws are not an option they are a feature of a specific class option.
The draconic bloodline is very much not a trap. It offers a whole lot to players and is probably the most common sorcerer I see in games.
Using dragon claws gives you a +1 AC, resistance to a specific damage type, and gives you a strong finesse melee weapon. Thinking that getting a melee weapon means the expectation is that you rush forward into melee to prioritize using that weapon over using spells, and leave yourself exposed to attacks is a bad tactical choice, but one that might be easy for new players to fall into. It turns out it is a bad tactical choice for many martial classes too though, and many newer players have to learn it by experience.
Dragon claws is not a bad focus spell on an option that is generally pretty strong. It is not a strong candidate for "Needs Errata."
As a player, learning when it will be useful to spend an action to activate your claws in advance will take time, but don't underestimate the fact that it gives you a +1 bonus to your AC that stacks with a shield spell and also provides resistance to an energy type on the turn you activate it. Then you have the claws out if you need them or an opportunity presents itself for you to take advantage of.
IF you are a GM and you have players choosing to be dragon sorcerers and feeling like their choice is not working out for them, you have a lot of options to help them beyond demanding an errata to the game system. It does what it is intended to do. If you GM a player of a dragon sorcerer, consider making enemies try to spend actions closing in on the sorcerer to create more opportunities...
I see PF2 has evolved from trap options to trap features. Yikes. At least you can do something about the former, such as not take it whatsoever. The latter you are stuck with, and are rightly and truly screwed forever, barring GM FIAT.
The fact I need GM FIAT to fix the problem means Paizo has failed to deliver on this ability. A basic ability that ceases relevance by 5th level is just plain bad design.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see PF2 has evolved from trap options to trap features. Yikes. At least you can do something about the former, such as not take it whatsoever. The latter you are stuck with, and are rightly and truly screwed forever, barring GM FIAT.
This is an incredibly hyperbolic post, but I am sympathetic to the reality that some people really don’t like that PF2 doesn’t allow you to just pick and choose every element you get at every level like PF1 did. But I also saw how badly the theoretical freedom went in making a system that completely fell apart at high level and was easier to build a bad character than a good.
Draconic sorcerers are very good. I believe this because lots of players choosing it and having fun playing it. Hyperbolic language declaring that a character is useless because their focus spell is situational does not make your argument or request appear to be well reasoned or helpful to the conversation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A basic ability that ceases relevance by 5th level is just plain bad design.That certainly is true.
Now actually demonstrate how this specific ability genuinely does "cease relevance" instead of this being a case of "I don't think it's good, so they should make me think it's good it even if it is actually working well and as intended but just isn't my particular preference"?
Plus, even if it falls behind in use compared to other focus spells, it's still an option at your disposal, which is kind of foundational to the PF2 design. You can't always use everything, but expanding your toolkit always has value, even before accounting for roleplay and GM dependent uses for the ability.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, even if it falls behind in use compared to other focus spells, it's still an option at your disposal, which is kind of foundational to the PF2 design. You can't always use everything, but expanding your toolkit always has value, even before accounting for roleplay and GM dependent uses for the ability.
I mean, the tempest and wild druids at my tables use their focus spells almost every single fight. So does the elemental sorcerer I have in another game. Our champion will spam his focus spell during downtime. So I can't really agree that it's 'foundational' for someone to just pretend their focus spells don't exist most of the time.
A lot of focus spells are highly usable and functional... and then there are some that are obviously more problematic and flawed.
I don't really buy the spin that that's somehow good for the game or that people who want as much functionality out of their demonic sorcerer's focus spell as they would out of another bloodline are bad people who want to ruin Pathfinder as some in this thread have suggested either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see PF2 has evolved from trap options to trap features. Yikes. At least you can do something about the former, such as not take it whatsoever. The latter you are stuck with, and are rightly and truly screwed forever, barring GM FIAT.
This is an incredibly hyperbolic post, but I am sympathetic to the reality that some people really don’t like that PF2 doesn’t allow you to just pick and choose every element you get at every level like PF1 did. But I also saw how badly the theoretical freedom went in making a system that completely fell apart at high level and was easier to build a bad character than a good.
Draconic sorcerers are very good. I believe this because lots of players choosing it and having fun playing it. Hyperbolic language declaring that a character is useless because their focus spell is situational does not make your argument or request appear to be well reasoned or helpful to the conversation.
I don't mind that some things can't just be cherry-picked. Fighters being Legendary in Weapons, Rogues getting 6 Legendary skills, etc. are all fine and dandy, because those are objectively valuable and desirable by anyone, and limiting them to certain classes making them their special niche is precisely what creates class identity. And they don't get a choice.
Trap options are just that: Options which happen to be traps. Taking a feat that seems good on its face, but isn't actually, is precisely what a trap option is. And they can be avoided, or even fixed (via Retraining) later down the road.
But Dragon Claws cannot be avoided or fixed without removing the other aspects that make the original choice "good". They are, objectively speaking, not an option, but a feature. That you're stuck with from Level 1 to Level 20, no exchanges, nothing, and by Level 5+, its effectiveness becomes miniscule at best. Compared to an Elemental Sorcerer's Elemental Toss, or a Storm Druid's Tempest Surge, two very strong, powerful, and flavorful abilities, Dragon Claws is just...bad. And just like Elemental Toss or Tempest Surge, there's nothing you can do with it. That's what makes it a trap feature, not a trap option.
"But Draconic Sorcerers get other cool things too!" Like what? A breath? It's powerful, but Elemental Sorcerers have their spells for this very same situation, and Elemental Toss, a powerful, 1 action single target damage spell, combined with their superior Blood Magic effect, and Dangerous Sorcery, makes them the pinnacle blaster. They also didn't have to wait until level 6 or 8 to do this. Did I also mention they get Healing spells, something that Draconic Sorcerers don't get? There isn't much a Draconic Sorcerer gets in comparison that an Elemental Sorcerer doesn't already get or have better than.
But surely, growing Wings and flying is awesome, right? It is. Whereas Elemental Sorcerers can utilize their Focus points for burrow speeds, crazy fly speeds, etc. at the same time Draconic Sorcerers can breathe fire. Super weak and lame by comparison, since Elemental Sorcerers with that power can still do their main schtick of casting spells at a much safer location or distance, or more proactive manner (since it's almost always going to be faster than their normal movement). Doing it all, again, as early as 6th or 8th level. Well before their Dragon Wings come into play.
I want to like Draconic Sorcerers. Really, I do. Dragon Disciples in PF1 and 3.X were cool things to build towards and make work. And I have definitely tried in this edition to make a Sorcerer utilizing Draconic Bloodline stuff via Dragon Disciple dedication. But PF2 has basically given them the axe in what makes them cool and effective, for the sake of balance. Whereas Elemental Bloodline, which was pretty mediocre in PF1, is now one of the absolutely strongest bloodlines in the game, due to its amazing focus spells, spell list selection, and customization.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A basic ability that ceases relevance by 5th level is just plain bad design.That certainly is true.
Now actually demonstrate how this specific ability genuinely does "cease relevance" instead of this being a case of "I don't think it's good, so they should make me think it's good it even if it is actually working well and as intended but just isn't my particular preference"?
It's already been demonstrated previously in the thread, if you've bothered to read it. Asking me to rehash the argument isn't very productive.
I will say that if you think a granted focus ability shouldn't be any good past 5th level or so, then by all means, go ahead and say it's working as intended. But plenty of other abilities demonstrate the contrary, leading me to believe it works otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trap options are just that: Options which happen to be traps. Taking a feat that seems good on its face, but isn't actually, is precisely what a trap option is. And they can be avoided, or even fixed (via Retraining) later down the road.
But Dragon Claws cannot be avoided or fixed without removing the other aspects that make the original choice "good". They are, objectively speaking, not an option, but a feature. That you're stuck with from Level 1 to Level 20, no exchanges, nothing, and by Level 5+, its effectiveness becomes miniscule at best. Compared to an Elemental Sorcerer's Elemental Toss, or a Storm Druid's Tempest Surge, two very strong, powerful,...
Yes there are some abilities that you get as part of a package that you aren't going to use much.
Yes Paizo have built many archetypes, classes, feats. A fair portion of them are very ordinary to bad.
You are just complaining because your glass is half empty. Its not its half full.
Yes the Draconic powers needs more work. Most of it is very flat and not worth paying feats for . The DCs are too low on several powers. The things that work well are flight and Dragon Form (as much as any Battle From works well) and in some circumstances Dragon Scales.
More options would be good. It is still not good enough yet.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dragon Claws are still good past level 5. The problem is that it's not good in the way people want it to be. It's a one-action defensive spell with a shiny dagger you're free to use if you want. Most people don't want a shiny dagger on top of a defense boost when they see Dragon Claws, they want to tear into their opponents like a gatdang dragon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think while yes Dragon Claws is a one action resist energy, it is a very particular energy that is resisted that is not flexible day-to-day or cast-to-cast. It's certainly not as versatile as an actual spell - which justifies the one action cost. Yes there are situations where the energy resistance is great. And yes you can make the claws work as a melee weapon when multiclassing or emergency Strike. But people want their focus spell to be something they can reliably cast every encounter if they have refocused, and Dragon Claws is not that without a very particular build.
I don't think the spell is terrible or even bad. But I do think that is worth highlighting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious - if dragon claws was a 1-action focus spell that said "make a melee spell attack roll, damage is 1d6+1d6 of the dragon type, increasing each level", how would people feel about it?
I know most people would be happy with any change to Glutton's Jaw, but that's because it's a full Str requirement thing on a casting class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel I should clarify something. I feel looking at a spell called Dragon Claws and expecting to be able to tear into people like a gatdang dragon with it is not an unreasonable expectation.
Now what qualifies as that is subjective but I feel d4 + d6 with sorcerer weapon profs isn't gonna cut it. Cyouni's 2d6 on sorcerer spellcasting profs sounds better, especially since it gets more d6s faster. I don't think people would mind only getting one attack from it either, though I'm not the most offense oriented person so I might be off the mark.