OR
Why don't they wipe the slate of any ability modifier to damage and just give a flat +4?
I mean, I'm all for this to be honest. The only thing ability to damage does in practice is skew early game combat so some classes are much better than others. However, implementing this is a much more radical jump than just "these classes depend on too many stats, let's give them a little bump by letting them use a different stat to damage", which was the OP was asking.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OR
Why don't they wipe the slate of any ability modifier to damage and just give a flat +4?
Because that would punish people who invest in strength for their characters? Like "I imagine this person to be strong" is not a far-fetched conception of a character.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because that would punish people who invest in strength for their characters? Like "I imagine this person to be strong" is not a far-fetched conception of a character.OR
Why don't they wipe the slate of any ability modifier to damage and just give a flat +4?
Oh, for clarity, I'm proposing home rule remedies. The game mechanics are what they are and very unlikely to change. Mostly because there's nothing wrong with them.
You know, 14 dex works great on a monk going into dragon disciple. You're a bit fragile from levels 1-3, but you have the same AC as max dex from levels 4-9, and they only maintain a 1 point advantage until the uppermost levels. That's probably the best way to do a dragon stance monk. And given the archetype has an Access and not Prerequisite, most GMs will probably let the dragon monk take dragon disciple.
Edit: As currently written, the mountain stance monk does it even better, but that's unintended and on the chopping block for errata.
|
You know, 14 dex works great on a monk going into dragon disciple. You're a bit fragile from levels 1-3, but you have the same AC as max dex from levels 4-9, and they only maintain a 1 point advantage until the uppermost levels. That's probably the best way to do a dragon stance monk. And given the archetype has an Access and not Prerequisite, most GMs will probably let the dragon monk take dragon disciple.
Edit: As currently written, the mountain stance monk does it even better, but that's unintended and on the chopping block for errata.
Drakeheart mutagen greatly helps.
Yeah, Drakehearts are great, but you need a source. If you have an alchemist in your party though...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH, I would rather remove the Thief Rogue from the game than extend Dex-To-Damage any further than it is.
Things like Precise strike, hunted target, or the inventor's overdrive ability are just more interesting than "you can use a different number in any context at all."
Having the Thief Rogue be the only person anywhere with dex-to-damage means it's conveniently easy to just excise the whole thing from the game.
Very much agreed. The fact that the Thief racket gets dex to damage at all instead of some other thematic benefit is frankly disappointing, and sets a poor precedent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about we change the static damage bonus of Precise Strike for the Swashbuckler to +3 and replace the Thief Rogue's dex to damage with a static +3 to damage? They could still add strength to damage, so there would still be encouragement to not completely ignore strength (which is my general goal) while still providing some bonus so that if you decide to ignore the stat it's not overly painful.
I mean obviously neither is ever likely to be official, but it'd be a reasonable house rule.
I agree that after thinking on it, I dislike the precedent that the thief rogue sets. Let's never have dex (or any other stat) to damage besides strength. And if you want to give the class/archetype some sort of increased damage give them a static damage bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH, I would rather remove the Thief Rogue from the game than extend Dex-To-Damage any further than it is.
Things like Precise strike, hunted target, or the inventor's overdrive ability are just more interesting than "you can use a different number in any context at all."
Having the Thief Rogue be the only person anywhere with dex-to-damage means it's conveniently easy to just excise the whole thing from the game.
Very much agreed. The fact that the Thief racket gets dex to damage at all instead of some other thematic benefit is frankly disappointing, and sets a poor precedent.
This was a lively conversation during the play test. A whole lot of people were pretty militant about needing some way for a rogue character to get Dex to damage. They ended up making it a racket to keep it narrowed down to just one class and not force everyone to play that way. Many of the developers did not want to introduce any attribute replacing damage alternative, but the surveys were pretty overwhelming about the rogue NEEDING it. The swashbuckler playtest did not receive anywhere near the same kind of push back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sure does feel like "do something with constitution" is a creative space that is very much unexplored. As it stands it's sort of a vestigial stat, since everybody takes it because it affects things that prevent you from dying (HP, Fort, Thirds/Starvation, and Drowning) but it rarely does anything else at all.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm not opposed to a Con based class, such a design space is a tight rope to walk.
Con is significant, if only because of how it ties in to HP. Because of how easy it is to have an AC on the higher end, HP is one of the only other major limiting factors in a combat. This relates to the critiques recently voiced about HP values being so high in 2e.
To be implemented well, I think it would require a similar design to the PF1 kineticist wherein using their abilities reduced their effective HP. Also it would possibly additionally require having wizard level proficiencies. And, at least a look at how damage reduction abilities would influence their power level. Maybe resulting in a halving of resistances they obtain or something.
EDIT:All of that said, it is possible to homerule the class ability boost at creation to be whatever you want.
This here is how I keep my ac up on my laughing shadow magus with a 14 dex. I'm level 7 in the current campaign and get a total of +7 to ac. Allows me the unarmored speed boost while keeping a good acDrakeheart mutagen greatly helps.You know, 14 dex works great on a monk going into dragon disciple. You're a bit fragile from levels 1-3, but you have the same AC as max dex from levels 4-9, and they only maintain a 1 point advantage until the uppermost levels. That's probably the best way to do a dragon stance monk. And given the archetype has an Access and not Prerequisite, most GMs will probably let the dragon monk take dragon disciple.
Edit: As currently written, the mountain stance monk does it even better, but that's unintended and on the chopping block for errata.
Genuine question - how easy is it to spend 12 gp and eventually 3000 gp on every single fight? Plus the 1-2 actions sacrificed at the beginning of a fight to consume. Granted once it's lasting an hour that's probably less important. Based on my experience that seems pretty rough but I've only been playing for a year and a half.
I assume alchemist dedication.Genuine question - how easy is it to spend 12 gp and eventually 3000 gp on every single fight? Plus the 1-2 actions sacrificed at the beginning of a fight to consume. Granted once it's lasting an hour that's probably less important. Based on my experience that seems pretty rough but I've only been playing for a year and a half.This here is how I keep my ac up on my laughing shadow magus with a 14 dex. I'm level 7 in the current campaign and get a total of +7 to ac. Allows me the unarmored speed boost while keeping a good acDrakeheart mutagen greatly helps.You know, 14 dex works great on a monk going into dragon disciple. You're a bit fragile from levels 1-3, but you have the same AC as max dex from levels 4-9, and they only maintain a 1 point advantage until the uppermost levels. That's probably the best way to do a dragon stance monk. And given the archetype has an Access and not Prerequisite, most GMs will probably let the dragon monk take dragon disciple.
Edit: As currently written, the mountain stance monk does it even better, but that's unintended and on the chopping block for errata.
That was my initial assumption but since I didn't see it mentioned I figured I'd ask.
You could make a Con-based class by making a submission hold-based class. They grapple and then start dealing damage based on their Con bonus. You could also add feats to let them make a Fort save when an opponent tries to escape the hold to give them a penalty on their escape attempt.
(I'm very wary of a class not being able to start at 18 for their accuracy stat, basically)
Investigator and Inventor seem fine here (the alchemist has problems though). I think the solution for the Kineticist specifically is allow them to devote resources (actions, etc.) to "aiming".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a fun defensive reaction to substitute a Fort save for a Reflex on damaging or movement-based effects would be a fun tool to play into the idea of somebody deciding to just tank through an effect without trying to just dodge it, making it a reaction that can keep it from being to abusable in most cases I think and it lends itself to the idea of a big tough guy simply soaking a spell or effect and wiping away ash/dirt/blood as a kind of badass move.
Just spitballing but I think the concept is neat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While they could have a different stat for the to-hit, it kinda goes against the game design when it comes to magic attacks. Also, as it has been pointed out, it causes a class to be MAD at its base, which I'd prefer were not the case.
MAD is not a problem if you can invest in many stats, which I believe the game does well.
If your class gets Evasion, then critically succeeding every DEX save is less important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The kineticist could also work with attacking grid intersections with emanations or lines or cones or whatever and having people in the target area making saves against the class DC (which would be con based).
If Kine's Blasts are spell attacks and not weapon attacks, then their theoretical casting stat Con would also effect to-hit, which would also make them less MAD since their KAS is also a save stat, thus alleviating some of the boosts to go elsewhere. Buuuuut this isn't one of the (MANY) Kineticist threads, so I'll leave it at that :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Kineticists has so much baggage and literally everyone has a different idea of how it should be made.
Everything from how they attack to how they enhance those attacks is controversial. Every single part of that class has something that is disliked by someone else. Paizo is good, but I 90% guarantee given the current classes and options that Kineticist would be a straight up failure of expectations and easily the most MAD class in game.
Current Paizo hates stat substitution, and I doubt they will ever allow Con to a casting stat without incredibly punishing mechanics. This is before even considering the action economy likely being horrible given current trends. Heck the Psychic from the playtest in theory was close to a Kineticist with their at will cantrips they could enhanced. But that class was straight up bad, and likely to stay bad post playtest.
So yeah, highly unlikely for the Kineticist to end up in a good spot stat wise.
That seems a little needlessly explosive. Also, given the record of classes before and after playtest, psychic is probably gonna be fine.
Hmm... one idea that comes to mind is a Con caster that has a low number of slots, but can spend HP as a resource to work around that in some way. Possibly to temporarily refill used slots (make slot refills last ~10 minutes, or perhaps an hour, so they can't be done too far in advance; make refilling slots usually cost 2-3 actions (or a minute), but provide a class feat that allows them to spend extra HP to reduce the action cost to 1), possibly to allow them to heighten a spell beyond the slot's actual level (HP cost should be high, with a limit on how many levels a slot can be heightened; maybe allow slots to be heightened by 3 levels maximum?), possibly just plain spend HP instead of slots to cast. HP spent in this manner cannot be healed during combat (and in the former case, cannot be healed while the slot is still refilled); I'm not sure whether they should only be able to heal spent HP during daily preparations, or whether that would be too punishing. [Note that even if used, this limitation would only apply to HP spent by class features; HP lost normally can be healed normally.]
This is, of course, an extremely rough idea, looking more at the basic concept than at numerical balance for the time being.
|
|
I don't really have an interest in seeing a Con caster aside from a kineticist. And, for that I'd give them a single, 1 action, attack roll based cantrip based on their element and utilize focus point costing abilities to augment the cantrip. They get a set amount of focus points but can spend their level in hp instead of a focus point. I'd probably make them an 8 HP class.
EDIT: Starting 2d4+mod, and scaling +1d4
While they could have a different stat for the to-hit, it kinda goes against the game design when it comes to magic attacks. Also, as it has been pointed out, it causes a class to be MAD at its base, which I'd prefer were not the case.MAD is not a problem if you can invest in many stats, which I believe the game does well.
If your class gets Evasion, then critically succeeding every DEX save is less important.
Unfortunately, with how enemy Save DCs progress compared to PCs, the bonuses to your Evasion/Juggernaut/Resolve saves are still important, since those classes are just likely to save (and not naturally critically save).
Really, the problem I have with MADness is that you are generally forced to "sacrifice" a saving throw value to be efficient with the multiple attributes you have to invest in to be sufficient with the class. Or, to sacrifice one aspect of being useful to the group. Some examples are the Magus and Investigator I'm making for my upcoming campaigns.
With the Magus, if I invest in Strength, my Intelligence gets tanked and my spell DCs, cantrip damage, and spell attack rolls (if I choose to use such spells) are wildly inefficient, plus I am far less likely to learn new spells via downtime, cutting back on something a Magus should be capable of. Conversely, if I invest in Dexterity, I also get no Strength bonus to my attacks, since I have to maintain Intelligence for Save DCs (and relevant skill checks), meaning I can do as little as 1 damage each attack (4 via Spellstrike), which might as well just have missed.
The Investigator isn't much different. An 18 Intelligence does mean that I don't lose accuracy via DAS, but the problem stems from having to either sacrifice AC and Saves for extra damage, because Strategic Strike is not enough of a damage boost to be on par with the heavy hitters, especially being limited to once per round compared to a Rogue that has no such limitations or action costs.
A sort of blood magic class might make sense for constitution as a KAS
This would have been (or could be) a very cool way to do Sorcerers. The problem is that they have always traditionally been Charisma casters, meaning even if it fits thematically, it's just not feasible to tradition.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A sort of blood magic class might make sense for constitution as a KASThis would have been (or could be) a very cool way to do Sorcerers. The problem is that they have always traditionally been Charisma casters, meaning even if it fits thematically, it's just not feasible to tradition.
A cool way to do that, though radical and probably a bit too gross for a full ACTUAL Class... the Bloatmage Prc is a 1st ed concept that already exists in the setting as a REAL thing that some Arcane Spellcasters do.
A few tweaks, leave them Arcane, make Con their Key Score, sprinkle in some customization based on the type of blood you specialize in, collect, create, or steal. Fleshing this out (not sorry) for a full level 20 Class would be a trip and I cannot fathom how amazing the eventual Iconic it would need would look in full coloor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol, the way you view this system seems so optimization focused that I'd say you are having less fun than you could.
It is because the math assumes this level of optimization, and dead PCs due to bad saves means you can't play the game anymore. (At least, the way you used to or want to.) It's no different than arguing that Striking weapons or Item bonuses aren't required to be viable.
The scaling of monster Save DCs to player saves (and vice-versa) are different than the scaling of monster AC to player to-hit, which means I can't have as much concessions to saves compared to to-hit. I'm not asking to do the most damage, I'm asking for classes that are forced to be MAD to have better support to be viable compared to less MAD classes. It's actually more conservative than others who are saying that not having an 18 in your primary attribute is not feasible.
Sorcerers are their own thing, what I'm talking about is literally using your blood to cast spells. You'd be sacrificing HP. Something anyone could learn, instead of having a special heritage like a sorcerer.A sort of blood magic class might make sense for constitution as a KASThis would have been (or could be) a very cool way to do Sorcerers. The problem is that they have always traditionally been Charisma casters, meaning even if it fits thematically, it's just not feasible to tradition.
I suppose. The thing was that Sorcerer blood was considered magical and is essentially the source of their power. That is literally the flavor they have given us twice. All I'm saying is that it was wasted potential to change the class into such a way while giving them unique identity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...you are aware that NPCs are constructed differently than PCs right?...
How does that change anything regarding how you need to build PC's (especially their saves) to avoid getting wrecked by the NPC casters with their enhanced casting ability?
Iirc, it was something like having perfect proficiency and an 18 in a stat will give you a 50/50 or 55/45 chance of succeeding on a save vs apl+0.
Essentially, much like AC, the idea isn't to pass/not get hit, it's to not get crit.
Iirc, it was something like having perfect proficiency and an 18 in a stat will give you a 50/50 or 55/45 chance of succeeding on a save vs apl+0.
Essentially, much like AC, the idea isn't to pass/not get hit, it's to not get crit.
Yeah, the difference between a 5% chance to eat a crit and a 0% chance is a big deal. This is especially true against level+2 and level+3 enemies where you can tank a hit and get healed but a crit could easily drop you and leave your team in a bad spot.
|
|
After checking the numbers and reading into people's responses now and some previous ones, I get the feeling that there is a discrepancy in statistical expectations.
From what I can tell a high end of 50/50 (success/fail) and a low end of 25/50/25(crit fail/fail/success) is the design for an at level enemy. Have I missed the mark here?