I'm considering giving PF2 another go with some recent inspiration I had for a character.
I'm wanting to build an Inventor with a prosthetic hand (saved by clockwork background?), who a happens to brew beer (this is just the craft skill though), has the searing restoration feat (so I can say things like "this wont kill you! but it will have a tiny explosion to help you feel better, so it may sting"). I'm also considering being human with unconventional weapon for gnome flickmace weapon shenanigans because zany weapon innovation feels appropriate (but I'm not set on it). I'm also pretty set on this character having an eastern European kind of accent. I'd also like the weapon innovation to come out of the prosthesis but I'm not sure if that explicitly doable or even worth it to spend feats on.
I'm going for zany crazy inventor/drunk vibe and want to see what I can do to make it mechanically viable. I'm not terribly familiar with the specifics of this class but the imagery I have in my head make me want to build it out.
Sounds like you've got a cool concept! Automatons have a 5th level integrated weapon feat, and Inventors have a 7th level innovation that lets you integrate your weapon into a gauntlet. There might be other options too, but prosthetics are split between two books which makes them harder to clock for me.
Check out the sterling dynamo archetype and see if it sparks your interest.
Sterling Dynamo fits the imagery, but I think it's redundant if I go with Inventor class and Saved By Clockwork background. Of course that would let me go with a different class...but then I wouldn't have quite the same crazy inventor vibe.
It seems redundant to me in this case, but can totally see it for someone that isn't an Inventor.
The only thing it does explicitly is integrate the weapon mechanically to be part of your prosthetic, but I don't see it playing well with the weapon innovation from Inventor. Unless I'm missing something.
Inventor forbids advanced weapons from being used for weapon innovation. It's a common joke that the inventor can't invent already existing weapons.
Your innovation is an impossible-looking weapon augmented by numerous unusual mechanisms. It begins with the same statistics as a level 0 common simple or martial weapon of your choice, or another level 0 simple or martial weapon to which you have access. You can instead use the statistics of a 1st-level common simple or martial weapon of your choice, or another 1st-level simple or martial weapon to which you have access, but you must pay the monetary Price for the weapon.
You can tell by how they emphasize "simple or martial" that they really didn't want people using the flickmace for this. Unconventional weaponry doesn't let it count as martial for purposes other than proficiency either.
Inventor forbids advanced weapons from being used for weapon innovation. It's a common joke that the inventor can't invent already existing weapons.
Your innovation is an impossible-looking weapon augmented by numerous unusual mechanisms. It begins with the same statistics as a level 0 common simple or martial weapon of your choice, or another level 0 simple or martial weapon to which you have access. You can instead use the statistics of a 1st-level common simple or martial weapon of your choice, or another 1st-level simple or martial weapon to which you have access, but you must pay the monetary Price for the weapon.You can tell by how they emphasize "simple or martial" that they really didn't want people using the flickmace for this. Unconventional weaponry doesn't let it count as martial for purposes other than proficiency either.
Ah, I hadn't even noticed that! I thought the flickmace would be a funny weapon (as well as mechanically advantageous) to over tune using weapon innovations.
In thinking about the build, I am looking at using tamper though, so a reach weapon may ultimately not be beneficial because I wont have reach.
Currently I'm looking at potentially using a warhammer with dynamic weighting or maybe a maul. I like that hammer/flail critical specialization.
So now that Human is less pertinent for Unconventional Weaponry (Gnome Flickmace) and because it works with the concept, I'm looking at an automaton with integrated weaponry. It drops the prosthetic aspect, but I'm going to pretend that I was human an accident resulted in my teacher attaching my soul into this Automaton body. I know that technically automaton are more magic based than clockwork based, but I don't think we have a clockwork specific race (do we?).
The brewing aspect of the character (which is small) is going to pull inspiration from Futurama's bender. Where alcohol will power me! So the drunk, surly, vibe is still vibing!
So now that Human is less pertinent for Unconventional Weaponry (Gnome Flickmace) and because it works with the concept, I'm looking at an automaton with integrated weaponry. It drops the prosthetic aspect, but I'm going to pretend that I was human an accident resulted in my teacher attaching my soul into this Automaton body. I know that technically automaton are more magic based than clockwork based, but I don't think we have a clockwork specific race (do we?).
The brewing aspect of the character (which is small) is going to pull inspiration from Futurama's bender. Where alcohol will power me! So the drunk, surly, vibe is still vibing!
Your options for construct-people (or at least construct-like-people) are Androud, Automata, Conrasu, and Poppet. (There are no versatile heritages.) Of those, Automata are probably the closest to what you're looking for. I would suggest talking it out with your GM, and (if they're amenable) just going with Automata and reflavoring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to go the zany crazy way, I think Gadget Specialist is a good idea. Some gadgets are nice and they should give you the zany feel. The only issue is the low number of gadgets per day, but it's still nice.
Innovator is quite a balanced class. At low level, you will feel good but not great, on par with the less optimized martials and the most optimized casters. But at higher level, your area of effect damage will nicely complement your melee damage and you should feel great.
As a side note, I wrote a small guide about the Inventor, I don't know if you already read it, it can prove itself useful.
If you want to go the zany crazy way, I think Gadget Specialist is a good idea. Some gadgets are nice and they should give you the zany feel. The only issue is the low number of gadgets per day, but it's still nice.
Innovator is quite a balanced class. At low level, you will feel good but not great, on par with the less optimized martials and the most optimized casters. But at higher level, your area of effect damage will nicely complement your melee damage and you should feel great.
As a side note, I wrote a small guide about the Inventor, I don't know if you already read it, it can prove itself useful.
I started reading it and realized that the armor innovations are way better than the weapon ones, I hate it but agree. But it means my original idea is less stellar than hoped for. Perhaps I could go with a more iron man theme with a prosthetic heart and armor comes out of it.
I started reading it and realized that the armor innovations are way better than the weapon ones, I hate it but agree. But it means my original idea is less stellar than hoped for. Perhaps I could go with a more iron man theme with a prosthetic heart and armor comes out of it.
Or perhaps the armor is, in effect, a full-body prosthetic? Like, you stat it as an armor inventor, but what they're actually innovating on is their body. It's got combat-applicable features mostly because... well, if you're rebuilding your body from scraps, wouldn't you want to make it awesome?
Question, does everyone agree that the tamper feat which refers to "reach" but also having a free hand sounds like it means for you to use the reach of your limbs (not including a reach weapon) to be able to target someone. Which, with the manipulate trait means you're potentially provoking?
Or can you use a reach weapon? The requirement is to have a free hand, and that to me implies you can't use the reach of a weapon. But when talking about reach, it's unusual (to me) to differentiate between your reach with a weapon and without.
I really liked the idea of this class feat, but with the manipulate trait and competing with explode and overdrive I'm not sure I love it.
Question, does everyone agree that the tamper feat which refers to "reach" but also having a free hand sounds like it means for you to use the reach of your limbs (not including a reach weapon) to be able to target someone. Which, with the manipulate trait means you're potentially provoking?
Or can you use a reach weapon? The requirement is to have a free hand, and that to me implies you can't use the reach of a weapon. But when talking about reach, it's unusual (to me) to differentiate between your reach with a weapon and without.
I really liked the idea of this class feat, but with the manipulate trait and competing with explode and overdrive I'm not sure I love it.
"You tamper with a foe's weapon or armor, using a free hand." It seems pretty clear that you're not using a weapon for this. If you're not using a weapon, then the reach of the weapon shouldn't apply.
That said... the feat is honestly pretty bad. At best, you're trading one action of yours for one action of theirs, and that's on a crit, when you have an enemy with gear to be targeted, when after you've left one hand free to make it happen and stepped into melee range and provoked. There's a lot to dislike about it.
If you find the *idea* of the feat exciting enough that you really want something similar, you might consider talking it out with your DM, and trying to get them to houserule it to be not so terrible. I'm not sure how successful you're going to be coming to an agreement, though. On a quick consideration, I can't think of an adjustment that I'd be willing to make as a GM that would make it good enough that I'd be willing to take it as a player. Even without the near-guaranteed provoke, even without the self-damage on crit, even without needing to have a hand free, even without the relatively anemic results, the fact that it mostly only works on folks who use gear (who are, incidentally, among the most likely to have opportunity attacks) would make it difficult to pick unless I was pretty sure I'd be in a campaign with a heavy weighting towards that kind of foe.
Admittedly, if you're up against an ogre or something playing the part of a boss monster, where the reflex is relatively low, and his actions are worth more than yours are, then it looks like it could be very effective... but that's a lot of ifs.
If you are planning on going for this, I'd say to invest in athletics and/or medicine, in the hopes of getting at least some additional value out of that free hand. Also, do what you can to pick up an opportunity attack and/or stand next to people who have. That way, when he hits you for tampering with his stuff, you can hit him back when he goes to fix it.
That said... the feat is honestly pretty bad. At best, you're trading one action of yours for one action of theirs, and that's on a crit, when you have an enemy with gear to be targeted, when after you've left one hand free to make it happen and stepped into melee range and provoked. There's a lot to dislike about it.
That is a far too negative a take on this feat.
1) your opponent gets the penalty for the next whole round even on a normal success. So it is 50:50. If they accept the penalty rather than spend the action to negate it you are happy as well.2) you are doing it as a second or third action where you are looking at a Multiple Attack Penalty of your own, so the opportunity cost of your action is less.
3) clearly it is for a situation where you have more actions than them. That is a boss fight where the party has an action advantage. A boss often has a lot of cool 1 action or 3 action powers. Trading one of your parties 12 actions in a round for a 40% chance of one their 3 actions is in fact a very good idea. It is still good if you have 2 enemies. It is marginal if you have 4 or more.
4) yes the free hand cost is a problem.
As for the backfire. It is not good but Inventors are used to this. Most sane Inventors will prioritise fire resistance.
I agree more with Gortle.
It's not a great feat, but if it didn't provoke I think it would be an excellent 3rd action in a boss fight.
Yeah, the issues I see with are freehand requirement and potentially provoking due to manipulate (although not every enemy has AoO).
If there were a 1 handed weapon, with the two hands trait for 1d12, that was a member of the flail or hammer group I would be happy. So basically a bastard sword but a hammer/flail equivalent. But then the group is only relevant if you're a weapon innovation user, but the armor innovations are (sadly) so much better. You only get critical specialization if your weapon is your innovation, so I guess it doesn't matter.
If you can convince your GM to not have tamper provoke, use a bastard sword and go to town.
Edit: During the process of writing this I realized an error in the entry for Inventor. Under medium armor expertise they mention you gain "critical specialization effect with your armor innovation". There is no such thing. I'm sure they simply meant armor specialization but that has to be an error.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but it's not a critical specialization which is the wording used in the Inventor entry on AoN. That's the armor specialization.
My point was that the Inventor entry had a minor error in it's wording.
One advantage for the weapon Inventor: they can turn overdrive damage into fire at level 1, which is nice against weakness. With the modifications and eventually offensive boost, you're extremely good at targeting different damage types.
Also Segmented Frame is a pretty good way to store a giant weapon in a tiny space, which seems worthwhile to your original concept. Turning a two bulk great sword into a concealable weapon is cool.
but if it didn't provoke I think it would be an excellent 3rd action in a boss fight.
Attacks of Oppourtunity occur for only 1 in six creatures. Keep it in perspective.
but if it didn't provoke I think it would be an excellent 3rd action in a boss fight.Attacks of Oppourtunity occur for only 1 in six creatures. Keep it in perspective.
True, but still enough that it scares me a bit.
To be honest what I'm thinking is to start with Explosive leap and once I gain access to flight (not sure how yet), to retrain it to tamper.
but if it didn't provoke I think it would be an excellent 3rd action in a boss fight.Attacks of Oppourtunity occur for only 1 in six creatures. Keep it in perspective.True, but still enough that it scares me a bit.
To be honest what I'm thinking is to start with Explosive leap and once I gain access to flight (not sure how yet), to retrain it to tamper.
TBH by the time you're in a position to spare a third action on Tamper someone will have probably already triggered the AoO, so at least you won't get surprised. Between needing to move, overdrive, and probably using a 2 action activity like Explode it will probably be round 3 on average when you get around to it.
Also doesn't Overdrive have Manipulate anyway? So you've probably got bigger problems if you run into a lot of foes with AoO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also doesn't Overdrive have Manipulate anyway? So you've probably got bigger problems if you run into a lot of foes with AoO.
Only kinda sorta. Overdrive does have the manipulate trait, meaning it will provoke. But it lasts for one minute on a success or crit success. So you use it once at the start of combat and go on about your business. Presumably before you're in threated range of any enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can even use Overdrive before opening the door. Unlike Rage or Stances, there's no need to be in combat to activate it. The only issue is that it is annoying to track, but if your GM is not a control freak, they can just let you handle your Overdrive on your own.
About AoOs, in general, you need to know they are there. The strategy of the party is not the same if the enemy has, or hasn't, AoO. Having this information is crucial and as such it's not an issue to take an unexpected one. The issue is to take an expected one, but Tamper is not so important that you can't avoid using it, you don't have the Magus problem with Spellstrike.
Not sure overdrive, as well as any other combat ability with a defined action cost , is meant to be used before a combat.
Well, it's RAW. And there's nothing indicating it's not RAI. I'd find that punishing to bring a houserule to forbid it.
If they overdrive then I cast haste on myself. And I cast a, battle form! "
I'm still waiting for a GM that forbids me to cast Haste outside combat.
The only mechanical issue of using Overdrive that way are critical failures. But if you have access to a Pearly White Spindle Aeon Stone or if you have Ageless Patience I'd see no reason for the GM to annoy you.
You can even use Overdrive before opening the door. Unlike Rage or Stances, there's no need to be in combat to activate it.
What is your reasoning here? Why do you say this?
Not sure overdrive, as well as any other combat ability with a defined action cost , is meant to be used before a combat.
If it was intended to be a core of the game, rather than actions being used during combat, paizo would have said so.
But as said before, different tables, different interpretation/rules.
It's a game where a party competes with another party, and each have their actions to deal with. Going with extra actions used before the fight is clearly taking an ( unrequired) advantage.
It would be nice if there were clear rules about this or some sort of guidance. I think many tables do it differently.
I typically do allow some pre combat buffing if the party is initating the encounter and has the opportunity. It does affect balance but I'm OK with that. I conversely will prebuff their oponents if I think they have reasonable justification as well.
There are a number of abilities that are worthwhile if you are about to go into combat, but are not really worthwhile in combat.
Never used them in 2 different groups, nor allowed it on the third one.
Prebuff is not that much of a rare occurence. I've cast Sanctuary quite a few times before opening a door. In these circumstances, there's no reason to forbid Overdrive.
As it's an at will ability, you can use it quite extensively. I agree with you that using it all the time seems ridiculous. But there's definitely an acceptable way of using it that should be ok with your GM.You can even use Overdrive before opening the door. Unlike Rage or Stances, there's no need to be in combat to activate it.What is your reasoning here? Why do you say this?
I'm just saying that you can prebuff with Overdrive, which is an asset of this ability. Something you can't do with Rage or Stances.
Here's what the CRB says about pre-buffing. I see no reason to treat overdrive differently, but I also people to enter stances if they are about to kick down the door.
Before a Fight
Casting advantageous spells before a fight (sometimes called “pre-buffing”) gives the characters a big advantage, since they can spend more combat rounds on offensive actions instead of preparatory ones. If the players have the drop on their foes, you usually can let each character cast one spell or prepare in some similar way, then roll initiative.
Casting preparatory spells before combat becomes a problem when it feels rote and the players assume it will always work—that sort of planning can’t hold up in every situation! In many cases, the act of casting spells gives away the party’s presence. In cases where the PCs’ preparations could give them away, you might roll for initiative before everyone can complete their preparations.
Core Rulebook (499)
I disagree. I think if you're using overdrive every time you open a door, it will get old. But if you know what you're fighting on the other side of the door, there's no reason not to do it.
It rewards scouting and Intel, which is pretty much always a good thing to do. Also, the Inventor is not a combat god that you need to reign in. Giving them a one action headstart will not make them more powerful than martials with more hit points and more optimal KAS.
I don't understand why you judge a gameplay action.
Every time I play inside a dungeon, the characters position themselves properly before opening a door, they try to listen on the other side or send their Familiar exploring, they sometimes change their exploration activity to better suit combat, it doesn't get old or whatever, it's just normal and expected. In such a circumstance, it's quite expected for the Inventor to use Overdrive. It's only annoying if the GM wants to see every Overdrive check, but if there's enough trust in the player, the player can just roll it and handle it on their side and it's not affecting the pace of the game or whatever.
It's just rp and flavor, reason why it shouldn't involve a simplification of the incoming given encounter.
Nothing tells you it's not part of the power budget of Overdrive. By going against RAW, you are the one with the highest chance of imbalancing the game.
Knowing because they peak from a keyhole, glance over the corner or just make a use of their hearing, that there's some people ahead, is normal routine given how the system works.
It doesn't mean, it is not required, that you have to reward the party for just playing. Not only because they did just normal stuff, but because doing so would oversimplify the game.
If you don't reward scouting you can be pretty sure that your players will stop scouting quite quickly (and maybe even complain about it if they have invested resources (feats, skills, spells) to be good scouts).
Plus, and I repeat myself again, if you reward players who scout ahead, which is something anybody would normally do, to exploit the system by lowering the encounter difficulty, you indirectly discourage them from doing anything else.
And if you don't reward it you indirectly discourage them from doing it. So there's no easy solution to your dilemma. You have to "properly" reward it.
Also, why is it important for the encounter to have the exact difficulty it is set for? Do you forbid some classes around your table, like Fighter or Bard, because they are stronger than the others and as such affect the exact difficulty of encounters?
Also, the quote from Captain Morgan speaks about casting spells to prebuff. Strictly speaking it doesn't cover Overdrive as it's no spell.
The Inventor will Overdrive every fight the same way the Barbarian will Rage. It's not rote or imbalancing, it's just the dynamic of the class. Overdrive has a big disadvantage compared to Rage or Stances as it needs a check, which further increases the interest of using it before the fight. From my point of view, everything points to the fact that an Inventor should try to Overdrive before the fight starts.
And I don't think there's any strong support of it not being RAI. So I don't see the point of nerfing the class by forbidding it.
Ultimately, consult with your GM on whether or not as an Inventor there is an issue with you trying to regularly use Overdrive when you expect to enter combat. Otherwise expect that you will use it as your first action on your first turn (probably).
Curtailing that debate, does anyone have proposed builds to help me as a guide?
Unless you go for Construct Innovation, I think it's not very hard to build an Inventor. The class is not really complex.
I'd just point out that the class doesn't come with interesting Reactions early on, so you should make sure to grab one either through your Ancestry or some Dedications.
The Inventor being quite constrained on action economy (not as much as the Magus, but still quite much) if you have anything to gain extra actions (like the Time Traveler Background) you should also go for it.
Follows the guidance laid out in the CRB around pre-buffing >> is accused of exploiting the system.
Ok Humble.
Follows the guidance laid out in the CRB around pre-buffing >> is accused of exploiting the system.
Ok Humble.
The crb already points out it gives a huge advantage ( which obviously results in lowering the encounter difficulty), and also puts a warning for players ending up looking for, or expecting, powercreep all the time ( which is what the whole discussion was about ).
Whether it is "I have yet to see see a DM forbidding precast", along with pushing towards a specific way ( let's just stick with sending a scout all the time, in order to get 1 extra round) to get advantages over flavor ( any other approach which involves a standard encounter triggered by initiative roll), it's the same.
As said before, every table can do whatever they want ( want to lower the diff? Want to increase the character's power?) , but trying to pass the message "if you don't allow precast you are unnecessarily nerfing characters" is totally wrong.
What you are pointing out is a difference in expectations. It's RAW, with 0 ambiguity, and no hint that it isn't RAI. As such, as a player, I expect it to work fine.
It's a little bothersome to use, I fully agree with that, so I can see a GM limiting it to avoid useless micromanagement. But that's all.So when you raise the fact that it should be limited and even forbidden, I consider that as a nerf.