Like... what, exactly?
I mean, when there's a conflict between simulationism, narrative, and game balance, Paizo pretty much chooses the latter two every time, and if you like simulationism a lot I could see how that might get frustrating, but I'm not actually tracking on anything that I'd say that "a reasonably trained warrior should be able to do" that isn't possible as a level 1 fighter.
I would argue that things like attacks of opportunity and using a reaction to raise a shield should be less gated than they currently are. I would rather see feats and enemies built to negate these default reactions than spend build resources on doing something most first-night SCA newbies can figure out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Same thing with Druid. I just want to be a normal medium sized cat like a panther my entire career and be effective at melee, but no I have grow larger and larger and eventually I have to become an elemental, a dinosaur, a dragon, a kaiju etc... or forget shape shifting and be a spell caster. Why can't I start the fight with something like Entangle, shift into Cat form, do a bunch of damage, then after the fight use a spell slot to heal some damage to my allies? Versatility. I don't think it's super OP or anything. You could never have the stance and abilities of Monks, the ability to attack multiple times like a Ranger, have better attacks like a fighter, cast magic in...
That's honestly my biggest gripe with P2 so far (probably because druids are my favorite class in pretty much any system that have them). If I want to wildshape, not only do I have to focus on it hard with the feats, else it become inefficient at latter levels (or even completely ineffective if I there isn't enought space for a huge creature), but I don't even get to decide what I can wildshape into. My druid don't learn more with the levels, he only learn "bigger" and forget all smaller forms... except not really because he still have pest form. So he can be a rat, or a 5 meter tall dog, but not a basic wolf, for that's too wack, it just needlesly restrict versatility and creativity, and if my character concept is that my druid stick to a specific form, too bad (unless I get a GM who houserule that I can chose wether I want to heighten my wildshape and to which degree).
The animal companions tree also have that same problem of the latter feats being "mandatory" if I want my companion to stay relevant at the latter levels, so I have less choices once I decided I wanted to have one, but at least I'm not forced to change companion regularly because the previous one have grown so big he can't fit into the dungeon anymore.
A full on polymorphing archetype would be very welcome. Being able to choose sizes, better scaling for low options (would be cool to just be the most badass wolf on the planet fighting a dragon at 20 but as it is that's suicide, you have to turn into a monster/Kaiju/dragon/etc. Right now it's pretty much animal barb and sort of beast kin that can sort of pull that off), being able to add extra traits or abilities to forms, stuff like that would be awesome.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind needing feats to invest in things, but I do agree that kind of being forced into specific monsters to stay competitive is rough for the fantasy. It is a really cool fantasy to eventually become a kaiju or a phoenix or something, but it is equally cool to like become the *best cat*
While I wish druid will get an option for that I sort of hope that at the very least if we ever get a shifter class that it will be able to provide that vibe of being able to stick with a specific creature.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Talking about polymorph feat, wild shape is far from the worse now that I think about it.
The red mantis archetype have the "mantis form" feat who not only also suffer from the "can't help getting bigger" problem of wild shape, but also have no further support at all (and no synergy in it's archetype), so you don't have new feats to keep it relevant at latter levels. More importantly, it doesn't even have the "you may use your attack bonus +2 rather than the attack bonus of your new shape if you want" clause. So once you pass level 10, not only does turning into a mantis difficult (because there need to be enought space), but all you get out of it is 20 temporary HP, reach and the amazing ability of only using your flat unarmed strike attack bonus (and probably losing some AC to boot).
So I guess what I need the most right now, even more than a fungal druid order would an errata of wildshape so that you're not forced to always get bigger, and a rework to mantis form so that it have at least the same bonus as wildshape (along with one or two other feat supporting it in the archetype, something like making your mantis natural weapon have the same runes as your sawtooth saber if you were wearing them when you transformed would go a long way making it more usefull at later levels).
So, here's how polymorphism work in PF2 (as far as I know, it's possible my group and I are wrong on something). It's rules for "battle forms", AKA anything that isn't turning you into something the size of a rat or another humanoid :
- You can't spellcast at all, nor can you talk or use any "manipulate action" (basically anything that require hands) "unless otherwise noted". Lots of forms that should have hands (or hand like appendage) don't precise that they have one, so they are left to GM fiat if you want your ape to use it's hand to open a door. Likewise for talking birds and such, no can do unless your GM feel generous. As far as I know, no feat can fix this, these are the base downside of wildshape, can't cast anything, can't communicate, can't do any action that require hands. The "permanent" effect of your gear still apply (exept it's armor bonus), but you can't use any activated effect, even if it's as simple as drinking a potion (because one again, you have no hand).
- Your AC become "flat number + your level", with "flat number" increasing as you heighten your spell wild shape/add more form to it. Because the first batch of forms don't heigten all the way to spell level 10 (and because heightening also increase the size of the final form), there come a point where they just don't keep up anymore, and you need to unlock new forms or become really frail.
- Your attack bonus is fixed for the polymorphed form and usually above the attack of a druid that just got the spell. You can also use your normal unarmed attack bonus if you want (or your unarmed attack bonus +2 with wild shape). It allow your early form to still be somewhat effective at high level, but you're losing accuracy if you have a weapon with a potency rune on it. At least wild shape allow you to keep up with +2 potency runes, and fall only 1 point short of +3 runes, which are the max potency rune in PF2. neither mantis form nor the basic polymorphing spells have that bonus.
- One of your skill modifier (usually atheltism, but some time acrobatics) become a pretty big fixed number (but you can use your own skill modifier if it's higher).
- You gain some temporary it point (usually between 5 and 30) and some neat properties, which can be an increase to your speed, a fly/swim/climb speed, some special sense, some interesting trait to the attack of your new shape and/or an usually big damage die. If your shape is big, you also gain some reach, but you have to be able to fit wherever you are, otherwise the spell fail and is lost. Since wild shape and mantis form auto heighten, you are locked into the bigger forms once you reach higher level, meaning they become unusable if you are in human sized place.
All of these have the same strenght, and the same issues. When you use them at the same level you got them, it give you a boost, but because all of these bonus are flat, as you level up you simply start using your basic score instead, meaning you transformed (and lose the ability to speak/cast spell/use your hands) just for the temporary hit point and the reach.
As for mantis form, only one other feat of the archetype can actually be used in mantis form, the other either giving you spells (which you can't cast in mantis form) or a special attack you can do only if you are currently dual wielding sawtooth saber (so not in mantis form). And since mantis form only heighten up to the 5th level, and you can that feat at the soonest on level 8, you only have 3 level until you start outpacing the AC and attack bonus of the form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
nor can you talk . Lots of forms that should have hands (or hand like appendage) don't precise that they have one, so they are left to GM fiat if you want your ape to use it's hand to open a door. Likewise for talking birds and such, no can do unless your GM feel generous.
Correct. I consider this to be too bad to be true as a GM I always ignore the speaking restriction. It needs a fix.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
as of the newest treasure vault preview, I still need a new crafting alternative again ^^; its kind of amazing that they decided that everyone claiming that crafting was lame and slow, decided to give us a variant version that is both slower, and adds finicky rules that will often end up losing the crafter their money. at least for permanent items, the consumable stuff seemed a lot more reasonable and I quite liked that part.
as of the newest treasure vault preview, I still need a new crafting alternative again ^^; its kind of amazing that they decided that everyone claiming that crafting was lame and slow, decided to give us a variant version that is both slower, and adds finicky rules that will often end up losing the crafter their money. at least for permanent items, the consumable stuff seemed a lot more reasonable and I quite liked that part.
Yeah as nice as it is that some of the grandfathered useless minutia and rules awkwardness got edited out in 2e* (random risk of poisoning self every time you use poison, amirite?) some of the mechanics suffer from some kind of confusing decisions that have almost DnD 5e levels of obtuseness.
*with the exceptions of things like "no metal for druids ever" which is a specific holdover that still confuses me
A level 1-20 Adventure Path that isn't about becoming or otherwise aligning the party with a state power.
More generalized options for making consumables renewable, like with Gardens, maybe even a full on variant rule so players will have fun using these toys without feeling like they're delaying access to important things like heavy armor or otherwise wasting a precious resource.
as of the newest treasure vault preview, I still need a new crafting alternative again ^^; its kind of amazing that they decided that everyone claiming that crafting was lame and slow, decided to give us a variant version that is both slower, and adds finicky rules that will often end up losing the crafter their money. at least for permanent items, the consumable stuff seemed a lot more reasonable and I quite liked that part.
Yeah, I am super disappointed in the variant crafting rules for Treasure Vault - for permanent items they seem like a massive step backwards from the base rules, which are themselves a step backwards from 1E crafting rules (although combining crafting feats was sorely needed).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A level 1-20 Adventure Path that isn't about becoming or otherwise aligning the party with a state power.
Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse, and Strength of Thousands don’t count as this? Lots of 1e options, too.
I'd love them to make Mauler familiars a thing in PF2e. lol
Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse, and Strength of Thousands don’t count as this? Lots of 1e options, too.
I guess you could consider the Magaambya as a "state power" since it's so influencial in mwangi and even send you on a diplomatic mission at one point of strenght of thousands, but no idea for the other two.
I'd love them to make Mauler familiars a thing in PF2e. lol
Only if they make it so your familiar grows to Large with the Mount trait...
A level 1-20 Adventure Path that isn't about becoming or otherwise aligning the party with a state power.Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse, and Strength of Thousands don’t count as this? Lots of 1e options, too.
You're literally in service to Escadar for "reasons" during EC#2.
I'd love them to make Mauler familiars a thing in PF2e. lolOnly if they make it so your familiar grows to Large with the Mount trait...
I sort of disagree, I'd like that part to be optional.
I have a sprite with a corgi mount that I'd like to remain small, but that I'd also like to have HP of an animal companion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back on the "polymorph weirdness" thing, I think paizo themselves forgot about the fact that you can't speak in battle form. While some spells actually do precise that you still have hands and can use manipulate actions, none of the polymorph spell that grant you a battle form allow you to speak. Not even the divine ones like angel/daemon/demon/devil form or the avatar spell. Same for fey form.
So RAW, you can use a spell to turn into a huge avatar of Cayden Cailean, fighting with a gigantic rapier and splashing ale on your foes, but you will do so in an eerie silence because you're mute and can't make any quip or inspiring speech or even just give a warning.
I'd love them to make Mauler familiars a thing in PF2e. lolOnly if they make it so your familiar grows to Large with the Mount trait...I sort of disagree, I'd like that part to be optional.
I have a sprite with a corgi mount that I'd like to remain small, but that I'd also like to have HP of an animal companion.
The issue is that back in P1E, the Mauler grew to Medium, making it unrideable by Medium characters using normal means. If you were a Small character, this was a huge bonus.
If a P2E Mauler comes out, I wish that there's a way to grow it to Large, to make it rideable by Medium characters, which makes up for 75% of parties.
You're literally in service to Escadar for "reasons" during EC#2.A level 1-20 Adventure Path that isn't about becoming or otherwise aligning the party with a state power.Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse, and Strength of Thousands don’t count as this? Lots of 1e options, too.
Similarly, you align and work with state powers at different points in Age of Ashes too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love them to make Mauler familiars a thing in PF2e. lolOnly if they make it so your familiar grows to Large with the Mount trait...I sort of disagree, I'd like that part to be optional.
I have a sprite with a corgi mount that I'd like to remain small, but that I'd also like to have HP of an animal companion.
The issue is that back in P1E, the Mauler grew to Medium, making it unrideable by Medium characters using normal means. If you were a Small character, this was a huge bonus.
If a P2E Mauler comes out, I wish that there's a way to grow it to Large, to make it rideable by Medium characters, which makes up for 75% of parties.
Well, I imagine the creature would basically be like having a familiar and an animal companion, and one transforms into the other, but narratively it's the same creature.
maybe with some higher level feats that would let you use familiar abilities while in animal companion form.
I'd love them to make Mauler familiars a thing in PF2e. lolOnly if they make it so your familiar grows to Large with the Mount trait...I sort of disagree, I'd like that part to be optional.
I have a sprite with a corgi mount that I'd like to remain small, but that I'd also like to have HP of an animal companion.
The issue is that back in P1E, the Mauler grew to Medium, making it unrideable by Medium characters using normal means. If you were a Small character, this was a huge bonus.
If a P2E Mauler comes out, I wish that there's a way to grow it to Large, to make it rideable by Medium characters, which makes up for 75% of parties.
Well, I imagine the creature would basically be like having a familiar and an animal companion, and one transforms into the other, but narratively it's the same creature.
maybe with some higher level feats that would let you use familiar abilities while in animal companion form.
Tbh,I didn't expect a half-joke suggestion to get this much attention. If I wasneing serious though, maybe they could either make it an Improved Familiar Option or a Class Option?
Something along the lines of "Choose a core Animal Companion Option. <1>: Tranform the Familiar into a larger version of itself or return it to it's original size. While transformed, it becomes an Animal Companion instead of a Familiar, using the selected Animal Companions stats while maintaining it's base appearance and any Familiar Abilities."
I think it'd make more sense as a Feat, but making it an Improved Familiar Option would help prevent any weird rulings stacking it with other improved Familiar Options.
I know it would waste a spell slot but is there a workaround as-is in game to just cast enlarge on your familiar...?
By RAW, there are several specific rules that prevent using Familiars in combat that can't be resolved by just casting Enlarge Person.
Namely the inability to make Strikes is one of the biggest RAW restrictions for a combat focused familiar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... jsut saying "You can buy both and pay for both and then pick which one is in play at any given time" is an easy houserule, because it pretty much just makes you weaker.
Any attempt to go beyond that is crossing the streams to a degree. The particular issue is that anything that would be worth having would basically be equivalent to allowing your animal companion have a few familiar powers. Familiar powers are specifically costed for your familiar to *not* be rideable (except for the corgi who has specific restrictions) or able to make attacks or deal damage. For example, flight is really easily accessible to familiars, and an alchemist's familiar who was able to make strikes might eventually be able to first craft and then throw bombs with a single action.
Not saying that it's not doable, but there's a reason they put a wall there.
I'd love them to make Mauler familiars a thing in PF2e. lolOnly if they make it so your familiar grows to Large with the Mount trait...I sort of disagree, I'd like that part to be optional.
I have a sprite with a corgi mount that I'd like to remain small, but that I'd also like to have HP of an animal companion.
The issue is that back in P1E, the Mauler grew to Medium, making it unrideable by Medium characters using normal means. If you were a Small character, this was a huge bonus.
If a P2E Mauler comes out, I wish that there's a way to grow it to Large, to make it rideable by Medium characters, which makes up for 75% of parties.
Well, I imagine the creature would basically be like having a familiar and an animal companion, and one transforms into the other, but narratively it's the same creature.
maybe with some higher level feats that would let you use familiar abilities while in animal companion form.
Tbh,I didn't expect a half-joke suggestion to get this much attention. If I wasneing serious though, maybe they could either make it an Improved Familiar Option or a Class Option?
Something along the lines of "Choose a core Animal Companion Option. <1>: Tranform the Familiar into a larger version of itself or return it to it's original size. While transformed, it becomes an Animal Companion instead of a Familiar, using the selected Animal Companions stats while maintaining it's base appearance and any Familiar Abilities."
I think it'd make more sense as a Feat, but making it an Improved Familiar Option would help prevent any weird rulings stacking it with other improved Familiar Options.
It's not a joke at all. I have a sprite caharcter with a corgi mount, but I'm worried about it's HP because it's a familiar and not a animal companion. I don't even care about "offensive output" just it's defensive capabilities. And I would absolutely take an archetype that let me change from familiar mode to animal companion mode while narratively being the same creature, but I do want an option for it to maintain it's small or medium size while still being able to get stronger like the regular animal companion feats allow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you still need?
Official clarification saying that familiars and similar companion creatures aren't intended to be merely robots or pet rocks.
That is, that you don't need to command them every six seconds to do anything at all; that, when the master isn't around to direct them, they're NPCs, not mannequins.
What do you still need?Official clarification saying that familiars and similar companion creatures aren't intended to be merely robots or pet rocks.
That is, that you don't need to command them every six seconds to do anything at all; that, when the master isn't around to direct them, they're NPCs, not mannequins.
Starfinder also has this issue with companions. I understand spending an action to command it to attack, but the order is the same the next round, your companion should keep on doing it.
Starfinder also has this issue with companions. I understand spending an action to command it to attack, but the order is the same the next round, your companion should keep on doing it.What do you still need?Official clarification saying that familiars and similar companion creatures aren't intended to be merely robots or pet rocks.
That is, that you don't need to command them every six seconds to do anything at all; that, when the master isn't around to direct them, they're NPCs, not mannequins.
I'm fine with the restrictions in combat. It's the GMs and players who INSIST that you must still use the round-by round rules out of combat and when not in initiative that bother me.
This usually results in companions that are little more than remote controlled robots, or pet rocks that do nothing save empower their master.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder also has this issue with companions. I understand spending an action to command it to attack, but the order is the same the next round, your companion should keep on doing it.What do you still need?Official clarification saying that familiars and similar companion creatures aren't intended to be merely robots or pet rocks.
That is, that you don't need to command them every six seconds to do anything at all; that, when the master isn't around to direct them, they're NPCs, not mannequins.
I'm fine with the restrictions in combat. It's the GMs and players who INSIST that you must still use the round-by round rules out of combat and when not in initiative that bother me.
This usually results in companions that are little more than remote controlled robots, or pet rocks that do nothing save empower their master.
Those GMs are boths stupid and wrong, and I'm not sure how anyone could invent the rules text necessary for that to be the interpretation of how to run them. Do they get mad when PCs try to do things at the same time as another PC because it's not their turn? "Sorry Jim, it's illegal for you to lift that big rock with Beth, it's not your turn. what do you mean, this isn't encounter mode? you made that up"
Like do they think that familiars being capable of having skill modifiers or speaking language is a misprint? You have to have a truly stupendous misreading of the rules to ever even come up with this idea.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like it seems like the whole reason there's "Exploration Mode" and "Encounter Mode" which have different rules is to make it so the round-by-round stuff does not apply when you're wandering around the forest.
Starfinder also has this issue with companions. I understand spending an action to command it to attack, but the order is the same the next round, your companion should keep on doing it.What do you still need?Official clarification saying that familiars and similar companion creatures aren't intended to be merely robots or pet rocks.
That is, that you don't need to command them every six seconds to do anything at all; that, when the master isn't around to direct them, they're NPCs, not mannequins.
I'm fine with the restrictions in combat. It's the GMs and players who INSIST that you must still use the round-by round rules out of combat and when not in initiative that bother me.
This usually results in companions that are little more than remote controlled robots, or pet rocks that do nothing save empower their master.
I just checked the companion feats in Starfinder... and it's pretty convoluted. For instance, you need 4 feats to grant your companion a full attack. In P2E, you need to spend 1 action (out of 3) to Command your companion to take its 2 actions... every turn.
How hard can it be to balance the rule that "if you need it to take a different action, you must spend another action" ?
Round 1: You take one action to tell your companion to attack the target.
Round 2: Do you want your companion to keep attacking? Yes? Then no action is needed from you.
Round 3: Do you want your companion to keep attacking? No? Then you need to issue a different command.
Imagine if in a strategy video game, you had to always select your units and select the same targets over and over instead of them being on auto-pilot...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine if in a strategy video game, you had to always select your units and select the same targets over and over instead of them being on auto-pilot...
That's how most turn based strategy games work, though. If you don't order a unit to do something, it won't.
Yeah, I am super disappointed in the variant crafting rules for Treasure Vault - for permanent items they seem like a massive step backwards from the base rules, which are themselves a step backwards from 1E crafting rules (although combining crafting feats was sorely needed).
Well, I'm going to change my mind on this now that I've gotten my PDF and seen some of the other variant rules.
While Complex Crafting is great for consumables and lower-level items but not very good for level-appropriate permanent items, the Deconstruction variant that allows you to transform one permanent item into another similar item and maintain 75-80% of the value (rather than the 50% you get for selling it) is huge.
I *almost* really like the double speed crafting time reduction option - item quirks are really flavorful. The main problem I have with it, though, is the chance to completely ruin the item on a critical failure (i.e. a nat 1). For a permanent item this is just too harsh. Yes, you can hero point to reroll, but imagine how much it sucks to hero point a nat 1 into another nat 1 and ruin an item that could represent half of a player's total wealth.
Yes, the books allow the possibility of cursing an item and even the possibility of the GM allowing a mechanism to remove the curse, but that puts the burden on the GM to fix a flawed system. Reducing crafting time at double the rate isn't a strong enough benefit to warrant such a severe punishment for critical failure - particularly when there isn't even a critical success effect to somehow balance it out.
Imagine if in a strategy video game, you had to always select your units and select the same targets over and over instead of them being on auto-pilot...That's how most turn based strategy games work, though. If you don't order a unit to do something, it won't.
Huh, I'm pretty sure that in Warcraft, Starcraft, Command & Conquer or Civilisation, you can command a unit to do one task until you change it again. Once your peon made a trip from the mine to your town, you don't need to order it again every time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd take an "errata" to the Beastkin's Change Shape:
While in hybrid shape, you gain anjawsunarmed Strike resembling the features of your inherent animal (fangs for bats, beaks for eagles, mandibles for wasps, and so on). It can be jaws, tusks, horns, claws, stinger, tentacles, pincers or so on. Yourjawsstrikes deal 1d4 bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage, have the agile, finesse, and unarmed traits, and are in the brawling weapon group. In your humanoid shape, you retain the appearance of your original ancestry.
Seriously, the beastkin ancestry allows you to "play any animal or insect", but not all of them have a bite attack. I mnea, why would a wasp "bite with mandibles" when it's mostly known to sting?
Is there an archetype or anything that let's your choose additional ancestry feats?
The sprite character I developed would honestly go hard on ancestry feats if he could, but the quantity is so limited.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there an archetype or anything that let's your choose additional ancestry feats?
The sprite character I developed would honestly go hard on ancestry feats if he could, but the quantity is so limited.
Your option is pretty much to convince your GM to implement the Ancestry Paragon rule. Speaking from a lot of experience, that is a fun one ^^
One thing I definitely need is more excuses opportunities to use INT. Items, feats, whatever I can get that isn't just "add Recall Knowledge". RK is nice and all, but it has some severe limitations and is not always the most useful.
Right now, INT is easily the most situational ability score and with the introduction of the Thaumaturge (and Diverse Lore), that hasn't exactly changed for the better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, int is in a bad spot.
Since int doesn't increase the number of skill increases you get, only additional skills you can be trained in, it is of very marginal use. Either your class needs it or you might as well ignore it. It doesn't help there are better ways to get skills trained and sometimes even expert rather than raising int. At least in PF1 raising your int meant I could max out additional skills. I understand they went away from that to preserve rogues and investigators as the kings of the skill domain, and I'm happy for that. But int is basically useless if your not interested in being good at knowledges. Even then, Someone with a good int (+6) but only trained is only equal to someone with int 10 but legendary in that knowledge.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind a few warfare lore skill feats that mimic the flavor or mechanics of some of some of the old combat feats that had int as a prerequisite.
In general, I'd like to see skill feats pushed harder for useful abilities. A few skills have a suite of useful feats while others don't do much of anything. Especially lores, as there's almost no incentive to do anything with them at present.
And to mimic many others, I'd like some tome of battle/path of war stuff. A bunch of focus "cantrips" and "spells" that key off class DC would be fun to play around with. Kineticist should fill a similar mechanical concept, but I'd love to get my wuxia on.
Personally, for me:
-more utility alchemical items, and a way for alchemists to "heighten" existing formulas (like being able to use their class prof for the Roc bottle, or boost the level and skill roll for sinew shock serum and the like so you can keep using it through your career)
-More beast guns; preferably ones that aren't based on DCs so they scale up better
-More gadgets; especially utility/skill assisting ones to help make inventors who invest in them have some more non combat options
-More item archetypes! Both things like the super cool bear cloak or ones that make you better with certain types of items. Something like Talisman Dabbler, but for potions, or a grenadier archetype thats like herbalist or poisoner, but for bombs. I'm tinkering with a homebrew, but something that interacts with wands would be really cool; like letting you reroll a failed overcharge; or act kinda like shield salvation where instead of destroying the wand, it's simply broken; make it like 1/day, with the ability to take the feat two more times to get more uses; let you overcharge a wand an extra time, stuff like that
(I like items in case it wasn't evident!)
|
Inquisitor would be nice. i think I often forget to mention it because it's such a given and I like my more niche babies a bit more. Medium would be nice to see...we have grown fond of the concept after realizing somethings personal about ourselves.
I am quite fond of Luis's Coutal Lineage! Haven't gotten a chance to use it yet.
I second that! Trying to "piece-meal" build one in 2e can be very difficult.