|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
So last year I put up a list of the top things I'd like to see fixed in PF2. Some of these are addressed, some of them haven’t, I’m sure my letter had nothing to do with it, but once a year I like to post my ideas for the year coming forward. This is just my opinion that I’d like to get out there and put my thoughts to paper (or well, internet forum). I don’t expect much to come of it other than to generate maybe some (hopefully polite) discussion and see if I am on page with everyone else out there.
Please don’t misinterpret this as me saying a bunch of nasty things about PF2. I like PF2, I really do, I just want to point out these small issues that I think can be fixed. To make a good game even better. This isn’t a ‘this game sucks!’ kinda rant. It’s more like me noticing one or two things that detract from an otherwise great game.
PART 1-Errata
1) Thaumaturges and Implement empowerment needs to be errata’ed. Right now it is just . . . not good. Heck, Mios, the iconic thaumaturge can’t even use implement empowerment because they violate the rules. They have a gauntlet and pick in the same hand.
The power of your implement can also be turned to the more common task of combat, its power adding to and amplifying the effects of runes and other magical empowerments. When you Strike, you can trace mystic patterns with an implement you're holding to empower the Strike, causing it to deal 2 additional damage per weapon damage die. Channeling the power requires full use of your hands. You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit.
So things like a dart shield, which is worded as a shield with a dart thrower in it all as one weapon is okay, but a crossbow with an especially strong stock (worded as two weapons, a hand crossbow and a reinforced stock) is not okay? Punching dagger, okay, but put a skull to the outside and make it a Klar (shield with a separate ‘integrated blade’) and it is suddenly not okay?
2) Tell us the DC to counteract a Psychic’s Stupified condition. There are plenty of ways of counteracting stupified, including one the psychic gets that clearly is meant to be used on themselves, as well as things like Holistic Medicine, Elucidating Mercy, Moon Radish Shoup, and others. The DC to counteract the condition is nowhere to be found.
PART 2- General Class Fixes
3)Fix Alchemists: I realize that a lot has gone into fixing alchemists already, and it’s appreciated. But the fact remains that it is the only class that doesn’t get master in attack or defense and also doesn’t get spells. In fact, they don’t get legendary in anything, including class DC for their own alchemy. I dunno, maybe level 20 alchemical items are fantastic but, let’s face it, your chances of hitting with any bomb against an appropriate leveled enemy at level 20 are pretty low. I dunno what the solution is, but it would be nice to have alchemists on par with the rest of the classes. Maybe give them master in throwing bombs, but put in wording like with the gunslinger so that all other weapon proficiencies are at least one step worse. Actually, with that and the quicksilver mutagen, that would make them the most accurate bombers in the game, which is something that would actually make them attractive.
4)Fix Warpriests: Alright, we all know the issue here. A cloistered cleric can get most of what the warpriest gets with two feats, Sentinel dedication and the shield block feat, but there is no way to up warpriests to legendary spellcasting which, quite frankly, a spellcaster needs to be able to get high level spells to stick (or counter higher level afflictions.)
I’ve seen a few ideas on ways to fix warpriests. Like, master to ht at 19 with their deity’s weapon (including wording like from the gunslinger that says others can’t get as high), or maybe making Strength their key ability score instead of wisdom? I don’t know the answer, but I know that almost no one I know plays a warpriest past level 10 just because you can get a weapon you want by choosing the right deity, medium armor proficiency with sentinel dedication, and shield block with the shield block feat. Maybe just make some really strong cleric feats that require warpriest doctrine?
5) New Doctrine: Also, only having two subclasses seems weak for the Cleric, especially when every other class that has subclasses has at least 3. I’ve seen a lot of people begging for a scaled fist doctrine, and I can ge behind that. Have the warpriest’s holy symbol provide the same benefits as the dragon disciple’s ‘scales of the dragon,’ and have them treat their favored weapon as if it was unarmed strike . . . and you are off to the races.
6) New Swashbuckler Styles: I like the five swashbuckler styles we have, don’t get me wrong, but maybe a few more wouldn’t hurt. I’d appreciate an int-based swashbuckler style that relies on figuring out your opponent’s fighting style using, say, society. Or maybe a wisdom based style that intuits how the opponent is going to fight using perception (sort of an anti-feint style) Those are ideas off the top of my head, but it would be nice to see other swashbucklers other than athletic/charismatic.
PART 3-New Equipment.
7)Minor gripe, but I really wish there was an armor that was druid friendly but also a +4 item bonus/1 max dex. The Treasure Vault gives us four, FOUR new druid friendly items that are +3/ max dex 2. I’d be happy even if the item was suboptimal like Ceramic Plate, which always slows you down, or if it had the Ponderous quality. I’m okay with this armor being worse than Breasplate/chainmail . . . . I’d just like an option.
8) Just bite the bullet and make the exquisite sword cane a thing. I’d be okay with a minor nerf. Get rid of agile maybe. It’s just such a fun weapon and greatly thematic for swashbucklers, plus it is the only non-magic level 4 item and at that point it’s not as cool because your barbarian friend is hitting things with his greataxe for 2d12+10.
PART 4-New Feat Ideas.
9) So unconventional weaponry gives you scaling proficiency in uncommon martial (or maybe even advanced) weapons. The problem is that those weapons have to be uncommon and common to a culture or ancestry. What about a rogue that wants to use a Flyssa? Or a Bow Staff? I propose a feat that gives you scaling proficiency in ONE (and only one) COMMON martial weapon.
If you think that is too powerful, remember a single feat (Archer dedication) gives you scaling proficiency in all bows, Mauler dedication gives you scaling in ALL martial two-handed weapons, All the racial weapon familiarity feats essentially give you scaling proficiency in a slew of weapons (makes them count as simple, and simple scales for everyone but wizard.) I just think it would be a nice general feat to let a person get scaling proficiency with a single weapon.
10) I’ve asked for this as a skill feat since day 1. Just make a skill feat that works like Additional Lore, except it autoscales the lore you get from your background. It is objectively worse than Additional Lore and it doesn’t step on the toes of Gnomish obsession as that feat scales two skills. It’s just . . . stupid that the easiest way to become the world’s best cook is to NOT start as a cook, but to start off as LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE and then at level 2 pick up ‘additional lore-cook.’ Just make a feat that says that your background lore scales (expert at 3, master at 7, etc.)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For 10: Rare background called Returned uses Additional Lore in place of Lore.
Plus, Rage of the Elements is on printing.
So word the feat something like: "If your background gave you a specific lore skill, that skill automatically becomes expert at level 3, master at level 7, and legendary at level 15."
Sadly some GMs, (and PFS) don't allow rare backgrounds.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still waiting on clarified rules for how long minions follow commands given when not in combat.
General Witch balance improvements.
Incorporeal trait and strength based Strike actions.
Cleanup of Golem Antimagic rules. The format of each golem's stat block doesn't match the description given in the general rules (both damage values are in the parenthetical). It is not clear how persistent damage behaves when it becomes non-magical after the spell that caused it ends. There is debate over whether a single target spell attack roll needs to actually roll the attack and succeed, or if targeting the golem is sufficient to trigger the ability.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It says good things about the state of the game when the number one issue is a minor language error that will not even come up at the majority of tables with how deeply you need to read into the rules to even notice it.
Sorry, should have said, they were in no particular order. Gun to my head, I'd say fixing alchemists and warpriest doctorine are highest priority.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
On alchemists:
I think a lot of people fixate on the power curve; which is fair; but my biggest gripes with the class (having played it since the game released in a long term campaign 1-15 so far) are:
Early game; alchemists have to spend reagents on their buff AND best weapons. Unlike casters; the alchemist doesn't have electric arc to fling at people when they run out of slots. You do have simple weapon proficiency, but with no weapon based feat support and int starting stat; you basically feel like a caster pinging with a weapon; only you don't have the benefit of also being able to chase that with a save based spell. Basically; until level 7, it's the only class that doesn't have an infinite use free thing
Mid level; you dont have many power plays. While the casters can use fireballs and walls; and martials can either dish out like 4 hits a turn or deliver one big huge super hit; I'm still giving out +1s (with a downside), and that's assuming my teammates are willing to accept the drawbacks at all. Some of the mutagens have fairly easy to handle downside (Silvertongue and juggernaut comes to mind), others are have additional benefits that van outweigh the drawback (quicksilver's speed boost puts in some work for being able to flit in and out of danger); while others had drawbacks so intense, or their benefits didn't outweight the penalties (bestial doesn't really help non alchemists until later since unarmed combatants have their own attacks that are just as good as the first mutagen or two, making it basically -1 AC and Ref for +1 attack and athletics; while cognative amd serene mutagens are great in downtime and exploration, but severe hinderances in combat with no means of cutting the duration short)
It's not all bad though; between Retrieval Prisms, Gloves of Storing and carrying items in hand; I'm able to distribute a ton of buffs right away, and double brew in conjunction with enduring alchemy lets me functionally trade actions I'm not using on my current turn for more actions saved on my next turn. Expanded splash is very fun; after I got my mpart6 suited up in hackfire mantles; my AoE splash hits a lot of enemies for fairly reasonable damage. I essentially put the battle on a timer; since my damage is inevitable, enemies are now forced to aggress, otherwise they will just simply die to my splash damage. Still, while it is fun, the lack of big, flashy plays that everyone else gets is definately noticeable
Late game feels similar to mid game. The new bombs help a little, but at this point it's getting harder to hit. I'm flush with reagents though, so I tend to just prep a couple buffs that the party specifically wants and keep the rest for quick alchemy; allowing my to be a swis army knife of problem solving. Alchemical Alacrity is very hard to use, even with enduring alchemy. I feel this class feature could have been a once per turn free action quick alchemy and feel a lot less clunky and not make enduring alchemy a mandatory feat. Heck, this could also just be master weapon proficiency.
So, what I can conclude is that:
-Early game alchemists need zero cost or renewable resources to do cool things. The difference was night and day before and after perpetual alchemy.
-Due to distributing item bonuses, the alchemists main buffing outlet feels like a treadmill that has no progression through the game. When my table switched over to ABP, alchemical elixirs and the like got homebrewed into becoming status bonuses, which gave an immediate sense of progression; and my allies were a lot more happy to take the mutagens.
-All mutagens should have a built in "off switch"; even if it's just being dismissable; but preferably more like the drakeheart mutagen. Serene Mutagen having something like a "if your roll perception for initiative, roll twice, take the better result" and Cognative Mutagen being like a free action recall knowledge would make these mutagens a lot more useful since you're no longer risking making yourself terrible in combat by taking them.
-The alchemist needs more items that have a wow factor. Right now, they don't have much in the vein of "make your table cheer because you impacted the course of battle in a very dramatic and cool way"
-late game alchemists stuggle with accuracy; with the before mentioned houserule making my quicksilver mutagens status bonuses, my accuracy actually feels pretty good, but I know I would definately be stuggling under the normal rules. Alchemical Alacrity just doesn't work as it stands; and imo should either be turned into making Quick Alchemy a free action or just giving the people what they want and making it master weapon proficiency
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
10) I’ve asked for this as a skill feat since day 1. Just make a skill feat that works like Additional Lore, except it autoscales the lore you get from your background. It is objectively worse than Additional Lore and it doesn’t step on the toes of Gnomish obsession as that feat scales two skills. It’s just . . . stupid that the easiest way to become the world’s best cook is to NOT start as a cook, but to start off as LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE and then at level 2 pick up ‘additional lore-cook.’ Just make a feat that says that your background lore scales (expert at 3, master at 7, etc.)
The feat you are asking for exists. It's called "additional lore". Nothing prevents you from taking it for a lore you already have.
How do you figure the Alchemist doesn't get master in any defenses? They get master in fort, reflex and armor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On alchemists:
I think a lot of people fixate on the power curve; which is fair; but my biggest gripes with the class (having played it since the game released in a long term campaign 1-15 so far) are:
...
So, what I can conclude is that:
-Early game alchemists need zero cost or renewable resources to do cool things. The difference was night and day before and after perpetual alchemy.
-Due to distributing item bonuses, the alchemists main buffing outlet feels like a treadmill that has no progression through the game. When my table switched over to ABP, alchemical elixirs and the like got homebrewed into becoming status bonuses, which gave an immediate sense of progression; and my allies were a lot more happy to take the mutagens.
-All mutagens should have a built in "off switch"; even if it's just being dismissable; but preferably more like the drakeheart mutagen. Serene Mutagen having something like a "if your roll perception for initiative, roll twice, take the better result" and Cognative Mutagen being like a free action recall knowledge would make these mutagens a lot more useful since you're no longer risking making yourself terrible in combat by taking them.
-The alchemist needs more items that have a wow factor. Right now, they don't have much in the vein of "make your table cheer because you impacted the course of battle in a very dramatic and cool way"
-late game alchemists stuggle with accuracy; with the before mentioned houserule making my quicksilver mutagens status bonuses, my accuracy actually feels pretty good, but I know I would definately be stuggling under the normal rules. Alchemical Alacrity just doesn't work as it stands; and imo should either be turned into making Quick Alchemy a free action or just giving the people what they want and making it master weapon proficiency
I think this is probably the clearest and most level-headed assessment of the State of the Alchemist that I've seen. Kudos!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think warpriest is good and strong and people undersell the opportunity cost of a cloistered cleric does in order to emulate them.
It sucks feeling like you have to human to play catch-up to the war priest
It sucks spending minimum of 2 feats to catch up to war priest armor, you are level 4/6 by this point.
It sucks having even more delayed weapon proficiency progression
This is mitigated if you run free archetype, or if you only start playing at 10+.
But people seem to view things in a white room devoid of the context of the leveling experience.
How do you figure the Alchemist doesn't get master in any defenses? They get master in fort, reflex and armor.
I'm not sure who this is aimed at, but nobody is saying that alchemists dont get master in defenses.
Alchemists DO, however, have a defense issue in the sense that both of the main mutagens that make alchemists able to do combat impact their defenses (quicksilver basically lowers your HP to caster HP and hits your fort save; bestial hits your AC and reflex). From my experience, quicksilver pays itself off with the ref boost and extra mobility, making it a lateral exchange, while bestial is just a straight defensive nerf
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PART 2- General Class Fixes
3)Fix Alchemists: I realize that a lot has gone into fixing alchemists already, and it’s appreciated. But the fact remains that it is the only class that doesn’t get master in attack or defense and also doesn’t get spells.
VampByDay's very first post.
VampByDay's very first post.PART 2- General Class Fixes
3)Fix Alchemists: I realize that a lot has gone into fixing alchemists already, and it’s appreciated. But the fact remains that it is the only class that doesn’t get master in attack or defense and also doesn’t get spells.
They don't get master armor, of any form. I believe that's what's being referred to here. Pretty much everyone gets at least a few mastered saves.
|
|
They don't get master armor, of any form. I believe that's what's being referred to here. Pretty much everyone gets at least a few mastered saves.VampByDay's very first post.PART 2- General Class Fixes
3)Fix Alchemists: I realize that a lot has gone into fixing alchemists already, and it’s appreciated. But the fact remains that it is the only class that doesn’t get master in attack or defense and also doesn’t get spells.
Nope, I was wrong, they were right. Alchemists do get master in armor at 19. I missed that somehow. I guess I just assumed they were the same as casters as they don’t get master in any weapons, so I assumed no master defense. They still have accuracy problems so most of my post stands, but no, I was wrong.
If things like quicksilver mutagens gave a status (instead of an item) bonus to attacks, that might actually solve a lot.
Alchemists also don’t get legendary in anything, including class dcs, so that’s a problem. Most classes get legendary in at least one, sometimes two things. Magus is one of the few classes that doesn’t get legendary in anything, and that’s because they get master in armor, weapons, AND spells.
Huh. Well, guess I was wrong on that matter too, then. I hadn't thought that they did.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The feat you are asking for exists. It's called "additional lore". Nothing prevents you from taking it for a lore you already have.
The lore skill you're already trained in is definitely not an additional skill, tho.
The feat you are asking for exists. It's called "additional lore". Nothing prevents you from taking it for a lore you already have.The lore skill you're already trained in is definitely not an additional skill, tho.
Welp.
It appears that today is just one of those days for me, folks. Sorry about that.
Technically, I note that at first level you're allowed to build your character in whichever order you like. As such, if you can manage to land both a lore skill and a skill feat at level 1 without cracking open your background, it still works. So... Rogues, Humans with the "Versatile Heritage" Heritage (which, to be clear, is not actually a versatile heritage), and humans who take the General Training feat, I think. Possibly a few other niche cases.
I'm not going to pretend that that's a satisfying answer, though.
|
|
Prerequisites trained in Lore
Your knowledge has expanded to encompass a new field. Choose an additional Lore skill subcategory. You become trained in it. At 3rd, 7th, and 15th levels, you gain an additional skill increase you can apply only to the chosen Lore subcategory.Special You can select this feat more than once. Each time you must select a new subcategory of Lore and you gain the additional skill increases to that subcategory for the listed levels.
So, the way this works is, (but I don't think this is intentional) is that if you have two lore skills already,
Let's say you have Dwarf Lore from taking the dwarf lore feat, and the mining lore skill from being a miner.
1)You can use Lore skill 1 to qualify for additional lore (Prerequisites trained in lore). You use Dwarf lore to qualify for Additional Lore
2)It says choose an ADDITIONAL lore skill. You choose Mining which is NOT Dwarf lore. You have CHOSEN mining lore as your additional lore.
3) You then get trained in mining lore, since you are already trained in mining lore, you get to be trained in any other skill by the rules that if you are ever trained in the same skill, you get to choose a new skill.
4) Because your 'chosen' lore category is still mining, it is increased at levels 3, 7, 15,
Like I said, I don't think that is how it is supposed to work, but it can be read that way, but only if you have two lore skills. But it would be nice to just fix it and make a skill feat that does that for you unambigously.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should be able to get auto-advancement in your background or ancestry lores with similar investment as "additional lore" for sure. I've always allowed players who select additional lore to do so with a lore they have and then gain another lore. I've also considered having additional lore advance all of your lore skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any reason why all skills can't just auto advance with only legendary needing any investment to purchase? It seems to me like the old PF1 issue of trained skills meaning very little past level 10 is still here but now you get odd cases like intelligence doing as near as possible to nothing for skills and cases like the skill you grew up using not scaling while skills gained later in life scale rapidly. This would also free up skill feats to be focused on making skills do even more cool stuff than they already do.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the problem of "all skills auto-advance" is that the classes that get extra skill increases then potentially become unbalanced.
Like the Rogue and Investigator get 19 skill bumps, and there are 17 non-lore skills. "Good at everything" isn't really a good place for a class to be.
PF2 largely solved the PF1 problem that minimal investment in a skill actually does help at high levels because of proficiency boosts. A 20th level character with 18 dex who is trained in Acrobatics still rolls with a +26. If they had legendary acrobatics would get +32, and Daredevil Boots would add +3 to both. But a +26 acrobatics mod will let you balance on almost anything, just not the hardest things that a level 20 character would have to balance on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see the following:
1. Wizard Schools reworked with focus options improved.
Things like Augment Summoning becoming a reaction to fit with 3 action summons, Ray of Sickness becoming 1 action to use as a set up of other spells, and the Advanced Evocation ability working at range so the wizard isn't standing within 10 feet of enemies that might AoO or cause him to make some harsh aura or AoE effect. A completely rework with the idea being, "How would a wizard specialist in these schools use these abilities in combat?" Then build sensible focus abilities that fit the class them and make the school options desirable to use.
Maybe give something else to make the schools more interesting like a +1 to the DC of spells from that school. Right now only the universalist is worth taking and has the best feats to leverage their abilities.
2. Witch Hex rework: Make hex cantrips more available to witches so they can pick up multiples of them like the bard for use in different situations. Make the hexes more impactful and less limited than 1 minute immunities or can't cast more than one her round. They are not longer powerful enough to warrant those kind of limitations.
3. Witch and Wizard Feat Rework: The witch feats to work better in combat. A complete review of witch feats with a focus on making desirable feats that work in encounters and fit with the witch's mode of combat. Same with the wizard. More focus on school development in the feats. If you're going to choose a school of magic, make it worth taking with some development.
4. Swashbuckler Panache Generation rework: Make Panache generation less random. Panache generation should be as consistent as sneak attack or rage. It should not be so random and should work consistently to use the Swashbuckler abilities.
5. Summoner option with separate Eidolon: I'd like some kind of Unchained option with a separate eidolon even if weaker that allows you to build it as a separate entity from the summoner with a separate hit point pool, feats, skill feats, and the like. I'd rather have the eidolon feel like a summoned being than some kind of weird extension of the summoner.
4. Swashbuckler Panache Generation rework: Make Panache generation less random. Panache generation should be as consistent as sneak attack or rage. It should not be so random and should work consistently to use the Swashbuckler abilities.
The thing I've been playing with in homebrew is just having a talisman you can burn to gain panache. It seems like fights where you can't get panache at all are mostly really hard fights against bosses and the like where you probably shouldn't be burning through finishers willy nilly anyway (alternatively the difficulty in getting panache makes you only want to use them when it would "finish" the fight.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They don't get master armor, of any form. I believe that's what's being referred to here. Pretty much everyone gets at least a few mastered saves.VampByDay's very first post.PART 2- General Class Fixes
3)Fix Alchemists: I realize that a lot has gone into fixing alchemists already, and it’s appreciated. But the fact remains that it is the only class that doesn’t get master in attack or defense and also doesn’t get spells.Nope, I was wrong, they were right. Alchemists do get master in armor at 19. I missed that somehow. I guess I just assumed they were the same as casters as they don’t get master in any weapons, so I assumed no master defense. They still have accuracy problems so most of my post stands, but no, I was wrong.
If things like quicksilver mutagens gave a status (instead of an item) bonus to attacks, that might actually solve a lot.
Alchemists also don’t get legendary in anything, including class dcs, so that’s a problem. Most classes get legendary in at least one, sometimes two things. Magus is one of the few classes that doesn’t get legendary in anything, and that’s because they get master in armor, weapons, AND spells.
Basically what happens with the current alchemist class is that it behaves like a duck. An alchemist can do MANY different things but he doesn't get really good at any of them.
It's a class that I believe the designers thought would be very interesting due to its high versatility, but in the end it almost never works out that way, as the tendency of most players I've seen play with the class is to try to specialize in some kind of skill. role and when this occurs comparison with other more specialized classes that fulfill the same role is inevitable and this ends up frustrating many people.The subclass chassis itself ends up encouraging this situation, because, for example, by saying that the alchemist is a bomber, the player is led to think that he is in fact one of the best in that chosen field of research, when in fact what you get in the practice small improvements like the ability to make some smaller bombs without consuming resources, but which are of relatively low or questionable utility.
In practice the alchemist is still relatively interesting at low levels, where with the exception of the fighter and the gunslinger, nobody is an expert at anything yet. But as the game progresses he gradually falls behind when compared to everyone else until he reaches his full mediocrity there at level 20.
The other curious thing about the alchemist is the effectiveness in teamwork, where every party would like a support alchemist, but hardly anyone wants to be this alchemist. As the alchemist can prepare a huge amount of elixirs with advanced alchemy, he can easily supply all party members with a wide variety of elixirs both to heal and to help in the most different situations. But as the alchemist himself is mediocre in everything he does, he ends up becoming the one who least takes advantage of his own abilities.
In my opinion, the alchemist is beyond one-off fixes. What he really needs is an Unleashed version, which changes him from this handyman structure to one that allows him to really specialize. For example, a bomber alchemist could become a master or even legendary in the use of bombs, while a specialist in elixirs (surgeon) could become capable of using the most diverse elixirs at a distance and in an area, the mutagenist could potentiate a lot and/ or nullify the mutagen's side effects on his body, and the toxologist could become master of slashing/piercing weapons and be able to apply the poison even on failure (with an ability similar to Certain Strike but poisoning).
As long as you don't end up with that alchemist mediocrity, any fine-tuning will be followed by an "OK, improved, but still a long way to go."
5. Summoner option with separate Eidolon: I'd like some kind of Unchained option with a separate eidolon even if weaker that allows you to build it as a separate entity from the summoner with a separate hit point pool, feats, skill feats, and the like. I'd rather have the eidolon feel like a summoned being than some kind of weird extension of the summoner.
I don't know. With current game balance a separate Eidolon would end in a more weaker but intelligent companion.
IMO is more useful and interesting an inverse Summoner with the option to make a martial with a caster Eidolon or a "Real" Summoner that instead of having an Eidolon having more spellslots (being a full-caster) and able to use summon spells with focus points and have some feats or focus cantrips to improve the summons effectiveness.
I think warpriest is good and strong and people undersell the opportunity cost of a cloistered cleric does in order to emulate them.
It sucks feeling like you have to human to play catch-up to the war priest
It sucks spending minimum of 2 feats to catch up to war priest armor, you are level 4/6 by this point.
It sucks having even more delayed weapon proficiency progression
This is mitigated if you run free archetype, or if you only start playing at 10+.
But people seem to view things in a white room devoid of the context of the leveling experience.
The secret is the retraining.
As soon as you reach level 14, when you have an opportunity to retrain, it is worth changing a 2nd level talent or if you are a human, multitalented to take the champion dedication (the sentinel one is not worth it because it would only give you access to light armor) , champion gives heavy armor, which is greater than what the Warpriest has access to) along with the Diverse Armor Expert feat to become an expert with the armor provided by the champion's dedication. I admit it's a heavy retraining as it changes an entire subclass along with talents, but you can usually negotiate this with the GM since many talents (like shield blocking) aren't really retrained, they just change places on the sheet.
When the losses, the gain from dedication usually compensates a lot, as both classes suffer from the same MADness and share much of the anathema, in practice access to various talents and champion ability combine with that of cleric or become exceptionally useful for a "Warpriest" build.
In the end you end up both a better martial artist and a better spellcaster with this type of build than you would be if you simply tried to focus on just being a Warpriest (or trying to make a Warpriest + Champion anyway).
---
An even old idea, but interesting here on the forum that was born together with the Magus/Summoner playtest is the Warpriest Bounded Caster (Wavecaster). Where the idea was basically to make a divine Magus that would have Divine Font in place of SpellStrike allowing to make a truly martial class with potent healing abilities (including being super-efficient in healing if you put cleric dedication).
That said, currently for those who want to make a really combat efficient martial healer, they can already do this very well by taking the cleric archetype together with a martial class (except the barbarian) (works exceptionally well with champions), or for those who want greater versatility or earlier access to healing and other spells, a Battle Oracle.
|
|
In answer to 10)
Starlight span can generate arcane cascade, there are several ways to generate panache at range (All for one, perform works at range, intimidate works at range, flying blade gymnists can trip at range). Armor inventors . . . can still overdrive with their ranged weapons?
17) Canonically there was no divination runelord. There were precisely seven runelords (Xin trained the first seven). According to the sin magic system of looking at magic, divination was 'universal' and not a specialty school.
18)I think so too, but what would a true neutral champion look like?
GM: There is a villain terrorizing the countryside, what do you do? Fight him? Help him?
Player: I have no feelings one way or the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In answer to 10)
Starlight span can generate arcane cascade [...]
Yes, they just gain no benefits from it other than making their strikes magical, which stops mattering at level 2. Ergo, Starlit Span needs to take feats to get use out of a basic class feature, which is really odd. Still OP without that, but the design remains questionable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*inhales* THE WARLORD AND THE INQUISITOR
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
18)I think so too, but what would a true neutral champion look like?
GM: There is a villain terrorizing the countryside, what do you do? Fight him? Help him?
Player: I have no feelings one way or the other.
I feel like it's a very common fallacy to suggest that a Neutral Champion must not care about anything simply because they're not invested in either altruism or cruelty, but I'll admit that it does present a brain teaser for a class which is supposed to be defined by its moral and ethical outlook.
I think true neutral champion shouldn't really exist, because champions as a class are defined by the fact that they are, well "championning" a cause, and true neutrality by design don't have a defined cause.
The one thing that define true neutrality over other alignment is apathy toward the chaos-law and good-evil axis. There are quite a few possible cause a true neutral person might want to champion above all things (it's just that those cause have to be neither evil, good chaotic or lawfull), but those are widly varied, because they aren't tied to the alignment itself. In a way, "true neutral" isn't an actual alignement, but rather the lack of one, and since champion are defined by their alignment, they shouldn't be true neutral.
On the other hand, lawfull neutral and chaotic neutral champion subclass should absolutely be a thing. Like, there is already neutral evil and neutral good ones, why aren't they a thing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Champion of Neutrality could be a force for complete stillness and tranquility. They fight against any change but those they authorize with strong conviction while aiming to once and for all balance the scales in such a way that they cannot be unbalanced again. An active campaigner for an inactive universe.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I don’t think a lot of people would be interested in playing such a thing, and moreso, interested in playing with one, in such a way to justify Paizo devoting resources to and publishing it.
Champions of Neutrality shouldn’t really be a thing, Champions who happen be neutral on the other hand…
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I don’t think a lot of people would be interested in playing such a thing, and moreso, interested in playing with one, in such a way to justify Paizo devoting resources to and publishing it.
Champions of Neutrality shouldn’t really be a thing, Champions who happen be neutral on the other hand…
I feel like there's a market for a cosmic horror-type Champion who desires to freeze the cosmos because they simply cannot stand the many choices that an ever-changing universe forces upon them. I'd build a Champion of the frozen cosmos who attaches themself to a party of adventurers because they are a locus of change to be guided into stillness while dealing with the threat that has brought them to action.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there's a market for a cosmic horror-type Champion who desires to freeze the cosmos because they simply cannot stand the many choices that an ever-changing universe forces upon them. I'd build a Champion of the frozen cosmos who attaches themself to a party of adventurers because they are a locus of change to be guided into stillness while dealing with the threat that has brought them to action.Yeah I don’t think a lot of people would be interested in playing such a thing, and moreso, interested in playing with one, in such a way to justify Paizo devoting resources to and publishing it.
Champions of Neutrality shouldn’t really be a thing, Champions who happen be neutral on the other hand…
you’re describing an antagonist for an adventure, not a general player option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there's a market for a cosmic horror-type Champion who desires to freeze the cosmos because they simply cannot stand the many choices that an ever-changing universe forces upon them. I'd build a Champion of the frozen cosmos who attaches themself to a party of adventurers because they are a locus of change to be guided into stillness while dealing with the threat that has brought them to action.
I feel like this is niche enought that a warpriest of a fitting "cosmic horror" type deity would fufill the fantasy well enought.
Remember that neutral champion would be champion that could be of any god that include the neutral alignment. How would such champion fit as a "holy warrior" of nethys? nogorber? gozreh?
It's the problem with possible "true neutral edict". It's possible to imagine some of them, but since true neutrality is defined by the absence of other aligment rather than by an actual unifying doctrine, no "true neutral" edict would fit all gods that can have true neutrality.
I think actually, most proposed "true neutral" eddict aren't actually true neutral, but just add one more axis to the alignment chart, and make the champion "neutral-X". Yours would be a "stasis-progress" axis, and it would be a "neutral stasis" edict, rather than a "true neutral" one.
Chaotic neutral and lawfull neutral could be champion because they do have a unifying creed even if they're partly neutral, just like neutral evil and neutral good are too. True neutral is to alignment what black is to colors, it may look like one, but actually, it's simply a void of them. It have no unifying creed or points except the absence of other thing, and thus no single cause to champion for. Leaving that single alignement the one that champion can never be is fitting for me, but leaving the other neutral alignment out isn't.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with the notion of a True Neutral Champion "doing nothing", as in truth their aims would likely differ wildly between such Champions and their chosen deities. There probably lies the challenge in making rules for such a character. You need a cause that would satisfy simultaneously a Champion of Pharasma, Nethys, Nalinivati, Gozreh, Atropos, Monad, Daikitsu etc...
Honestly if a TN Champion were to happen it might be best to leave their tenets vague so that their focus can be given to whichever area their deity is concerned with.
|
|
A TN Champion of the Green Faith would be most likely, going off that approach. And I’m not saying it’s likely. Not impossible, just not likely.
Just look over the Neutral-ish philosophies that could support a Neutral Champion.
Neutral Deities just don’t have a lot in common the way you can group up Good and Evil.
We’d probably get Lawful and Chaotic Champions before that though.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather see a neutral Champion, instead of being a Champion of neutrality, being a cause that ditches alignment-based tenets to focus entirely on your deity. So I can be a Champion of Gozreh that's just about protecting nature, for example.
Even if "nature" is the biggest "true neutral" cause there is (going all the way back to "druids should always be somewhat neutral"), it's not the kind of cause that could slot in any god with access to true neutral alignment. The redeemer, paladin, liberator, tyran and all of those are vague enought so that it would make sense for any god that have that alignment available, but a "green faith" kind of deal?
Gozreh would obviously work well, and pharasma too, but nethys? Nogorber? Or, stepping outside of the core 20, bright? It's a bit too "focussed" to slot everywhere I think.
Altho I could imagine a special "green faith champion" class archetype I guess, as they could easily say "you can't worship gods, only follow the green faith" as requirement. Wouldn't really be the same as the current champion doctrine (and I think CN and LN truly deserve to have a doctrine), but it would work.
I'd rather see a neutral Champion, instead of being a Champion of neutrality, being a cause that ditches alignment-based tenets to focus entirely on your deity. So I can be a Champion of Gozreh that's just about protecting nature, for example.
Actually, this would make for a great class archetype. Make you ditch the alignment restriction, make you forego the champion reaction that goes with your cause and give you something else in exchange. Don't know what to give, the first thing that came to mind was bounded casting, which would turn that champion archetype into pretty much a "divine magus" bus seems a bit too strong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I hope for that likely won't happen is a bit of a nerf to some of the more outrageous monsters. With errata coming out more frequently and not just for the core rulebook, it would be nice to see some of the more often (imo rightfully) complained about overtuned monsters like lesser deaths made to be not as crazy strong as they are. There are a few monsters I know of that almost force certain types of spells on characters for party's to have a chance, which I find annoying.
(going all the way back to "druids should always be somewhat neutral")
Even that was an adaptation. 1e druids were True Neutral only, and the original OD&D druids were literally "priests of a neutral-type religion".
(Yay random trivia.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
which mean that really, druids are the OG true neutral champion.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have noticed building an oracle of Pharasma that a their are a few alignment based feats and spells that would be cool but seemingly do nothing if you're neutral lol.
Like battle prayer, for example, I think circle of protection has the same problem and I'm sure there were a couple more.
I'm not sure if errtaing those spells and fetas would be the best way or just create some true neutral content.
For whats it worth, I think the way a true neutral character should work is pretty simple.
They pick something they think is an anathema to balance and work on getting rid of it, regardless of whether getting rid of it would be considered chaotic or lawful in one place or other. good or evil, that doesn't matter, its just about them nudging the scales in a particular direction.
This would usually be related to whoever they worship. So my bones oracle is very anti undead for instance.
Ostensibly that might be something regarded as good, but she's doing it because its for balance.
I suppose what I'm saying is intention might matter to a true neutral just as much as outcome.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Divine spell list definitely needs a spruce up for non clerics. There's a lot of spells that require a deity (I've seen people argue that means the deity feature, so pretty much exclusive to clerics, but even then I don't think anyone but clerics/champions should be forced to need a deity), have alignment restrictions, or are counteract style spells (counteract on its own makes sense, but when you're a spontaneous caster they are a lot less useful unless they're your highest level spell, and you shouldn't feel forced to make them signature spells or they stop being useful).
Divine access is a thing for Oracles to be fair.