| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Creating such a premise is what is considered vile, but this is off topic...Not really evil, he's just obsessed in kill goblins and goblins in goblin slayer universe are basically naturally bad and they are pests that live by plundering and raping other ancestors to reproduce (there are no female goblins in the Goblin Slayer universe).
That is, the author created them in a way where they practically have no natural physiological conditions to live otherwise.
Out of this context, the Goblin Slayer is a peaceful, intelligent and hardworking person who ends up helping others whenever they ask (although what really interests him is killing goblins).
This creates just such an interesting context. While Goblin Slayer's opponents are basically evil pests, there's no limit that doesn't justify their deaths, but otherwise he lives a good life in general.
The Thermian Argument may be relevant here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Gloves that transfer weapon property runes to bombs. Essentially add the runes to pre-made bombs and quick alchemy bombsNever happening. Ever. I can stay competitive on single target damage against most Ranged Martials with just Sticky Bomb. (Depends on how lucky the GM is with DC 15 flat checks.) Add in Elemental Runes? Not happening.The issue is that Bombs are consumable, yet are scaled like manufactured weapons with striking runes.
If Bombs scaled like Cantrips, there wouldn't be this conversation IMO...
The issue is, a Bomber that's gone for damage (ie, Calculated Splash, Sticky Bomb, Expanded Splash) really doesn't need the help.
A while back I looked at what I've found to be a pretty common experience: the small lucky streak. Three rounds, three hits on the first Strike.
So, let's look at a Level 12 comparison. My Bomber is 11th level, but 12th is more fair because Greater Striking Runes come into play for everybody else.
Minimum average damage for my guy under that circumstance: 68 hp. Two Sticky Moderate Acid Flasks and a Greater Alchemist's Fire to finish off. That's with the GM getting lucky on all flat checks after each Bomb.
Thief Rogue with Precise Debilitations, with Sneak Attack every round, will do on average 30 hp on the 1st hit & 37 hp on the 2nd & 3rd. (Fully Runed Shortbow). so 104 hp. Big difference, right?
But what happens if the GM isn't so lucky? I mean, every Persistent Damage flat check is a 15... that's a 70% failure rate.
Fail on the 2nd Sticky Acid Flask, and suddenly my average damage is 82. Fail on the 1st, and I switch it up to a Sticky Moderate Alchemist's Fire for my 2nd Bomb and the average goes up again to 85. Fail two checks (Acid, Fire) and it goes up again to 91. Acid & Acid, 99. Fail all three, and the average damage is 105... better than the Thief Rogue and their Shortbow.
Now, if you give me Property Runes on my Bombs... my average damage is going up by 7 every hit. We'll say Thundering & Frost, just to keep it simple. So my lowest goes up to 89 hp. A single failed Persistent check, 103 or 106. Two failed checks? 112 or 120. Three failed checks? 126.
My personal record for failed Persistent Damage checks in a row is 8, btw. Happened at 2nd level with a Lesser Acid Flask. I doubt I'll ever come close to that again. But 3 in a row? I've seen that a lot.
That's without Splashing any other targets, and it's without Weaknesses. Splashing just one other target would add in 22 more hp. It's not single target damage, true, but hey, weakening a secondary target by 22 HP for free has some worth.
So yeah, I don't think Bombs need the help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is, a Bomber that's gone for damage (ie, Calculated Splash, Sticky Bomb, Expanded Splash) really doesn't need the help.
A while back I looked at what I've found to be a pretty common experience: the small lucky streak. Three rounds, three hits on the first Strike. [...]
I would like to point some problems/complications with this comparison.
1) You are using two acid flasks. Persistent damage of the same type doesn't stack, so you would have to target two different targets, which is really inadvisable under almost all circumstances.
2) Enemy AC corresponds to the martial proficiency progression. The alchemist will at this point be 1 behind that curve - from having 4 instead of 5 in their attack stat - which isn't a huge deal, but not nothing either. On the next level, though, is when the real tragedy starts. Because then it'll be -3, which you have to claw yourself back from via quicksilver mutagens in both cases (and still be behind starting at 13). Which is another consumable you have to use on top of the bombs themselves, with a massive downside to boot.
3) The rogue is not a good comparison. Getting enemies flat-footed at range is unreliable at best, unless you have a team that is specifically set up for it. If you have such a team, the numbers you gave are likely rookie numbers. A ranger is much more appropriate.
4) Unlike the alchemist, who can often struggle to hit even on the first shot, many martial characters can reasonably expect to occasionally hit twice in a round (not necessarily on their turn). The two of the three primary ranged martials - fighter and flurry ranger - in particular are literally build for that and more. Comparing turns like this is not very representative for how things actually work.
5) You are comparing a character who has invested 3 feats to one who has invested 1.
All of this doesn't even take into account a myriad of other points that complicate this comparison, such as the tiny range of bombs (which puts you into prime retaliation range), crits, crit spec, party composition (e.g. having to limit your splash damage to the main target due to allies in range) and so on.
I'd follow you insofar as that the damage comparison between regular weapons and bombs is not as clean or straightforward, but I don't think it can be proven with this.
Contributor
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Thermian Argument may be relevant here.
Oh what an excellent clip, and great explanation of a problematic argument. Thank you for sharing that.
Maaaaaybe let’s not use an extreme outlier made for shock value for generalizations in moral debates? Or any debates for that matter?
I would like to request this as well. Parts of this discussion were making me queasy.
The issue is, a Bomber that's gone for damage (ie, Calculated Splash, Sticky Bomb, Expanded Splash) really doesn't need the help.
A while back I looked at what I've found to be a pretty common experience: the small lucky streak. Three rounds, three hits on the first Strike. [...]
I would like to point some problems/complications with this comparison.
1) You are using two acid flasks. Persistent damage of the same type doesn't stack, so you would have to target two different targets, which is really inadvisable under almost all circumstances.
I am well aware. As I said, that routine is if the GM makes the flat check for Persistent after each Bomb. I only throw two Acid Flasks in a row if the Persistent ends.
2) Enemy AC corresponds to the martial proficiency progression. The alchemist will at this point be 1 behind that curve - from having 4 instead of 5 in their attack stat - which isn't a huge deal, but not nothing either. On the next level, though, is when the real tragedy starts. Because then it'll be -3, which you have to claw yourself back from via quicksilver mutagens in both cases (and still be behind starting at 13). Which is another consumable you have to use on top of the bombs themselves, with a massive downside to boot.
The comparison is strictly at 12, but I am aware (naturally) of the difficulties of 13, 14, 16 & 20. Keep in mind that even at those levels, you're still going to hit.
As for Quicksilver: the downsides are not as massive as popularly portrayed (see my last point) and as for using consumables... well, why else play an Alchemist? It's kinda what we do.
3) The rogue is not a good comparison. Getting enemies flat-footed at range is unreliable at best, unless you have a team that is specifically set up for it. If you have such a team, the numbers you gave are likely rookie numbers. A ranger is much more appropriate.
For the purposes of comparison, I was generous to a fault. I gave the Rogue every advantage I could think of. A Precision Edge Crossbow Ace Ranger using Gravity Weapon on a similar streak would average 38 hp a hit for a total of 114, btw.
4) Unlike the alchemist, who can often struggle to hit even on the first shot, many martial characters can reasonably expect to occasionally hit twice in a round (not necessarily on their turn). The two of the three primary ranged martials - fighter and flurry ranger - in particular are literally build for that and more. Comparing turns like this is not very representative for how things actually work.
First off, Alchemists don't "struggge to hit even on the first shot". I've played them often enough to know that. I might change my mind at 13th, but considering I've played a Warpriest through to 20th I doubt it.
At the very worst (14,16,20) Alchemists are still hitting 50% of the time. Compared to 60% for Martials. I can't see that as "struggling." (to be honest, for 16th level the Martial is probably only at 55%. 3 out of 4 characters who wanted one wasn't able to get a +3 Potency Rune until 17th level when I played through that range. Maybe other campaigns are more generous.)
Fighter I never compare with. It's relatively pointless, as they will (in general) come out on top. It's their thing. Comparisons to other Martials are much more informative.
I hadn't looked much at Flurry Ranger. Ran the same streak with them hitting twice every round. Average damage came out to 126... which oddly enough is the same max amount of damage that a Bomber with this proposed "add Runes" thing would have... hitting once a round. I begin to understand why some folks are unimpressed with the damage output of Flurry Rangers.
5) You are comparing a character who has invested 3 feats to one who has invested 1.
I'm not really seeing the relevance. If you want to do damage with Bombs, this is what you invest in. If you don't, you invest in other stuff. Yes, other classes will do as much damage with less... but we're specifically talking Bombs here and so how Alchemists do things is quite relevant.
All of this doesn't even take into account a myriad of other points that complicate this comparison, such as the tiny range of bombs (which puts you into prime retaliation range), crits, crit spec, party composition (e.g. having to limit your splash damage to the main target due to allies in range) and so on.
1) 30' Range is tiny? When you have a 45' move speed? Heck, even last level when my move speed was only 35', enemies getting close enough to retaliate was very, very rare. 12th level range will be 60'.
2) Criticals, are, admittedly, a weak point of Bombs as Splash doesn't double on a Critical. It's one reason I'm so fond of Sticky Bomb... Persistent Damage does double on a Critical. Still, I can't find myself caring overmuch as Criticals only happen on a 19 or 20 anyways.
3) So again, lack of a Critical Specialization doesn't bother me. Besides, Bomb Crit Spec is lousy. Then again, so is Bow.
4) There are two ways around having to limit Splash. One takes skill (Directional Bombs), one takes gold & Investment (Backsplash Mantles.) I use the former; numerous folks swear by the latter. However, that's mostly besides the point. The conversation is single target... Splashing secondary targets is a bonus.
The Thermian Argument may be relevant here.Oh what an excellent clip, and great explanation of a problematic argument. Thank you for sharing that.
Haha, I forgot that his video was literally about That Anime, even.
I am well aware. As I said, that routine is if the GM makes the flat check for Persistent after each Bomb. I only throw two Acid Flasks in a row if the Persistent ends.
Ah ok, I misunderstood you then.
The comparison is strictly at 12, but I am aware (naturally) of the difficulties of 13, 14, 16 & 20. Keep in mind that even at those levels, you're still going to hit.
Plus 5 and 6 when your proficiency hasn't caught up. The earlier levels also have massive problems with number of bombs, but that is a different story.
You're still going to hit quite often, but realistically and statistically that lower attack modifier matters.
As for Quicksilver: the downsides are not as massive as popularly portrayed (see my last point) and as for using consumables... well, why else play an Alchemist? It's kinda what we do.
The damage is kinda unimportant in most cases, but the -2 to fort saves is absolutely massive. Poison and diseases alone are very common and you are already not great at those saves. Not terrible either, but I've seen enough alchemists in play to not underestimate this.
For the purposes of comparison, I was generous to a fault. I gave the Rogue every advantage I could think of. A Precision Edge Crossbow Ace Ranger using Gravity Weapon on a similar streak would average 38 hp a hit for a total of 114, btw.
I recognize that, but it still makes it not a very good comparison when comparing effectiveness in actual play.
First off, Alchemists don't "struggge to hit even on the first shot". I've played them often enough to know that. I might change my mind at 13th, but considering I've played a Warpriest through to 20th I doubt it.
At the very worst (14,16,20) Alchemists are still hitting 50% of the time. Compared to 60% for Martials. I can't see that as "struggling." (to be honest, for 16th level the Martial is probably only at 55%. 3 out of 4 characters who wanted one wasn't able to get a +3 Potency Rune until 17th level when I played through that range. Maybe other campaigns are more generous.)
Fighter I never compare with. It's relatively pointless, as they will (in general) come out on top. It's their thing. Comparisons to other Martials are much more informative.
I hadn't looked much at Flurry Ranger. Ran the same streak with them hitting twice every round. Average damage came out to 126... which oddly enough is the same max amount of damage that a Bomber with this proposed "add Runes" thing would have... hitting once a round. I begin to understand why some folks are unimpressed with the damage output of Flurry Rangers.
50% with little chance of improving those odds isn't good. This just illustrates my point - this comparison isn't even remotely representative and therefore not fit to determine whether something is balanced or not.
Other ranged characters make up with number of shots & better accuracy or strong single shots, plus feats on top of that. The alchemist has the advantage in still doing damage on a miss, but still. We've had very different experiences if that wasn't a problem for you. For example, in practice, the flurry ranger does very well. Even compared to the fighter.
I'm not really seeing the relevance. If you want to do damage with Bombs, this is what you invest in. If you don't, you invest in other stuff. Yes, other classes will do as much damage with less... but we're specifically talking Bombs here and so how Alchemists do things is quite relevant.
Yes, but the other side is also relevant. As is that that amount of feats is required to even stay remotely competitive. The gunslinger with a rowan rifle is one of the strongest ranged characters in the game. That doesn't automatically mean that either the rowan rifle or the gunslinger themselves are strong.
1) 30' Range is tiny? When you have a 45' move speed? Heck, even last level when my move speed was only 35', enemies getting close enough to retaliate was very, very rare. 12th level range will be 60'.
20ft range is tiny. 30 is small and easily within retaliation distance. If not, you just have a good team and/or opposition that doesn't try to exploit openings. Both 30 and 60ft are additional feat investments as well.
2) Criticals, are, admittedly, a weak point of Bombs as Splash doesn't double on a Critical. It's one reason I'm so fond of Sticky Bomb... Persistent Damage does double on a Critical. Still, I can't find myself caring overmuch as Criticals only happen on a 19 or 20 anyways.
3) So again, lack of a Critical Specialization doesn't bother me. Besides, Bomb Crit Spec is lousy. Then again, so is Bow.
Criticals happening only on a 19 or 20 means either a boss fight or a team that doesn't explore its options. It is not hard to get it much, much lower than that. Just as an example, that rogue just mentioned earlier would crit on a 15 against his most common opposition - a level -1 enemy with a moderate AC.
Concerning the bow crit spec being bad - you either have an enemy that cannot move or they have to waste an action. Now take a prone enemy and apply that. Practically speaking, it is one of the strongest crit specs after the two overpowered ones.
-
Ok that is quite enough derailing of the thread. I still stand by my point - this comparison is not really helpful when determining balance.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general I feel like bomber specific buffs are the wrong way to go about improving the Alchemist, when the Bomber (with the feral mutagenist close behind) is already the most successful, consistent, and useful way to play the class to begin with.
It feels kind of like saying there are issues with the magus' gameplay loop and action economy and then suggesting buffs specific to Starlit Span.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are also not videos.The Thermian Argument may be relevant here.Oh what an excellent clip, and great explanation of a problematic argument. Thank you for sharing that.
As soon as I saw the TA video being linked I was HOPING that someone would come along with a reply like this one as I haven't the energy to invest in debunking it myself.
The definition of the "fallacy" being described by Dan is itself RIDDLED with spurious arguments/assertions and fallacies, ironically enough.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you summarize? I only linked the Thermian Argument because Hmm had already essentially summarized its gist--just posting links to arguments someone else made doesn't really clarify anything or establish a dialogue.
Defending a work's in-universe fixation with "it's okay to slaughter a whole species of people" by saying "because in this story, that species of people is pure evil and thus any atrocity committed against them is justified" is ignoring the actual criticism, which is "creating a story in which it is justified to commit any atrocity against an entire culture and species and you can do so without being evil is kind of gross, actually".
Like, I shouldn't have to say this, but Goblin Slayer's premise is kind of repulsive. A knight who slaughters living humanoid creatures from a different society casually and joyously cannot be anything but evil, and concocting a narrative in which he can be good just makes me wonder, "Why do you want this kind of narrative to exist?"
For a sillier example I'm a lot less personally affronted by, see "oh, she breathes through her skin, so she has to be all-but naked". Defending the character's outfit that way is such an exercise in self-humiliation that nobody even bothers. "Why do you write her to breathe through her skin?" asks no one, since we all know the answer. The writer just wants to draw a hot half-naked lady. If people think her being half-naked looks silly or feels exploitative, "she breathes through her skin" is an entirely irrelevant defense, because her breathing through her skin was the creator's choice to begin with. It's a fallacy.
Adding in a "oh, they're all brutish, rapacious pillagers" justification also feels pretty gross for other reasons. Historically gross. Birth of a Nation gross. I'm sure people used the Thermian Argument to defend that movie, too, back in the day, and it's just as much a fallacy in that case.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, wait, I have one last iconic Thermian Argument that feels a lot more appropriate for these boards:
"I'm just playing my character!"
Yes, fine, we believe you. But why did you make your character that way?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
That 'late to the party' post spends a lot of time talking past the point they're arguing with in a way that doesn't really seem particularly useful.
The author spends a lot of time worrying over tone and phrasing, but when it comes down to the sustentative argument the author mostly just, uh... disagrees. Which is fine, but not really important. While I think the video leans on some flawed assumptions, I think the article kind of misses the whole point of what it's replying to too.
Kobold Catgirl says it better in the post above this one though.
Just having a justification for something doesn't make that something necessarily good or fun or interesting for the people who have to deal with it. And that's fine too.
Ultimately, we just have to own whatever we write. Sometimes those things might be dark or weird or creepy, but whatever. Trying to wave that away as if somehow the writing we created compelled us to write a certain thing is just kinda goofy.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, first off, I partially agree--"I don't like that premise" is not a useful criticism. It's just stating a preference. Complaining about The Avengers because "I don't like action movies with violence" isn't useful criticism because it has no substance, nothing for anyone else to bounce off of. You don't like it? Well, what has that got to do with me?
Second off, to clarify, the Thermian Argument is what I'm criticizing, not what I'm using. I think you have the definitions backwards. To quote Dan Olson:
A "Thermian Argument" is one that replies to criticism of a text with an in-universe justification for why the thing happens in the text, ignoring the actual argument in order to defend the text.
That being said, we aren't talking about stating a preference.
Supposing, instead of "I don't like action movies", I said "I think that the action scenes in The Avengers detract from the story and send a message that violence is the best solution to our problems." That's undeniably a criticism.
If Mr. Strawman responded with, "Well, they had to use violence to stop Loki," that would be an example of the Thermian Argument, and it would be fallacious--because it doesn't engage with the criticism, it sheepishly deflects it. The criticism isn't that I don't like action. The criticism is that I think the action in The Avengers produces a poor artistic result. Essentially, Mr. Strawman is saying, "well, they had no choice but to produce a poor artistic result, because otherwise Loki would have ended the world!" Do you see how nonsensical that argument is?
You might disagree with my hypothetical Avengers dis. You might feel able to rip it to smithereens on its own merit--"I think the violence in Avengers is enjoyable to watch, and it is careful to discriminate between violence to defend others and violence for violence's own sake". That's fine. That's how artistic criticism works. It's always about opinion. Pretending that artistic criticism can be truly objective is for two-bit Youtube critics in suits. Ultimately, "In my opinion," will always preface any artistic critique.
When HMM says she thinks that stories that glorify the mass slaughter of sapient creatures are repulsive, she doesn't seem to be saying "that's bad because it's not for me". To me, I read that as her saying, "that's bad because I think it's a negative social statement for an artistic work to push out into the world, and I think that a work which hinges upon such a negative social statement undermines itself."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is just me, but I'd like to see Monks start off with Expert proficiency in Unarmed Attacks. Personally, I find it bizarre that Fighters make better unarmed combatants than Monks in some ways.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, I shouldn't have to say this, but Goblin Slayer's premise is kind of repulsive. A knight who slaughters living humanoid creatures from a different society casually and joyously cannot be anything but evil, and concocting a narrative in which he can be good just makes me wonder, "Why do you want this kind of narrative to exist?"
It is, nobody disagrees; that's kind of the point. What did you expect from a title name like "Goblin Slayer"? The title is literally about someone killing a specific species of creature. That's what a Goblin Slayer is. Don't get me wrong, there can be plenty of reasons why this title doesn't work or won't last (because you can only reference goblins for so long before it just gets old and bland and typical), but "it's not a PC title" shouldn't be one of the reasons why this doesn't work.
Incidentally, Goblin Slayer is relatively successful as a franchise, having been renewed for a second season, and the part people are complaining about is not even the most ridiculous part of the narrative in my opinion. Killing the goblins is probably one of the least offensive parts of the franchise compared to some of the other chicanery that goes on in there. As a basic universal premise, parties form up and arise to fight apparent Evil, either taking place currently or brooding over the horizon, and not all of these things are focused around goblins, but just one character in particular (the main character, in fact,) is all about them. Ergo, Goblin Slayer.
Goblin Slayer (yes, that's the name he's referred to, since his actual name isn't known) is an anti-hero type of story and character, meaning the idea that it's all going to be fluffy rainbows and PG-13 spoofs is out the gate (if the title of the series wasn't enough of a dead giveaway). Based on his backstory, he's ultimately a person plagued by trauma and is both trying to prevent further trauma from occurring with his proactive traps and hunting down would-be assaulters (in fact, while they are raping/murdering other unprepared adventurers or innocents), while simultaneously attaining vengeance and retribution from the Evil that assaulted his loved ones. He's not viewed as this amazing hero who's all about Truth, Justice, and the American Way (which is honestly not exactly all it's cracked up to be, by the way; might want to change that country-specific slogan, Superman), and a lot of the "irrelevant" cutscenes in the show display this, where they show actual heroes doing things like destroying Undead/Demons. The fact that he's grounded in his beliefs (is far more of a realist than an optimist) and has primal emotion in the actions he chooses to do is what people are likely drawn to, both in-universe and from an observationist perspective.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue is the relevancy of a work about a species defined by how much sexual assault they commit to a game where no such thing exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it might be good to pivot this conversation back to the original topic.
Personally, I hope they take a lot of the Alchemist feats and just fold them into their class/subclass chassis. The class was really the only class who had feats that boosted their raw numerical power, versus other classes getting new actions, reactions, or new abilities. It especially made archetyping with anything a really bad idea (except for INT spellcasting options for obvious reasons).
Also, hopefully, they'll remember to give Alchemist the Enhanced Familiar feat, so they aren't stuck with a basic familiar or needing to go Familiar Master for a better one. And maybe we'll actually find out what a homunculus Familiar even entails.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna be honest with you, having watched another dear community member tap out for good yesterday over y'all's horror show in the familiar thread, I'm so sick of people talking about "political correctness" as if it's going to mean anything to me other than "I don't want to be told to care about other people's wellbeing". If you're still using that term in the Year 2023, grow up. It's the most obnoxious buzzword to survive the 2010s.
I literally didn't say anything about the title, so I'm gonna just save some time and assume you didn't read my post. Par for the course.
EDIT: That being said, you seem confused. If you're saying that the main character of Goblin Slayer is nongood, you should be agreeing with me and HMM and arguing with Yurip. Clearly, they misrepresented the anime you're defending here. Surely that should be more frustrating to you than a Dan Olson video.
I only hopped in to clarify the premise that Goblin Slayer (both the series and the character) was meant to portray a hero who should be praised like Superman is, which isn't even an accurate equivalency, nor is it part of the premise shown within the series, especially since you decided to make the claim that it's about a "knight who slaughters living humanoid creatures from a different society," which isn't even true in the slightest, and the series goes out of its way to demonstrate that. That's it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
like Superman is, which isn't even an accurate equivalency
Well, you're the first person to bring up Superman, so. Yeah, I agree.
Anyways, again, I was replying to Yurip's representation. Take this up with them, not me. If all you wanted to do was "clarify", it seems to me like calling me "PC" for not liking the anime is not going to help you do so. Kind of confused me more, honestly. Maybe don't fall back on politicized terms that seem designed to bait and condescend.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's any of this got to do with Core 2 classes, again?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I was gonna say that I think they should add "Be politically correct" to the Paladin code.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm I wonder if we will see any changes to Elemental Sorcerer.
I have a feeling that if we do, the way the Kinetecist is ultimately handled in Rage of Elements could be a hint of things to come. If they decided to go with the option of allowing kinetecist to use various energy damages associated with their elements that may indicate that the Elemental Sorcerer may also be updated.
Since those feel kind of thematically linked.
That bring said we could see one without the other, but I do feel like it would be a strong indicator.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only hopped in to clarify the premise that Goblin Slayer (both the series and the character) was meant to portray a hero who should be praised like Superman is, which isn't even an accurate equivalency, nor is it part of the premise shown within the series, especially since you decided to make the claim that it's about a "knight who slaughters living humanoid creatures from a different society," which isn't even true in the slightest, and the series goes out of its way to demonstrate that. That's it.
An argument better suited to a political discord server as opposed to a forum for a ttrpg
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of kineticist. The fact things are changing makes me question what will happen with that class. The playtest was already not the best but new changes might double down on the bad sides of the class (hopefully not).Hmm I wonder if we will see any changes to Elemental Sorcerer.
I have a feeling that if we do, the way the Kinetecist is ultimately handled in Rage of Elements could be a hint of things to come. If they decided to go with the option of allowing kinetecist to use various energy damages associated with their elements that may indicate that the Elemental Sorcerer may also be updated.
Since those feel kind of thematically linked.
That bring said we could see one without the other, but I do feel like it would be a strong indicator.
Got any specific complaints? I liked the playtest well enough other than a lack of elemental damage on basic blasts.
Well, it has been noted in the past, we have fighters for dpr. Everything else fills some kind of (often overlapping) support and/or utility role. Even the gunslinger is designed around this philosophy.
Yes, the fighter has it a little easier in the offense department and is (imo) the martial class that is most able to really engage with the 3-action economy. But turning that into everyone else being inherently support/utility focused is more than a little qustionable. At the end of the day, every martial has a large focus on damage, as that is their speciality.
Even the gunslinger is focused on damage. Two of the Ways (sniper & drifter) can even do little else. The main problem with the gunslinger is that it is balanced largely like a fighter, but apart from crits misses everything that makes the fighter work so well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too rigid in its formation. The locked starting choice makes it hard to be versatile as you level up and made it so everything had to be balanced around one of the choices. The lack of customization removed the one great part about kineticist that was loved. The action cost was too great for the small reward, and lacked the fluid nature kineticst was notorious for. The lack of not just elemental damage, but composite blasts, and various ways to modify blasts. The powers that should be multi-element not being accessible to multiple elements. Finally, ways to use the blast should not be using the same resource as the utility talents.
Aka it was too flat, too focused on support, and too rigid in its options, while lacking in power outside of a few specific powers (group fly).
So, we've been told that the new version of the element thing is a "start with one or two elements, then add more or continue to specialize as you go".
My understanding is that they were also going to work on improving the action economy side of things - particularly with not forcing a regather except in the case of the most dramatic or powerful abilities.
There's going to be some sort of composite blast thing - each pair of elements is going to have a unique derived... something?
It doesn't look like the utility focus is going away, though (somethign that I personally am pretty happy about). We'll see if they somehow manage to give us a "focused damage dealer" option as an alternate build or not.
So... will probably solve or ameliorate at least some of your concerns.
What part of the New Coreness are you worried about making it worse? From what I could see there wasn't a lot of overlap. It wasn't like Kineticist was heavily alignment-focused, or particularly concerned with focus spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The shift from a martial-based blast design to a cantrip-based blast design suggests very strongly to me that they want to lean into the utility abilities, rather than more consistent single-target options. Cantrip-based abilities are almost always underwhelming by design.
They could end up changing that a lot for Rage, but based on how they've worked up until now that seems like a signal that the class is doubling down on other abilities instead.
My concern is not about what has already been stated will change, but what has not. Like we know focus spells will change somehow, but we don't know how or if those changes will affect kineticist. So its a concern about the unknown.
The unknown is scary.
In the playtest, the kineticist did not use focus spells in any way. I've not at any point seen anything that would suggest that that is changing. The focus spell changes (whatever they are) are thus unlikely to have a significant impact.
Similarly, the kineticist wasn't doing a lot with alignment mechanics.
Pretty sure that the answer to "what changes about the kineticist" is "not a lot".
Now, there's a whole rest of the book that might see changes. We might see changes in the monsters (we likely won't see anything called "mephits"), there's an Elemental Instinct barbarian that might see some adjustments, and so forth. The Kineticist, though? Likely pretty safe from that storm.
Very hard to tell at the moment.
Truth.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I forget who originally said it, but I really like the idea of swashbucklers getting a free skill increase to be spent on one of their panache-gaining skills. They get skill feats for them already, and that's cool, but if you're expected to increase a panache-granting skill as much as you can in order to ensure you can enter panache, then it feels a bit sad to have to use one of your three or fewer eventual legendary skill picks to make sure your core class feature comes online.
I think that the free skill increase that the Thaumaturge and Inventor currently have should be applied to a number of other classes. Especially, alchemists should get it with crafting and all spellcasters should get them in their tradition. Swashbucklers should get them in their panache skill. Gunslingers in their way skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree more classes should get those skill increases. I don't think Gunslinger or spellcasters generally need them, as they're not essential to the function of the class as much? Spellcasters are closer due to learn a spell, but spontaneous casters don't really need that and it's technically optional for the others too (and Witch can sidestep it entirely). Gunslinger ways mostly don't hinge on the skill the way Swashbucklers do.
Alchemist and Swashbuckler though absolutely.
There are a bunch of classes whose main stick requires a skill check. For example, pistolero gunslingers make either deception or intimidation checks when reloading.
One thing that has bugged me as being inconsistent is that the dedication feats require the character to get more trained in the spellcasting skill of a class’s tradition than the class itself requires, and with sorcerers or bards it’s actually quite likely that the dabbler is more trained than they are, because they’re better off training up in a charisma skill, like performance, intimidation, or diplomacy.
One thing I would like to see is a bastard sword with versatile piercing added to its traits. It could be a new type of sword, maybe level 1 or advanced. Or it could be a change to the current bastard sword. It makes no sense that a person can’t thrust with a bastard sword.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I would like to see is a bastard sword with versatile piercing added to its traits. It could be a new type of sword, maybe level 1 or advanced. Or it could be a change to the current bastard sword. It makes no sense that a person can’t thrust with a bastard sword.
I regret to inform you that, unfortunately, bastard swords are not going to be a class in Player Core 2.