|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I would second the body horror Alchemist.
Growing permanent wasp wings in an experiment gone right/wrong was fun
Red Griffyn wrote: YuriP wrote: OK added your suggestions and some suggestions that I take from other threads.
From Red Griffyn post into "Potential Changes to Core 2 Classes":...
Awesome lol. I'll just exist stage left!
For other things this thread had some good items in it. Some of the things I noted in there are:
1.) Gunslinger needs a 1 free action reload per round and running reload baked into the class chassis.
2.) Wizard Focus Spells need a power bump.
3.) Bard Warrior Muse, Cleric Warpriest, and druid wild shape subclasses need to be replaced by bounded spell caster progression with master proficiency in weapons/unarmed strikes and master in spell casting (same progression as the magus). They aren't fulfilling the class fantasy of gishes at all because of the inherent weaknesses in the caster chassis. For your poll I'd suggest breaking that into 3 seperate lines/questions (one for each).
4.) Thaumaturge handedness issues need to be fixed. Ammunition thaumaturgy should allow 1H+ weapons.
5.) Psychic needs a risk reward way to mitigate the stupefied condition.
6.) All class features, with rare exception, should work with ranged weapons without a L1 feat or restriction to close quarters range. This includes:
* Barbarian - Can't use most ranged with rage, needs a feat for thrown weapons.
* Champion - Champion reaction needs you, the damaging enemy, and ally within 15 ft. Essentially, limiting you to thrown weapon range.
* Fighter - Literal archery feats are trap options. Double Shot and Triple shot drop DPR (except against CR-2 enemies or lower) until you get to mobile shot stance at much higher levels.
* Monk - Spend 1 feats to get ranged attacks with bows or 2 feats to enter a stance to throw shurikens. Limit range on those to 1/2 first increment which is... A lot of these suggestions seem to stem from a misunderstanding regarding system math (Double Shot is DPS neutral against ==APL enemies relative to two Strikes and gets the edge as soon as you buff your attack rolls/debuff enemy AC) or just really bizarre decisions (giving Gunslingers Legendary proficiency in Bows to work around the core mechanic of the Gunslinger).
Giving subclasses bounded spellcasting instead of dedicated class archetypes or full classes is rather pointless. Bounded casters need a strong core mechanic to supplement their limited spellcasting. The two examples we have so far have features that define the class outside of just being bounded casters. Stapling bounded casting on chassis not designed for it will not work out well, and there's already an avenue for making that gish fantasy via archetyping. It's really only the Warpriest that suffers at the moment since its benefits are easily replicable via two feats. Save the gish fantasies for new classes with unique, defining features to better serve said fantasies.
And there are already stated plans to implement the Synthesist Summoner as a class archetype in the future.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
keftiu wrote: I don't know that there's room for it in PF2, but... I miss the body horror Alchemist. The version of the class I fell in love with was about permanent discoveries, not consumable items. I think body horror alchemy would actually work quite well as an alchemical subclass/class archetype for a 2e Shifter. It'd be difficult to stuff in the existing Alchemist chassis without some other give-and-take.
Red Griffyn wrote: 2.) Wizard Focus Spells need a power bump. I already added this.
Red Griffyn wrote: 4.) Thaumaturge handedness issues need to be fixed. Ammunition thaumaturgy should allow 1H+ weapons. Can you explain this better? Do you just want that Thaumaturge is able to use 1+ weapons or that it's able to have a free "off-hand" while holding a non-weapon implement?
Red Griffyn wrote: 5.) Psychic needs a risk reward way to mitigate the stupefied condition. Don't Focusing Hum already address this?
it's able to have a free "off-hand" while holding a non-weapon implement?
Red Griffyn wrote: A class archetype or sublcass for 'meld into eidolon' needs to be fleshed out for the summoner class. I don't understand. Can you try to explain more or in another way?
pixierose wrote: For Lores, I would make additional lore let you pick which lore skill scales. Basically you get a new lore, and can pick one lore skill you have to auto scale. Sorry I don't understand can you explain this more?
Golurkcanfly wrote: keftiu wrote: I don't know that there's room for it in PF2, but... I miss the body horror Alchemist. The version of the class I fell in love with was about permanent discoveries, not consumable items. I think body horror alchemy would actually work quite well as an alchemical subclass/class archetype for a 2e Shifter. It'd be difficult to stuff in the existing Alchemist chassis without some other give-and-take. The "hey I'm a Druid that doesn't cast spells" flavor of the Shifter did very little for me, but the idea of playing one as an alchemical horror makes me interested in the class for the first time ever. You're right that what I loved about those PF1 builds doesn't really fit any part of the PF2 Alchemist's chassis... which bums me out, but that ship has sailed.
Here's hoping we see the Shifter right after the Shaman and Inquisitor are spoken for :p
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote: I would second the body horror Alchemist. Looks like an alchemist version of the inventor.
The rest of the suggestions will be added to the pool. But due the high number of options I will take some time to deduplicate and categorize them (like base mechanics suggestions, class changing suggestions...) to make the poll more easier to deal to those who want to vote.
keftiu wrote: Golurkcanfly wrote: keftiu wrote: I don't know that there's room for it in PF2, but... I miss the body horror Alchemist. The version of the class I fell in love with was about permanent discoveries, not consumable items. I think body horror alchemy would actually work quite well as an alchemical subclass/class archetype for a 2e Shifter. It'd be difficult to stuff in the existing Alchemist chassis without some other give-and-take. The "hey I'm a Druid that doesn't cast spells" flavor of the Shifter did very little for me, but the idea of playing one as an alchemical horror makes me interested in the class for the first time ever. You're right that what I loved about those PF1 builds doesn't really fit any part of the PF2 Alchemist's chassis... which bums me out, but that ship has sailed.
Here's hoping we see the Shifter right after the Shaman and Inquisitor are spoken for :p I'm still not sure what people want from a 2e Inquisitor beyond the name given how the 1e class was kind of a miscellaneous pile of features, like the anti-Magus. Everyone loved the class for a different reason rather than people loving the class for a highly specific reason (Magus's Spellstrike).
As for Shaman, I also don't know what people want from it but I'd like to see it as a "pet-lite" caster that uses a familiar or other "mini-pet" as the source of various magical effects, like a familiar that exudes an Inspire Courage aura or using it as the center of AoEs.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
YuriP wrote:
Looks like an alchemist version of the inventor.
TBH I'd really like both an alchemist version of the inventor and an inventor version of the alchemist.
I look at the Inventor and I wish I could build a fully martial mutagenist or poisoner with cool, unique specialized actions... or have my own semi-customizable combat homonculus in the same vein as the construct companion. Or uh, auto-scaling crafting. Paizo please?
... but then I look at the Alchemist and realize that the Inventor feels a lot more like a Barbarian than any sort of specialized crafter or problem solver and kind of wish we had a version of the inventor that went all in on gadgets and quick solutions like the alchemist does.
It's a little bit of a shame because the two classes are close enough we'll probably never see any kind of iterations that step on the others' toes, but there's also enough space between them that it's easy to notice what in hindsight feels like missed opportunities (seriously why is there no homunculus animal companion??)
Squiggit wrote: YuriP wrote:
Looks like an alchemist version of the inventor.
TBH I'd really like both an alchemist version of the inventor and an inventor version of the alchemist.
I look at the Inventor and I wish I could build a fully martial mutagenist or poisoner with cool, unique specialized actions... or have my own semi-customizable combat homonculus in the same vein as the construct companion. Or uh, auto-scaling crafting. Paizo please?
... but then I look at the Alchemist and realize that the Inventor feels a lot more like a Barbarian than any sort of specialized crafter or problem solver and kind of wish we had a version of the inventor that went all in on gadgets and quick solutions like the alchemist does.
It's a little bit of a shame because the two classes are close enough we'll probably never see any kind of iterations that step on the others' toes, but there's also enough space between them that it's easy to notice what in hindsight feels like missed opportunities (seriously why is there no homunculus animal companion??) I wonder if the Homunculus crafter concept could be handled as a class archetype for the Summoner that trades away the spellcasting for some Alchemist features.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
More spells that can be cast with variable numbers of actions top my list. Even if it's just two action spells that can get a little extra oomph by pushing that third action into them. It just feels like they tease you with a couple of spells that can be cast this way at low levels and don't follow up on them very well.
Less 'safe' design guidelines. I appreciate balance as a goal but I wouldn't mind if they risked power creep to really sell a new class rather than building a cool class and making it unfun to play due to action costs as a balancing mechanism.
Fix the minion rules to not be clunky. This whole spend an action to give your classes pet/familiar two lesser actions and them being unable to act all without your command is immersion breaking. If you must give them simple scripts* to follow and make it take an action to have them switch toa different script.
*A script might be along the lines of attack my target, stay within 5 feet of me and attack anybody who gets close, flank whoever the fighter is engaged with, etc.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Quote: Summoner - Summoner doesn't get the weapon scaling and the eidolon literally can't use weapons. Must spend a L2 feat for a 30ft ranged eidolon option. To be honest, full martial scaling on the summoner would be pretty nice. Has surprisingly little effect on their power budget because they already have martial scaling on their eidolon half and share MAP, but it opens up some build concepts and makes tandem strike less of a trap (which right now is usually worse than not having a level 6 feat at all unless you min-max it).
Golurkcanfly wrote: A lot of these suggestions seem to stem from a misunderstanding regarding system math (Double Shot is DPS neutral against ==APL enemies relative to two Strikes and gets the edge as soon as you buff your attack rolls/debuff enemy AC) or just really bizarre decisions (giving Gunslingers Legendary proficiency in Bows to work around the core mechanic of the Gunslinger).
Giving subclasses bounded spellcasting instead of dedicated class archetypes or full classes is rather pointless. Bounded casters need a strong core mechanic to supplement their limited spellcasting. The two examples we have so far have features that define the class outside of just being bounded casters. Stapling bounded casting on chassis not designed for it will not work out well, and there's already an avenue for making that gish fantasy via archetyping. It's really only the Warpriest that suffers at the moment since its benefits are easily replicable via two feats. Save the gish fantasies for new classes with unique, defining features to better serve said fantasies.
And there are already stated plans to implement the Synthesist Summoner as a class archetype in the future.
There is no misunderstanding on my part. You have 3 actions in your turn so comparing 2 action only combinations means you're missing entire nuances. Doubleshot and Tripleshot are only beneficial against lower level or lower AC targets and even there they might achieve parity. Against higher AC targets they get worse. Doubleshot forces damage splitting until you invest another feat into Tripleshot. Here is a plot of various meta options for a fighter starting archer. You can see that Fighter MC Ranger, Fighter MC Eldritch Archer (maybe even L2-L6 psychic first for Imaginary Weapon, which when amped explodes this entire chart so I had to remove it), using Strike/Exacting Strike/Strike, and even swapping out a fearsome rune for 1 damage rune with MC rogue for dread striker are all typically more DPR. The truth is that fighter gets more from not picking the fighter archer feats, which makes them trap feats.
If you don't want to read the cited thread, I understand. But the issue is that the current design of most martial classes is centred on a baseline of 'what works for melee'. Which means for most classes you have your baseline class features simply not working for ranged weapons, limited in practical ability to apply, limited in overall range so as to not be ranged at all, requiring a L1+ feat to 'reacquire it', having ranged weapons needlessly limited (e.g., thrown only), etc. My opinion and guiding philosophy is that everything (with rare exception) should work on all weapons (ranged or melee) and subclass options that are melee focused should build on to that basic class feature. That is an additive form of class design as opposed to a subtractive form of class design.
Giving subclasses bounded spellcasting instead of dedicated class archetypes or full classes is not pointless. It should be obvious that you would, if needed, add a feat line or feature to being a bounded spell caster subclass. But those three classes don't necessarily need as much as you would think.
- For example, the wildshape druid doesn't actually need any more support than they already get (i.e., +2 to hit in wildshape when using your bonus and feat line to get new forms).
- For example, the bard could get some new compositions, but the warrior muse already has some incredibly great compositions which would actually benefit a melee bard with the ability to hit reliably and work far better than.
- The warpriest already has the built in emblazon armament, emblazon energy, and replenishment of war. If you want more ideas, then you can look at Clerics+, which has the exact thing identified as well as feats
The magus is about making one big spell coupled strike, whereas the others get better self buff spells with things like heroism and heal already on their spell lists.
Clearly archetyping doesn't provide the same benefit because you can only take class feats at 1/2 level and spell progression is delayed. You can't pretend that a Magus plays like a fighter wizard. They simply don't.
As for the summoner. Sure they said that, but that was in September 2021. We're almost 2 years later from secrets of magic and still don't have any Synthesist Summoner. So yes, publishing stuff in Nov 2023 or Q1 of 2024 wouldn't be a hard ask.
Red Griffyn wrote: Golurkcanfly wrote: A lot of these suggestions seem to stem from a misunderstanding regarding system math (Double Shot is DPS neutral against ==APL enemies relative to two Strikes and gets the edge as soon as you buff your attack rolls/debuff enemy AC) or just really bizarre decisions (giving Gunslingers Legendary proficiency in Bows to work around the core mechanic of the Gunslinger).
Giving subclasses bounded spellcasting instead of dedicated class archetypes or full classes is rather pointless. Bounded casters need a strong core mechanic to supplement their limited spellcasting. The two examples we have so far have features that define the class outside of just being bounded casters. Stapling bounded casting on chassis not designed for it will not work out well, and there's already an avenue for making that gish fantasy via archetyping. It's really only the Warpriest that suffers at the moment since its benefits are easily replicable via two feats. Save the gish fantasies for new classes with unique, defining features to better serve said fantasies.
And there are already stated plans to implement the Synthesist Summoner as a class archetype in the future.
There is no misunderstanding on my part. You have 3 actions in your turn so comparing 2 action only combinations means you're missing entire nuances. Doubleshot and Tripleshot are only beneficial against lower level or lower AC targets and even there they might achieve parity. Against higher AC targets they get worse. Doubleshot forces damage splitting until you invest another feat into Tripleshot. Here is a plot of various meta options for a fighter starting archer. You can see that Fighter MC Ranger, Fighter MC Eldritch Archer (maybe even L2-L6 psychic first for Imaginary Weapon, which when amped explodes this entire chart so I had to remove it), using Strike/Exacting Strike/Strike, and even swapping out a fearsome rune for 1 damage rune with MC rogue for dread striker are all typically more... If you're spending all 3 actions of a turn attacking, you're essentially wasting the third action unless you have abilities to offset that. Double Shot being better at higher relative accuracy and worse at lower relative accuracy doesn't make it a trap feat. It makes it a feat that's situationally useful, just like Power Attack.
And yes, I agree Fighter/Wizard doesn't play like Magus, but that's because Magus has extensive and detailed class features meant to support it's gish fantasy. Just sticking bounded casting + martial proficiency onto a regular caster chassis accomplishes very little that the multiclass doesn't.
Instead of trying to hamfisted force these ideas into a space without room for them, it's best to create a more appropriate set of options to them.
I'd like to ask Paizo to remove the Anathema restrictions from Barbarians. I find it ridiculous that a class named "Barbarian" would have a code of conduct. Barbarians are supposed to represent pure violent, destructive chaos. Codes of conduct are just wrong on that class.
I'd just like to say that for all the problems that Singular Expertise causes, soft-locking the gunslinger out of using bows is the thing I'm 100% on board with.
The solution to the gunslinger's problems is a QoL update for the gunslinger and buffing reload weapons, not giving you even less reason to use them.
Some small changes that would be nice and fit within the scope of Remastered:
1) Grapple doesn't break when you move, only when you move out of your reach. Maybe also add a clause so it plays well with Shove + Free Action Step
2) Cleric's Divine Font cleaned up. Using Charisma for it feels like a 1e-ism since nothing else in the class really utilizes it. It could be changed to Heal/Harm as a focus spell or something else to reduce the MAD issues that can crop up for the Warpriest.
3) Trick Magic Item as a baseline option for the relevant skills. It's generally too good to not take. Maybe make it an exploration-only thing but the feat lets it be used in combat.
Squiggit wrote: It's a little bit of a shame because the two classes are close enough we'll probably never see any kind of iterations that step on the others' toes, but there's also enough space between them that it's easy to notice what in hindsight feels like missed opportunities (seriously why is there no homunculus animal companion??) A homunculus companion looks like interesting. I will add to the poll.
Golurkcanfly wrote: I wonder if the Homunculus crafter concept could be handled as a class archetype for the Summoner that trades away the spellcasting for some Alchemist features. An alchemist variant of summoner sounds fun too (instead of receive bounded casting abilities, receive advanced and quick alchemy with same level of alchemist but with fewer reagents) also with eidolon locked into "construct" eidolon but with more options.
I will add both suggestions to the poll.
3-Body Problem wrote: More spells that can be cast with variable numbers of actions top my list. Even if it's just two action spells that can get a little extra oomph by pushing that third action into them. It just feels like they tease you with a couple of spells that can be cast this way at low levels and don't follow up on them very well. I will add to the poll too.
Squiggit wrote: Quote: Summoner - Summoner doesn't get the weapon scaling and the eidolon literally can't use weapons. Must spend a L2 feat for a 30ft ranged eidolon option. To be honest, full martial scaling on the summoner would be pretty nice. Has surprisingly little effect on their power budget because they already have martial scaling on their eidolon half and share MAP, but it opens up some build concepts and makes tandem strike less of a trap (which right now is usually worse than not having a level 6 feat at all unless you min-max it). Honestly the shared MAP breaks this concept of martial-martial summoner relationship. IMO we could have a inverter martial-caster relationship variant (Martial summoner with a caster eidolon) makes more sense to me.
HeHateMe wrote: I'd like to ask Paizo to remove the Anathema restrictions from Barbarians. I find it ridiculous that a class named "Barbarian" would have a code of conduct. Barbarians are supposed to represent pure violent, destructive chaos. Codes of conduct are just wrong on that class. I will add to the poll too.
I understand your point but I think that the ideia is to make some barbarians more "shamanic" when use a non-fury instinct with it's anathemas working in a similar way that druid ones, respecting some supernatural/spiritual concept instead of be limited to just a violent brutish.
Golurkcanfly wrote: Some small changes that would be nice and fit within the scope of Remastered:
1) Grapple doesn't break when you move, only when you move out of your reach. Maybe also add a clause so it plays well with Shove + Free Action Step
2) Cleric's Divine Font cleaned up. Using Charisma for it feels like a 1e-ism since nothing else in the class really utilizes it. It could be changed to Heal/Harm as a focus spell or something else to reduce the MAD issues that can crop up for the Warpriest.
I will add to the poll.
Golurkcanfly wrote: 3) Trick Magic Item as a baseline option for the relevant skills. It's generally too good to not take. Maybe make it an exploration-only thing but the feat lets it be used in combat. I don't understand. Do you want to add Trick Magic Item into the skills without need of a skill feat but unable to use during encounters?
Golurkcanfly wrote: If you're spending all 3 actions of a turn attacking, you're essentially wasting the third action unless you have abilities to offset that. Double Shot being better at higher relative accuracy and worse at lower relative accuracy doesn't make it a trap feat. It makes it a feat that's situationally useful, just like Power Attack.
And yes, I agree Fighter/Wizard doesn't play like Magus, but that's because Magus has extensive and detailed class features meant to support it's gish fantasy. Just sticking bounded casting + martial proficiency onto a regular caster chassis accomplishes very little that the multiclass doesn't.
Instead of trying to hamfisted force these ideas into a space without room for them, it's best to create a more appropriate set of options to them.
The community 'you're wasting a 3rd action if its a strike' truism isn't actually true on fighters. I just gave you a DPR chart there showing it wasn't a wasted action, but I'll add the double shot only curve to show you. Lets just pick some comparison points (added in the amped imaginary weapon line as well):
- L5 - Double Shot (19.40) vs. Fighter MC Ranger (26.56) (36.9% DPR Increase)
- L10 - Double Shot (36.25) vs. Fighter MC Ranger (51.17) (41.2% DPR Increase)
- L15 - Double Shot (55.7) vs. Fighter MC Ranger (78.59) (41.1% DPR Increase)
A L1 feat (exacting strike) gives you the same or better DPR across all levels as a L2 and L6 feat, a MC into many archetypes or classes boost your DPR significantly over in class features, and you can get better DPR by not using those specific feats and using other in class feats that aren't clearly intended for ranged options. That meets the 'bar' for trap feat for me.
Bounded caster is WAY better than Martial MC Caster because you can take feats at your full level. That is a massive difference. Bespell weapons at L4, Dirge of Doom at L6, access to all L10+ feats, access even to lower level L6 and L8 options before L12 and L16, literally all the wild shape form feats to stay competitive (which you can't really do with MC druid now). It makes all the difference in the world vs a MC into a class.
Its hardly 'ham fisted'. Right now there is untapped design space for an occult, nature, and divine list inspired bounded caster that is just one PC (i.e., fundamentally not w/e the the summoner is). There are 3 classes already that could easily be converted to those concepts. They all have features and in class support that provide exactly what you need with basically little or no alteration needed to the class features/feats beyond swapping the class chassis template. I would play all 3 of those classes happily in that configuration without some additional gimmick beyond a:
- Shifter (i.e., get to wildshape often and at maximal druid progression)
- Sword Dancer/Marshal (i.e., bard who properly gishes and plays more like a 1e Arcane Duelist -> maybe give them a composition that can add the effect of runes onto the whole parties weapons).
- Warpriest (i.e., a self buffing/clinch healing martial first divine gish).
I bet if they had fleshed out the warpriest as a bounded caster there would have been no 'uh this doesn't fit' and it would have made the base game much more rich. You seem to forget that in all 3 of these you can still be caster focused gish. Bards can take multifarious muse, druids can take order explorer, and clerics don't have subclass gated feats. So what we're describing here isn't taking away your options to be a heavily caster focused gish.
This doesn't mean that a shaman or inquisitor or w/e couldn't come along and have more focused class gimmicks similar to a magus, but you would get a lot of mileage out of my suggestion without needing to publish and entire new class or archetype.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HeHateMe wrote: I'd like to ask Paizo to remove the Anathema restrictions from Barbarians. I find it ridiculous that a class named "Barbarian" would have a code of conduct. Barbarians are supposed to represent pure violent, destructive chaos. Codes of conduct are just wrong on that class. Eh… barbarians aren’t all destructive chaos. Violent sure, but a barbarian Chieftain who rules a clan and maintains a code of honor can still rage and tear enemies up on the battlefield. Lawful barbarians can exist and should be allowed to exist
That being said… yeah a lot of the anathemas on barbarian are stupid and unnecessary
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Arutema wrote: The ship has long ago sailed on these, since they came up in playtest, but.
Bring back a general feat at 1st level.
Give us ways to have scaling proficiency not tied to class and archetype.
Lay off on tagging any vaguely interesting character options as Uncommon. (Seriously, is the purpose of the rarity system to enforce power levels, or euro-centrism? It seems even the writers can't decide)
I hate that uncommon tags led to lizardfolk, tielfings and hobgoblins be others to being locked behind ACP in PFS
Not everyone wants to play Tolkien races
As someone who has character ideas for a tiefling (human) warpriest, lizardfolk investigator and other ideas, it sucks that the only PBPs online are PFS and I’m constantly told that I need to play PFS in order to “earn” the right to play a non PFS game… maybe I would be willing to play PFS if those uncommon tags that were slapped onto lizardfolk and tieflings weren’t there
YuriP wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: 2.) Wizard Focus Spells need a power bump. I already added this.
Red Griffyn wrote: 4.) Thaumaturge handedness issues need to be fixed. Ammunition thaumaturgy should allow 1H+ weapons. Can you explain this better? Do you just want that Thaumaturge is able to use 1+ weapons or that it's able to have a free "off-hand" while holding a non-weapon implement?
Red Griffyn wrote: 5.) Psychic needs a risk reward way to mitigate the stupefied condition. Don't Focusing Hum already address this?
it's able to have a free "off-hand" while holding a non-weapon implement?
Red Griffyn wrote: A class archetype or sublcass for 'meld into eidolon' needs to be fleshed out for the summoner class. I don't understand. Can you try to explain more or in another way?
pixierose wrote: For Lores, I would make additional lore let you pick which lore skill scales. Basically you get a new lore, and can pick one lore skill you have to auto scale. Sorry I don't understand can you explain this more? 4.) 1H+ weapons don't work because it specifies 1H only. But there are other issues related to what if you had two one handed weapons. Can you no longer use implement impowerment (so a two weapon build doesn't work). The class also suffers from having a way to swap in a passive implement back into rotation since there is no 'effect' to trigger. The L5 second implement feature requires the implement to have some kind of action to free action swap so things like tome or regalia can be stuck unequipped if you aren't paying attention.
5.) I hardly think that scratches the need. You have to set up a concentration spell either by wasting turn 1 and lose 2 actions while unleashed or making the stupified DC to cast it. It only drops it by 2 and still requires an action to sustain for 2 more rounds. Thats also a L3 spell. Thats pretty resource prohibitive. I mean more like, they can make some kind of check/roll either as an action or free action if stupefied from unleash psyche to allow them to ignore the condition for the turn. That way you don't spend a big resource (psychics have the least slots of all casters) and waste it.
The synthesist summoner was quite popular in 1e. The general idea was instead of having two separate entities you could merge two into one entity (generally the physical traits of the eidolon and the mental traits of the caster). So in this conception you might end up with 1D10 HP bounded caster chassis that has martial progression on unarmed strikes, but who can invest in evolutions on itself. It would lose out on some tandem things from being in two separate bodies, but could provide some interesting switch hitter/physical shifting things (think 'being a dragon or big plant eidolon with reach). It would retain casting capabilities and likely if you dropped to 0 you're flacid noodly caster body would be shunted out of the really cool eidolon body and require some kind of action tax to resummon the eidolon.
Red Griffyn wrote: Golurkcanfly wrote: If you're spending all 3 actions of a turn attacking, you're essentially wasting the third action unless you have abilities to offset that. Double Shot being better at higher relative accuracy and worse at lower relative accuracy doesn't make it a trap feat. It makes it a feat that's situationally useful, just like Power Attack.
And yes, I agree Fighter/Wizard doesn't play like Magus, but that's because Magus has extensive and detailed class features meant to support it's gish fantasy. Just sticking bounded casting + martial proficiency onto a regular caster chassis accomplishes very little that the multiclass doesn't.
Instead of trying to hamfisted force these ideas into a space without room for them, it's best to create a more appropriate set of options to them.
The community 'you're wasting a 3rd action if its a strike' truism isn't actually true on fighters. I just gave you a DPR chart there showing it wasn't a wasted action, but I'll add the double shot only curve to show you. Lets just pick some comparison points (added in the amped imaginary weapon line as well):
- L5 - Double Shot (19.40) vs. Fighter MC Ranger (26.56) (36.9% DPR Increase)
- L10 - Double Shot (36.25) vs. Fighter MC Ranger (51.17) (41.2% DPR Increase)
- L15 - Double Shot (55.7) vs. Fighter MC Ranger (78.59) (41.1% DPR Increase)
A L1 feat (exacting strike) gives you the same or better DPR across all levels as a L2 and L6 feat, a MC into many archetypes or classes boost your DPR significantly over in class features, and you can get better DPR by not using those specific feats and using other in class feats that aren't clearly intended for ranged options. That meets the 'bar' for trap feat for me.
Bounded caster is WAY better than Martial MC Caster because you can take feats at your full level. That is a massive difference. Bespell weapons at L4, Dirge of Doom at L6, access to all L10+ feats, access even to lower level L6 and L8 options before... So, you want feats designed for full casters on a martial + bounded caster progression. That specific space is best for class archetypes. Putting it on a subclass is clumsy and inelegant when there's already a mechanism for making broader changes to the classes.
Even then, fully fleshed out classes would better serve those fantasies by giving better routines and options that sell the gish fantasy. This concept is not hard to understand. Just compare Bespell Weapon or Channel Smite to just how fleshed out the Magus is as a class.
Furthermore, other options being better for 3 Attacks per Round doesn't make Double Shot a trap feat, especially when it's situationally better. And again, for most routines, the third attack action is rather middling compared to other utility actions. Something being worse than other feats doesn't make it a trap feat. Trap feats actively signpost a weak playstyle that cannot keep up, with the only particularly notable example being Twin Weapon Reload on Gunslinger, since it signposts away from capacity weapon dual-wielding while also just being plain worse for the grand majority of use cases since it doesn't interact with the Gunslinger's other features and is just rather inefficient.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
1) More options for focus spells. When you get one (except maybe the ones you pick with specific feats), you instead have a choice between two, or even better, you get both - typically, one easily usable in combat, and one for more niche situations. Not choosing a school or a lesson you like because you know you won't use the spell sucks.
2) More ancestry feats for the higher levels; it feels strange to only have a single lvl 17 one in most cases.
3) There are some things that are clearly out of balance. Animal companion numbers in the higher levels were fixed only in part, and shield block varies too much in efficiency as you grow in level (not counting the fact that it becomes an absolute non-option if you don't use a sturdy shield). Special materials are another obvious mistake.
4) Getting scaling non-class proficiencies is wild. The general feats just don't work; some stuff has got a neat archetype that you can pick, while other leaves you out of luck. And for advanced weapons, you have to do tricks that clash with the nice, natural character building that PF2e offers. A similar thing has been said multiple times regarding lore skills.
Golurkcanfly wrote: So, you want feats designed for full casters on a martial + bounded caster progression. That specific space is best for class archetypes. Putting it on a subclass is clumsy and inelegant when there's already a mechanism for making broader changes to the classes.
Even then, fully fleshed out classes would better serve those fantasies by giving better routines and options that sell the gish fantasy. This concept is not hard to understand. Just compare Bespell Weapon or Channel Smite to just how fleshed out the Magus is as a class.
Furthermore, other options being better for 3 Attacks per Round doesn't make Double Shot a trap feat, especially when it's situationally better. And again, for most routines, the third attack action is rather middling compared to other utility actions. Something being worse than other feats doesn't make it a trap feat. Trap feats actively signpost a weak playstyle that cannot keep up, with the only particularly notable example being Twin Weapon Reload on Gunslinger, since it signposts away from capacity weapon dual-wielding while also just being plain worse for the grand majority of use cases since it doesn't interact with the Gunslinger's other features and is just rather inefficient.
This will likely be my last response on these specific comments from you so we don't completely divert the discussion.
I'm not advocating for adding feats or features to those classes because I don't think they need it. I'm saying that the option of having bounded caster subclasses and adding mechanics are not mutually exclusive. I just did a high level pass of these three classes and each has 20+ or more really decent options for a bounded caster/martial focus (I bet there would be more on closer inspection or if you consider MC synergies). So I don't find your assertion that something else is needed to be very convincing.
Bard
- 5 warrior muse feats already that would work great.
- Hymn of healing, base inspire courage/Vigorous Inspiration/Discordant Voice, dirge of doom, House of Imaginary Walls, Inspire Defense, lingering composition, and soothing composition would be great on a martial bard
- 3x Masquerade of Seasons Stance feats,
- L12/L18 refocus feats
- Versatile Performance, Inspire Competence, bardic lore, Eclectic Skill, and know it all for skill based boosts to augment your base class features .
- Soulsight and Shared Sight
That is 26+ options already in the base package plus all the caster feats (metamagics and L10 spells) that would also be useful like quickened metamagic, effortless conncentration, etc. The occult spell list is better than the arcane list for a gish because it has buff and healing spells to keep you in combat or to prebuff with heroism.
Druid
- Has 15 wildshape related feats that are all worth taking.
- There are 6 animal companion feats that would work great including the L10 side by side for a flanking partner despite geometry.
- The other orders all have great things to take including good focus spells, ability to see in fogs/mist (storm order), damage resistance (stone order), reactions to cause damage to enemies that hit you (fire and storm order),
- L12/L18 refocus feats, etc.
That is at least 27 feats that would be useful for a wild-shaping gish before we consider things like effortless concentration, familiar feats, etc. that are also great on a gish.
Cleric
- 4 emblazon feats,
- 3 domain focus spell feat options with tons of workable options (e.g., advanced travel domain gives a focus point fly spell),
- L12/L18 refocus feats,
- sap life,
- divine weapon,
- 3 channel related feats that would be great on melee clerics or to expand versatility,
- L10/L12 replenishment feats,
- 2x alignment armament feats,
- eternal bane/blessing
- a ton of 'situational' feats I wouldn't pick but I bet others would (things like castigating weapon).
So that is 20+ base feats that a gish would want.
With respect to double shot being a trap feat. I've made a good a compelling case. Double shot is:
- Worse than other in class feats
- Worse than other in class feats not clearly meant for archery
- Worse than other out of class feats
- Consumes more feats of higher level (2 and 6 vs. one L1 or a MC at 2 and feat at L4)
- Splits damage instead of focus fires
- Does significantly less DPR (i.e., 30-40% less) and I don't believe another 3rd action will make that up. (note you brought DPR up as a comparison metric and now your moving the goalposts).
- Its worse in every scenario, but is on parity in one scenario (i.e., low CR creatures).
Just because you aren't convinced, doesn't mean it isn't true.
You've narrowed the scenario to 3 Strikes in a turn. You've repeatedly ignored every other scenario where it may be used in favor of specific white room math.
If it's just two strikes, Double Shot without any of its upgrades is in parity with two regular strikes against ==APL creatures and immediately gets better against relative to two regular strikes as soon as you gain buffs to-hit or the enemy has its AC debuffed. It also is a net gain against APL-2 and APL+2 creatures before any buffs.
So yes, if you ignore the situations where Double Shot is a net gain, it's a "trap feat." Sure, it's not a great feat, but calling it a trap feat is disingenuous and flat-out incorrect. It works as advertised and doesn't signpost an ineffectual playstyle.
In addition, other feats being stronger doesn't necessarily make it a trap feat anyways. Otherwise, nearly every melee feat would be a trap feat compared to feats like Improved Knockdown.
Red Griffyn wrote: 4.) 1H+ weapons don't work because it specifies 1H only. But there are other issues related to what if you had two one handed weapons. Can you no longer use implement impowerment (so a two weapon build doesn't work). The class also suffers from having a way to swap in a passive implement back into rotation since there is no 'effect' to trigger. The L5 second implement feature requires the implement to have some kind of action to free action swap so things like tome or regalia can be stuck unequipped if you aren't paying attention. So if I'm understand right your wish/suggestion is make the implements don't requires free-hands?
Red Griffyn wrote: 5.) I hardly think that scratches the need. You have to set up a concentration spell either by wasting turn 1 and lose 2 actions while unleashed or making the stupified DC to cast it. It only drops it by 2 and still requires an action to sustain for 2 more rounds. Thats also a L3 spell. Thats pretty resource prohibitive. I mean more like, they can make some kind of check/roll either as an action or free action if stupefied from unleash psyche to allow them to ignore the condition for the turn. That way you don't spend a big resource (psychics have the least slots of all casters) and waste it. OK I think I understand know. Add an ability to psychics to use an action to try to ignore stupefied condition caused by unleash cooldown.
Megistone wrote: 1) More options for focus spells. When you get one (except maybe the ones you pick with specific feats), you instead have a choice between two, or even better, you get both - typically, one easily usable in combat, and one for more niche situations. Not choosing a school or a lesson you like because you know you won't use the spell sucks. Sorry but I don't understand this right. Do you want that Wizard focus spells becomes independent from schools. Is this?
Megistone wrote: 2) More ancestry feats for the higher levels; it feels strange to only have a single lvl 17 one in most cases. Added to the poll.
Megistone wrote: 3) There are some things that are clearly out of balance. Animal companion numbers in the higher levels were fixed only in part, and shield block varies too much in efficiency as you grow in level (not counting the fact that it becomes an absolute non-option if you don't use a sturdy shield). Special materials are another obvious mistake.
4) Getting scaling non-class proficiencies is wild. The general feats just don't work; some stuff has got a neat archetype that you can pick, while other leaves you out of luck. And for advanced weapons, you have to do tricks that clash with the nice, natural character building that PF2e offers. A similar thing has been said multiple times regarding lore skills.
OK I will add to poll as "Better out-of-class things progressions. Like general feats progression, item DCs progression, Specific Shields progression and so on. Basically make sure that anything you get will be completely useful since the begining when you take it and fairly progressing until the very end of the game".
Could we add this to the poll? Saw someone else express this earlier
Less uncommon ancestries and make a couple uncommon ones common
Lizardfolk should be common
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Golurkcanfly wrote: You've narrowed the scenario to 3 Strikes in a turn. You've repeatedly ignored every other scenario where it may be used in favor of specific white room math.
If it's just two strikes, Double Shot without any of its upgrades is in parity with two regular strikes against ==APL creatures and immediately gets better against relative to two regular strikes as soon as you gain buffs to-hit or the enemy has its AC debuffed. It also is a net gain against APL-2 and APL+2 creatures before any buffs.
So yes, if you ignore the situations where Double Shot is a net gain, it's a "trap feat." Sure, it's not a great feat, but calling it a trap feat is disingenuous and flat-out incorrect. It works as advertised and doesn't signpost an ineffectual playstyle.
In addition, other feats being stronger doesn't necessarily make it a trap feat anyways. Otherwise, nearly every melee feat would be a trap feat compared to feats like Improved Knockdown.
Please make a new thread to continue the discussion.
YuriP wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: 4.) 1H+ weapons don't work because it specifies 1H only. But there are other issues related to what if you had two one handed weapons. Can you no longer use implement empowerment (so a two weapon build doesn't work). The class also suffers from having a way to swap in a passive implement back into rotation since there is no 'effect' to trigger. The L5 second implement feature requires the implement to have some kind of action to free action swap so things like tome or regalia can be stuck unequipped if you aren't paying attention. So if I'm understand right your wish/suggestion is make the implements don't requires free-hands? Few Ideas:
- Allow 1H and 1H+ weapons, not just 1H weapons (i.e., the act of shooting the arrow and being '2H' for a second doesn't mean losing implement empowerment). IMO the point of only having 1H weapons is to prevent weapons greater than 1D8. Implement empowerment effectively boosts the weapon base damage by 2 dice sizes so it mitigates and effective 1D16 weapon from existing. I don't feel like it is inherently there to ban 1H+ weapons from ever working because literally a 1H boomerang exists and that is better than a composite shortbow (thrower's bandolier or champion blade ally mitigate the DPR loss from needing a returning rune). It also doesn't prevent the L1 feat tax of ammunition thaumaturgy.
- You can, as a free action (with no qualifiers like 'before taking a related action') swap your implement. This allows you to swap freely between implements. They should still take 'hands to hold' but the act of switching them should work equally between active and passive implements.
- Clarify implement's empowerment to allow multiple 1H weapons (i.e., one in each hand).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CaptainRelyk wrote: Could we add this to the poll? Saw someone else express this earlier
Less uncommon ancestries and make a couple uncommon ones common
Lizardfolk should be common
I will already add this. When Arutema put this suggestion. The removal of common/uncommon/rare impact of rarity tag from players selection. OK this is a thing that usually affects more PFS games than home games but I understand that these tags also creates some confusion to some players and GMs because they are made like every character was created in Absalom and almost treat rarity like it has a power level.
Red Griffyn wrote: - Allow 1H and 1H+ weapons, not just 1H weapons (i.e., the act of shooting the arrow and being '2H' for a second doesn't mean losing implement empowerment). IMO the point of only having 1H weapons is to prevent weapons greater than 1D8. Implement empowerment effectively boosts the weapon base damage by 2 dice sizes so it mitigates and effective 1D16 weapon from existing. I don't feel like it is inherently there to ban 1H+ weapons from ever working because literally a 1H boomerang exists and that is better than a composite shortbow (thrower's bandolier or champion blade ally mitigate the DPR loss from needing a returning rune). It also doesn't prevent the L1 feat tax of ammunition thaumaturgy. OK I will add as "Allow 1+ weapons with implements".
Red Griffyn wrote: - You can, as a free action (with no qualifiers like 'before taking a related action') swap your implement. This allows you to swap freely between implements. They should still take 'hands to hold' but the act of switching them should work equally between active and passive implements. I will add as "Allow a free-action implement switch per turn". (free-actions needs pretty clear limits to try to prevent unexpected shenanigans like happen in 3.5)
Red Griffyn wrote: - Clarify implement's empowerment to allow multiple 1H weapons (i.e., one in each hand). Sorry I won't add clarifications to the poll.
Red Griffyn wrote: YuriP wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: 4.) 1H+ weapons don't work because it specifies 1H only. But there are other issues related to what if you had two one handed weapons. Can you no longer use implement empowerment (so a two weapon build doesn't work). The class also suffers from having a way to swap in a passive implement back into rotation since there is no 'effect' to trigger. The L5 second implement feature requires the implement to have some kind of action to free action swap so things like tome or regalia can be stuck unequipped if you aren't paying attention. So if I'm understand right your wish/suggestion is make the implements don't requires free-hands? Few Ideas:
- Allow 1H and 1H+ weapons, not just 1H weapons (i.e., the act of shooting the arrow and being '2H' for a second doesn't mean losing implement empowerment). IMO the point of only having 1H weapons is to prevent weapons greater than 1D8. Implement empowerment effectively boosts the weapon base damage by 2 dice sizes so it mitigates and effective 1D16 weapon from existing. I don't feel like it is inherently there to ban 1H+ weapons from ever working because literally a 1H boomerang exists and that is better than a composite shortbow (thrower's bandolier or champion blade ally mitigate the DPR loss from needing a returning rune). It also doesn't prevent the L1 feat tax of ammunition thaumaturgy.
- You can, as a free action (with no qualifiers like 'before taking a related action') swap your implement. This allows you to swap freely between implements. They should still take 'hands to hold' but the act of switching them should work equally between active and passive implements.
- Clarify implement's empowerment to allow multiple 1H weapons (i.e., one in each hand). Implement Empowerment not working with 1H+ weapons is entirely intentional to prevent bows from getting the buff. +2 damage per die is an enormous increase in damage, especially at range. The wording preventing dual-wielding is likely there for a similar reason, though most dual-wielding feats don't get to benefit as much from Exploit Weakness thanks to combining the damage bonus from weakness. As for the boomerang, you still need Quick Draw to draw and throw a Boomerang as a single action, costing additional feats as well as preventing meta-Strikes with it. The only 1H, thrown weapon with Reload 0 that works with the Thrower's Bandolier is the Shuriken, a d4 weapon with the Uncommon trait and a small 20ft range increment.
The "free action swap" feature should definitely be clarified, though. As is it's rather clumsy and could be better framed as a distinct activity with clearer requirements. Having it simply work as long as you're wearing the implement would also be nice as to not actively penalize two-handed thaumaturges who are already disadvantaged by the hand economy without damage benefit thanks to IE.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The big problem with swapping is that you can one action swap to activate an implement, but since passive implements have no action, it turns a one action activity into a 3-action one (stow>draw>activate instead of all three for one).
Makes combat-usages of passive implements and especially builds with multiple passive implements weirdly worse.
It almost feels like an editing mistake, because it makes certain specific combinations so much worse for no discernible reason.
1) Cleave be free from MAP
2) Running Reload being a gunslinger class feature
3) Finishers not stop further attacks (already on your list)
4) Riposte gains panache if you hit
5) a zero cost throw fire/acid/smoke pseudo cantrip for alchemists
6) Alignment and polictical posters staying in the threads set up for them
7) Goading Feint being a skill feat anyone can take
Gortle wrote: 5) a zero cost throw fire/acid/smoke pseudo cantrip for alchemists I want to understand this better? How is this? Makes bombs that uses save throws?
The rest will be added to the poll.
YuriP wrote: Megistone wrote: 1) More options for focus spells. When you get one (except maybe the ones you pick with specific feats), you instead have a choice between two, or even better, you get both - typically, one easily usable in combat, and one for more niche situations. Not choosing a school or a lesson you like because you know you won't use the spell sucks. Sorry but I don't understand this right. Do you want that Wizard focus spells becomes independent from schools. Is this? No, what I mean is that stuff like wizard schools should grant a couple different focus spells instead of only one, or at least a choice between those two. There are two reasons: first, for classes like the wizard it's easy to end up with that single focus spell for your whole carreer, and it feels like underusing the mechanic; second, because the balance between the granted spells is off, with some being broadly useful, and others only applicable to a strict set of situations instead. I think that getting two spells (that compete for your pool) could solve both issues.
YuriP wrote: Gortle wrote: 5) a zero cost throw fire/acid/smoke pseudo cantrip for alchemists I want to understand this better? How is this? Makes bombs that uses save throws?
The rest will be added to the poll. Currently, Alchemists have to use their limited reagents to make bombs, and they get very little of those per day at lower levels. Offering an alternative bomb pseudo-cantrip would get the Alchemist a unique attack for when those bombs run out.
Personally, I'm okay with Alchemists using crossbows or other kinds of weapons in the meantime, but I'm not opposed to the idea.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
YuriP wrote: Gortle wrote: 5) a zero cost throw fire/acid/smoke pseudo cantrip for alchemists I want to understand this better? How is this? Makes bombs that uses save throws?
The rest will be added to the poll. Perpetual Infusions starting at 1st I assume: like
a 1d4 elemental damage for bombs
a 1d4 poison for Toxicologist
a 1d4 healing for Chirurgeon
+1 to a specific skill check, like Athletics or Medicine, for a for a -1 on all mental or physical stat checks [opposite bonus stat, as in a bonus to athletics is -1 all mental rolls or bonus to medicine is a +1 all physical checks] for mutagenists.
Megistone wrote: YuriP wrote: Megistone wrote: 1) More options for focus spells. When you get one (except maybe the ones you pick with specific feats), you instead have a choice between two, or even better, you get both - typically, one easily usable in combat, and one for more niche situations. Not choosing a school or a lesson you like because you know you won't use the spell sucks. Sorry but I don't understand this right. Do you want that Wizard focus spells becomes independent from schools. Is this? No, what I mean is that stuff like wizard schools should grant a couple different focus spells instead of only one, or at least a choice between those two. There are two reasons: first, for classes like the wizard it's easy to end up with that single focus spell for your whole carreer, and it feels like underusing the mechanic; second, because the balance between the granted spells is off, with some being broadly useful, and others only applicable to a strict set of situations instead. I think that getting two spells (that compete for your pool) could solve both issues. OK I understand now (I think). I will add as "Add more focus spells options for each wizard's schools".
Ezekieru wrote: YuriP wrote: Gortle wrote: 5) a zero cost throw fire/acid/smoke pseudo cantrip for alchemists I want to understand this better? How is this? Makes bombs that uses save throws?
The rest will be added to the poll. Currently, Alchemists have to use their limited reagents to make bombs, and they get very little of those per day at lower levels. Offering an alternative bomb pseudo-cantrip would get the Alchemist a unique attack for when those bombs run out.
Personally, I'm okay with Alchemists using crossbows or other kinds of weapons in the meantime, but I'm not opposed to the idea. graystone wrote: YuriP wrote: Gortle wrote: 5) a zero cost throw fire/acid/smoke pseudo cantrip for alchemists I want to understand this better? How is this? Makes bombs that uses save throws?
The rest will be added to the poll. Perpetual Infusions starting at 1st I assume: like
a 1d4 elemental damage for bombs
a 1d4 poison for Toxicologist
a 1d4 healing for Chirurgeon
+1 to a specific skill check, like Athletics or Medicine, for a for a -1 on all mental or physical stat checks [opposite bonus stat, as in a bonus to athletics is -1 all mental rolls or bonus to medicine is a +1 all physical checks] for mutagenists. Oh thanks I understand the idea now. It's just like a weaker (or more action costly) version of perpetual infusions since level 1. Someone already give this idea to the poll. But know that I understand the point o view better I can make it more clear.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Here's another one:
Let summon spells/rituals work with Troops. While Troops as minions do raise some questions regarding replenishing/healing them, it's the best way to create the "Undead Army Necromancer" without other, potentially dubious changes.
Oh that's good!
I will add to the poll. I liked the idea of summon a troop of minions specially for necromancers.
YuriP wrote: Oh that's good!
I will add to the poll. I liked the idea of summon a troop of minions specially for necromancers.
Maybe expand it to include swarms as well.
Other summoning related ideas:
Improve how summon spells scale with level (currently they start out APL-2 and rapidly move towards APL-4/5 as you level up, maybe adjust it to cap out at APL-3/4 at higher levels).
Allow casters to modify the level of the summoned/ritual'd creature with Weak/Elite adjustments. This could lead to some shenanigans though, so it's understandable to not allow this.
Make Augment Summoning count as concentrating on the target summon for the purposes of controlling/sustaining it or make it a free action before/after casting a summoning spell. This spell is just kind of rough on the action economy.
Swarms already can be summoned (there's no summon restriction into swarm trait like has in troop trait). There's already a lot of them into available summon options in AoN.
Added "Improved and more level consistent summon spells making them able to summon creatures 2 levels bellow of double of spell level/rank".
About Elite/Weak summons this is already a grey area. There's no formal definition that the Elite creatures are 1 level higher and that Weak creature are 1 level lower but all AP elite/weak creatures are in this way. Also there's nothing clearing preventing to use Elite/Weak creatures to give more summon options. Due how weak the current summons are as GM I allow the usage of Elite and Weak creatures to player who want to summon them (the current summon trait already prevents many the main abuses like cast a higher spell).
About Augment Summoning maybe put it as free-action metamagic spell like already happens to some composition spells? Isn't like there aren't too many metamagics that can be used with summon spells anyway.
Golurkcanfly wrote: Implement Empowerment not working with 1H+ weapons is entirely intentional to prevent bows from getting the buff. +2 damage per die is an enormous increase in damage, especially at range. The wording preventing dual-wielding is likely there for a similar reason, though most dual-wielding feats don't get to benefit as much from Exploit Weakness thanks to combining the damage bonus from weakness. As for the boomerang, you still need Quick Draw to draw and throw a Boomerang as a single action, costing additional feats as well as preventing meta-Strikes with it. The only 1H, thrown weapon with Reload 0 that works with the Thrower's Bandolier is the Shuriken, a d4 weapon with the Uncommon trait and a small 20ft range increment. I qualified my statement by saying IMO. I don't think it makes sense that there is a thrown weapon that is better than a composite shortbow and would now work with very little effort and be better for all intents and purposes.
Getting quickdraw isn't that big a deal. Gunslinger, Ranger, and Rogue all have it (available by L4 with MCs) same as the returning rune on a champion blade ally (available by L4 with MCs). Use shurikens until L4 and enjoy the power spike.
Going rogue is a big boon anyways because dread striker combos really well with the thaumaturge's high CHA to demoralize then strike at 60ft range with a frightened 1/flat footed opponent. L12 can patch your slow reflex save with evasiveness and you can even pick up a sneak attack die to boost your damage anyway in addition allowing you to lean heavily into skill boosts. Until L8 you can use divine disharmony as another way to get flatfooted at range to boost DPR.
Ranger and gunslinger have their own great feat lines including warden spells for a focus point flight, alchemical bombs/fakeout with a gauntlet bow for aiding, etc.
At this point, it doesn't really matter what the 'intent' of the designer was and it especially doesn't matter what us 'non-designers' think we can intuit. What matters for the purpose of the poll is whether the community at large thinks it would be a good change or not. Hopefully Paizo will listen in to what gets discussed and consider implementing the more popular requested changes as long as they aren't introducing power creep that bumps the current power ceiling/game meta.
Something small/basic that really isn't discussed.
Split traits into 2 new categories.
While I love the trait system, it is trying to do a bit too much in a way that can cause confusion with players. You have "Keyword" traits which act as a shorthand to specific rules text (i.e. most weapon traits) and "Passive" traits which don't really matter unless some other rules element interacts with them (i.e. ancestry traits, arcane schools, most magic traits, etc.)
The issue is that these are jumbled together in a way that means players can miss relevant rules text and then be dissatisfied when it comes up in play. For example, the incapacitate trait on many spells is often buried within a mass of other traits that normally don't mean anything for 90% of the time when casting a spell. Because most of these traits don't affect normal casting situations - many players get used to ignoring them, and end up surprised when one of them actually matters.
For example: Impending Doom has 6 traits associated with it. The Divination and Prediction traits are passive and only matter if some other effect cares about arcane schools. The Emotion, Fear, and Mental traits are also rather passive, generally only coming into play vs creatures that are immune to these effects (which will be mentioned in the creature's statblock). The only trait that consistently influences the actual casting of the spell is Incapacitation - which actually changes the rules on how saving throws work.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
YuriP wrote: Rework the Panache to removal critical failure effects and to not allow opponents becoming immune to it This all day long. Swashbucklers are so reliant on their panache mechanic, maybe just allow them the ability to turn crit fails into regular fails with panache
Golurkcanfly wrote: keftiu wrote: Golurkcanfly wrote: keftiu wrote: I don't know that there's room for it in PF2, but... I miss the body horror Alchemist. The version of the class I fell in love with was about permanent discoveries, not consumable items. I think body horror alchemy would actually work quite well as an alchemical subclass/class archetype for a 2e Shifter. It'd be difficult to stuff in the existing Alchemist chassis without some other give-and-take. The "hey I'm a Druid that doesn't cast spells" flavor of the Shifter did very little for me, but the idea of playing one as an alchemical horror makes me interested in the class for the first time ever. You're right that what I loved about those PF1 builds doesn't really fit any part of the PF2 Alchemist's chassis... which bums me out, but that ship has sailed.
Here's hoping we see the Shifter right after the Shaman and Inquisitor are spoken for :p I'm still not sure what people want from a 2e Inquisitor beyond the name given how the 1e class was kind of a miscellaneous pile of features, like the anti-Magus. Everyone loved the class for a different reason rather than people loving the class for a highly specific reason (Magus's Spellstrike).
As for Shaman, I also don't know what people want from it but I'd like to see it as a "pet-lite" caster that uses a familiar or other "mini-pet" as the source of various magical effects, like a familiar that exudes an Inspire Courage aura or using it as the center of AoEs. Body horror (or grafter) alchemist would be awesome. IMO it could just subsume the existing chirurgeon.
Regarding the Shaman, after thinking on it for a while I think it might be cool if it worked similar to the Kineticist but focused on incorporeal entities and the positive, negative, ethereal, shadow, and astral planes. Basically a kind of feat-based alt-elemental pseudo-caster. IMO that would make it sufficiently different from existing casters, the summoner, and then kineticist.
Just my 2 pence worth.
Jacob Jett wrote:
Body horror (or grafter) chemist would be awesome. IMO it could just subsume the existing chirurgeon.
Regarding the Shaman, after thinking on it for a while I think it might be cool if it worked similar to the Kineticist but focused on incorporeal entities and the positive, negative, ethereal, shadow, and astral planes. Basically a kind of feat-based alt-elemental pseudo-caster. IMO that would make it sufficiently different from existing casters, the summoner, and then...
That feels a little too far removed from the 1e Shaman to be named Shaman. That and they could always just expand Kineticist to be able to use those.
While 1e Shaman was derived primarily from the Witch, it leans a lot more into the familiar/spirit aspect and would fill a proper "Familiar Specialist" niche that Witch kinda tried to do. It would be somewhere between a regular full caster and a Summoner, probably using a chassis like the Psychic with 2 spell slots per spell level.
Golurkcanfly wrote: Jacob Jett wrote:
Body horror (or grafter) chemist would be awesome. IMO it could just subsume the existing chirurgeon.
Regarding the Shaman, after thinking on it for a while I think it might be cool if it worked similar to the Kineticist but focused on incorporeal entities and the positive, negative, ethereal, shadow, and astral planes. Basically a kind of feat-based alt-elemental pseudo-caster. IMO that would make it sufficiently different from existing casters, the summoner, and then...
That feels a little too far removed from the 1e Shaman to be named Shaman. That and they could always just expand Kineticist to be able to use those.
While 1e Shaman was derived primarily from the Witch, it leans a lot more into the familiar/spirit aspect and would fill a proper "Familiar Specialist" niche that Witch kinda tried to do. It would be somewhere between a regular full caster and a Summoner, probably using a chassis like the Psychic with 2 spell slots per spell level. I don't know. It feels a little too similar to the summoner IMO. But maybe it would work. I would love it if a playtest for whatever Paizo wants to do with it would drop soon.
Jacob Jett wrote: Golurkcanfly wrote: Jacob Jett wrote:
Body horror (or grafter) chemist would be awesome. IMO it could just subsume the existing chirurgeon.
Regarding the Shaman, after thinking on it for a while I think it might be cool if it worked similar to the Kineticist but focused on incorporeal entities and the positive, negative, ethereal, shadow, and astral planes. Basically a kind of feat-based alt-elemental pseudo-caster. IMO that would make it sufficiently different from existing casters, the summoner, and then...
That feels a little too far removed from the 1e Shaman to be named Shaman. That and they could always just expand Kineticist to be able to use those.
While 1e Shaman was derived primarily from the Witch, it leans a lot more into the familiar/spirit aspect and would fill a proper "Familiar Specialist" niche that Witch kinda tried to do. It would be somewhere between a regular full caster and a Summoner, probably using a chassis like the Psychic with 2 spell slots per spell level. I don't know. It feels a little too similar to the summoner IMO. But maybe it would work. I would love it if a playtest for whatever Paizo wants to do with it would drop soon. There'll probably be a playtest for a class either right after Paizocon or right after Gencon. Shaman is a solid contender for the next class because it would work well thematically with the Season of Ghosts. It very much fits the common fiction of a Shugenja/Onmyoji that the game currently doesn't have a great candidate for.
Charon Onozuka wrote: Something small/basic that really isn't discussed.
Split traits into 2 new categories.
While I love the trait system, it is trying to do a bit too much in a way that can cause confusion with players. You have "Keyword" traits which act as a shorthand to specific rules text (i.e. most weapon traits) and "Passive" traits which don't really matter unless some other rules element interacts with them (i.e. ancestry traits, arcane schools, most magic traits, etc.)
The issue is that these are jumbled together in a way that means players can miss relevant rules text and then be dissatisfied when it comes up in play. For example, the incapacitate trait on many spells is often buried within a mass of other traits that normally don't mean anything for 90% of the time when casting a spell. Because most of these traits don't affect normal casting situations - many players get used to ignoring them, and end up surprised when one of them actually matters.
For example: Impending Doom has 6 traits associated with it. The Divination and Prediction traits are passive and only matter if some other effect cares about arcane schools. The Emotion, Fear, and Mental traits are also rather passive, generally only coming into play vs creatures that are immune to these effects (which will be mentioned in the creature's statblock). The only trait that consistently influences the actual casting of the spell is Incapacitation - which actually changes the rules on how saving throws work.
Added as "Use different colors to "passive" traits (traits without rules inside them) and active traits (traits with rules inside them)"
Now I will publish the poll into another thread so no more changes and options will be added to it.
|
