|
I thought I had the answer for this but I can't find it.
Say you are playing a Ranger and multiclass into Fighter and take something like Dazing Blow. Dazing Blow references your class DC, not FIGHTER class DC. In these cases, are you supposed to be using your base martial class DC (Ranger class DC in this example)? If not, where in the rules does it state so?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not written, because it should be obvious, something that is common with the Core rules.
While it's not technically out yet, allowing you to use any DC you want would screw up Kineticist Dedication, allowing you to use your normal class DC and dump Con while still having a pretty good chance to hit, and it completely invalidates the level 12 feat that increases your Kineticist DC
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not written, because it should be obvious, something that is common with the Core rules.
While it's not technically out yet, allowing you to use any DC you want would screw up Kineticist Dedication, allowing you to use your normal class DC and dump Con while still having a pretty good chance to hit, and it completely invalidates the level 12 feat that increases your Kineticist DC
It's really not so obvious when the Scroll Thaumaturgy feat for Thaumaturge specifically calls out Thaumaturge class DC while the Fling Magic action for the wand implement only calls for class DC. Both options are available when taking Thaumaturge multiclass. That's 1 example of each, not only in the same book but within the same class.
As far as Kineticist multiclass goes, they are not explicitly spellcasters and more mechanically aligned with martials so I don't think it would screw anything up though it might make things wonky. It'd definitely help out those Monk/Kineticist builds I'm sure majy will be making. Maybe Kineticist will be what brings the need for clarity if it doesn't come in the remaster but it sounds like this has been a big assumption about a bit too specific scenario for anyone to bring up regularly.
I appreciate your input but I'm curious what how others would rule this. I'll probably test out a similar build in Foundry and see how that rules thing even though it is also not an official source.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not written, because it should be obvious, something that is common with the Core rules.
While it's not technically out yet, allowing you to use any DC you want would screw up Kineticist Dedication, allowing you to use your normal class DC and dump Con while still having a pretty good chance to hit, and it completely invalidates the level 12 feat that increases your Kineticist DC
It's really not so obvious when the Scroll Thaumaturgy feat for Thaumaturge specifically calls out Thaumaturge class DC while the Fling Magic action for the wand implement only calls for class DC. Both options are available when taking Thaumaturge multiclass. That's 1 example of each, not only in the same book but within the same class.
As far as Kineticist multiclass goes, they are not explicitly spellcasters and more mechanically aligned with martials so I don't think it would screw anything up though it might make things wonky. It'd definitely help out those Monk/Kineticist builds I'm sure majy will be making. Maybe Kineticist will be what brings the need for clarity if it doesn't come in the remaster but it sounds like this has been a big assumption about a bit too specific scenario for anyone to bring up regularly.
I appreciate your input but I'm curious what how others would rule this. I'll probably test out a similar build in Foundry and see how that rules thing even though it is also not an official source.
there's no rason for a level 12 feat to give you "expert in kineticist DC" to exist if everyone gets free expert at 7 and master later on.
While i agree with you that it's not "obvious" for all cases, for a lot of cases it is.
It is also one of the minor things i want to have clarified in Core 1, because some abilities make sense to use your own class DC (like if you gain a weapon specialization that uses class DC) while some others make 0 sense (a class specific ability like stunning fist, kineticist impulses, etc)
Kineticist class DC increase is useful for spellcasters that do not have a class DC.
|
|
that's reaching for straws.
you asked for other opinions, you got them.
so far you are the only one that believes that you use your own class DC for stuff like kineticist impulses gained through archetype.
I do appreciate the additional input but is that really reaching for straws when Diverse Weapon Expert from the Fighter archetype gives no benefit to the majority of martial classes? I'm just wondering where everyone got this assumption about the reference to general class DCs in feats from. Like, even if a designer/developer said so in a video (even with that being an unofficial ruling) that'd be great but right now, all I'm getting is "because that's how we've always done it".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
so far you are the only one that believes that you use your own class DC for stuff like kineticist impulses gained through archetype.
I don't think it's really a matter of believes or not. This is the rules forum after all, and it's reasonable to point out that the book says nothing on this topic, and maybe should.
From a pure 'reasonableness' standard arguments can go both ways, so that's not necessarily super conclusive either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's really not so obvious when the Scroll Thaumaturgy feat for Thaumaturge specifically calls out Thaumaturge class DC while the Fling Magic action for the wand implement only calls for class DC. Both options are available when taking Thaumaturge multiclass. That's 1 example of each, not only in the same book but within the same class.
That is good to point out.
I also feel like this is a good indication that the rules writers consider the phrasing to be the same. That 'class DC' of a class feat refers to the specific class that the feat came from.
|
|
From a pure 'reasonableness' standard arguments can go both ways, so that's not necessarily super conclusive either.I wouldn't say it's reasonable that one's training as an investigator can translate to being a better barbarian. Or that being a great Alchemist can make you a better Swashbuckler.
Except one's training as a Rune Witch can translate to being a better Wizard and so on for any other spellcasting class that multiclasses into another spellcasting class of the same tradition.
As far as I can tell, that combining of casting tradition bonus/DC is the entire reason that we have separate concepts for class DC vs spellcasting DC. It is for the sole purpose that spellcasting of the same tradition is meant to share proficiency, but class training is not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's really not so obvious when the Scroll Thaumaturgy feat for Thaumaturge specifically calls out Thaumaturge class DC while the Fling Magic action for the wand implement only calls for class DC. Both options are available when taking Thaumaturge multiclass. That's 1 example of each, not only in the same book but within the same class.That is good to point out.
I also feel like this is a good indication that the rules writers consider the phrasing to be the same. That 'class DC' of a class feat refers to the specific class that the feat came from.
I see the distinction is due to 2 things. It is a simple mistake and there is no distinction and they need to clarify this in order to avoid confusion or it is intentional because there is a meaningful distinction. Further, I would argue that if the distinction is purposeful, it makes sense in my Thaumaturge example as taking the wand implement with the Thaumaturge multiclass would be pathetically weak if it was stuck at being at your trained Thaumaturge class DC but passable if based on your base class DC. At the same time, if Scroll Thaumaturgy was based on your base class DC it would be so busted for costing only 2 feats but it is explicitly limited to your trained Thauamaturge class DC as it should be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Further, I would argue that if the distinction is purposeful, it makes sense in my Thaumaturge example as taking the wand implement with the Thaumaturge multiclass would be pathetically weak if it was stuck at being at your trained Thaumaturge class DC but passable if based on your base class DC.
Depends on the class. Swashbuckler: would like that a lot since they go up in Swashbuckler proficiency as they level up. Sorcerer: really wouldn't want to stick with untrained in Sorcerer class DC to use the Thaumaturge wand.
|
|
Further, I would argue that if the distinction is purposeful, it makes sense in my Thaumaturge example as taking the wand implement with the Thaumaturge multiclass would be pathetically weak if it was stuck at being at your trained Thaumaturge class DC but passable if based on your base class DC.Sorcerer: really wouldn't want to stick with untrained in Sorcerer class DC to use the Thaumaturge wand.
You got a point there, having a martial class being better at slinging a very basic cantrip-like effect from a wand better than any spellcaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, it appears that one of the rules writers just really likes typing out the word "thaumaturge". There are five class feats (plus the thaumaturge archetype dedication) in the Thaumaturge class that reference "thaumaturge class DC".
But Monk, Rogue, Ranger, Fighter, and probably the rest of the pure martial classes (I only spot checked them - four was enough to show the trend) give trained in the specific class DC in their archetype dedication, but none of the feats ever reference it other than by "class DC".
|
|
Also, it appears that one of the rules writers just really likes typing out the word "thaumaturge". There are five class feats (plus the thaumaturge archetype dedication) in the Thaumaturge class that reference "thaumaturge class DC".
But Monk, Rogue, Ranger, Fighter, and probably the rest of the pure martial classes (I only spot checked them - four was enough to show the trend) give trained in the specific class DC in their archetype dedication, but none of the feats ever reference it other than by "class DC".
I was just able to look that up as well. Thaumaturge might be getting some special treatment due to being a weird spell like ability type class or they might be rectifying this issue after all and the wand implement just fell through the cracks. I have a feeling we'll probably get a more definitive answer with the remaster. Maybe until then I can get an answer by asking someone during GenCon.
|
|
It's not different rules, it's different authors. The Core Rulebook as 4 authors, and was written way back in 2018/2019. Dark Archive was written by 31 different people, two of which also contributed to the Core Rulebook (Logan Bonner and Mark Seifter), and was written in 2022. Not all of them wrote Thaumaturge, it was likely only one or two people, but even if it were the same two authors as the Core book, they then had 4 more years of experience writing for 2E, so it makes sense they would be more precise in their writing.
My point is, just because one source uses "your Specific Class DC" instead of "your Class DC", doesn't mean it intentionally means you use your highest DC for everything like you are suggesting.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish this was something that they would simplify.
They could just say spell DC and class DC are the same. Then merely say that you have a penalty of say 2 for any spell outside your tradition, or any class DC that is outside your class.
It would be a whole lot easier... for much the same result
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a pure 'reasonableness' standard arguments can go both ways, so that's not necessarily super conclusive either.I wouldn't say it's reasonable that one's training as an investigator can translate to being a better barbarian. Or that being a great Alchemist can make you a better Swashbuckler.
Yeah, that's the argument for it being unreasonable. The reasonableness argument is more based on the mechanical implementation. The (likely RAI) of using archetype DC makes a lot of DC based mechanics borderline or outright trap options, and that flaw gets alleviated if you allow to players to use class DCs generically.
Yeah, that's the argument for it being unreasonable. The reasonableness argument is more based on the mechanical implementation. The (likely RAI) of using archetype DC makes a lot of DC based mechanics borderline or outright trap options, and that flaw gets alleviated if you allow to players to use class DCs generically.From a pure 'reasonableness' standard arguments can go both ways, so that's not necessarily super conclusive either.I wouldn't say it's reasonable that one's training as an investigator can translate to being a better barbarian. Or that being a great Alchemist can make you a better Swashbuckler.
Yeah, mechanically if you have an archetype DC that you will use it's almost certainly going to be terrible to the point of not making sense to choose anything that uses it.
However from an "internally consistent logic" view I think it makes sense to say that you should definitely use an archetype DC as your other class training doesn't make you better at your archetype stuff.
Yeah, that's the argument for it being unreasonable. The reasonableness argument is more based on the mechanical implementation. The (likely RAI) of using archetype DC makes a lot of DC based mechanics borderline or outright trap options, and that flaw gets alleviated if you allow to players to use class DCs generically.From a pure 'reasonableness' standard arguments can go both ways, so that's not necessarily super conclusive either.I wouldn't say it's reasonable that one's training as an investigator can translate to being a better barbarian. Or that being a great Alchemist can make you a better Swashbuckler.
Again, only if you are going to write in an equivalence between Class DC and Spellcasting tradition DC.
Otherwise it is most definitely a horrible trap option to pick a martial class feat that uses Class DC with a spellcaster base class that only has a Spellcasting tradition DC.
And since that equivalence between Class DC and Spellcasting tradition DC is very much not in the core rules, this is a houserule. Perhaps a good one to use. Nothing against houserules. But it is definitely a houserule.
|
|
Yeah, that's the argument for it being unreasonable. The reasonableness argument is more based on the mechanical implementation. The (likely RAI) of using archetype DC makes a lot of DC based mechanics borderline or outright trap options, and that flaw gets alleviated if you allow to players to use class DCs generically.
Good thing there's only one or two options available for archetypes that even use Class DC then. Most of the class DC options are above level 10. And even if you stay Trained, that's at most a 4 point difference as most classes only become Masters in their class DC anyway.