More gadgets! We have a lot of spells to choose from, so that would be great to have more gadgets.
|
So Singular Expertise prevents you from progressing other weapon proficiencies as fast as your proficiency with guns and crossbows. Which was relevant with APG archetypes that would do so. But those archetypes don't work that way anymore anyway. I'm not surprised the ability is up on the drawing table again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I'm not going to say no to a Remaster of Guns & Gears, but I really hope that among the changes/updates, they fix Reverse Engineer so it's actually possible for a 2nd level Inventor to take it at 2nd level without optional rules.
This is acceptable. Awesome! Glad they are getting remastered. Is it going to be a Gods and Magic to Divine mysteries style remaster, or simply a reprinting with the updated terminology and (hopefully rebalancing)?
If they are doing Guns and Gears, which from what I see is talked about as the least needing a remaster, I'd figure Dark Archive and Secrets of Magic are locked in.
Rage of Elements though, is already Remastered, just not ORC. So I'd be less confident on assuming that one would get a new book.
Rage of Elements may just be something they on a future printing slap new cover art put it on the ORC as it is basically already remastered. Not something that needs a full redo or reremaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rage of Elements may just be something they on a future printing slap new cover art put it on the ORC as it is basically already remastered. Not something that needs a full redo or reremaster.
Yeah, if they reprint it all they really need to do is "apply errata" and "change the license".
|
You know, it occured to me a very elegant fix to the Overdrive/Unstable problem would be to link them similar to how Panache is linked to Finishers.
First, we change Unstable. Instead of the flat check, we make it so Unstable trait actions need you to be in Overdrive to be used, and they end Overdrive after they've been used (like how Finishers need Panache and consume your Panache).
Then we change Overdrive so that Failure gives us Half-Int do Damage, Success gives us Full-Int and Crit Success gives us Full-Int + our next Unstable trait action doesn't end Overdrive. We get rid of the Crit Failure effect, since it adds nothing. We keep the 1 minute duration, but we get rid of being able retry to test, to incentivise people using more Unstable actions to cycle their Overdrive failures.
It's a pipe dream but hey, it gets rid of Unstable being far too random, it makes Overdrive better and it actually saves you page space.
Needing to spend another action to activate Overdrive every time you use an Unstable action would make the Inventor weaker and would mean they avoid Unstable actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Needing to spend another action to activate Overdrive every time you use an Unstable action would make the Inventor weaker and would mean they avoid Unstable actions.You know, it occured to me a very elegant fix to the Overdrive/Unstable problem would be to link them similar to how Panache is linked to Finishers.
First, we change Unstable. Instead of the flat check, we make it so Unstable trait actions need you to be in Overdrive to be used, and they end Overdrive after they've been used (like how Finishers need Panache and consume your Panache).
Then we change Overdrive so that Failure gives us Half-Int do Damage, Success gives us Full-Int and Crit Success gives us Full-Int + our next Unstable trait action doesn't end Overdrive. We get rid of the Crit Failure effect, since it adds nothing. We keep the 1 minute duration, but we get rid of being able retry to test, to incentivise people using more Unstable actions to cycle their Overdrive failures.
It's a pipe dream but hey, it gets rid of Unstable being far too random, it makes Overdrive better and it actually saves you page space.
If that's all I proposed you'd be correct, but it isn't.
Currently, Overdrive straight up has a chance of doing absolutely nothing. It's roughest at levels 1-2, where it's 35%, it's 20% for levels 3-6, and from then it's 15% or 10%, depending the level you're at, due to how Standard DC scales. And lets not forget, you always have a 5% chance of Critically Failing, which not only damages you but also prevents you from using Overdrive for 1 minute. And while Hero Points do exist, I've seen enough 1s rerolled into 1s to know this hurts immensely.
(Admittedly my numbers only take into account the Inventor's Proficiency Bonus and Item bonuses to crafting, since I'm unsure how many status/circumstance bonuses to crafting there are in the game.)
My changes get rid of those chances, leaving you with only a 5% chance it doesn't work, which also does not damage and doesn't prevent you from trying again.
And now a Critical Success (which is 15% for levels 1-2; 30% for levels 3-6, and then 35% or 40% depending on level) gives you one free Unstable use.
Unstable in it's current form is just bad. There is no way for the player to influence the flat check until level 14, and not only does that cost a feat, it also has a 10 minute cooldown.
Compounding the issue is that failing one check prevents the use of any Unstable actions until you take 10 minutes to repair your innovation. If it was one check per action it'd be palatable, as it is, it's not.
I mean imagine if there was a Caster that had a special way to use Focus Spells. This special way lets them keep the Focus point on a DC 15 flat check (that's a 30% chance of succeeding, btw), but if they fail the check they lose access to their Focus Pool until they take 10 minutes to Refocus. Oh and if they roll 5 or less they take damage too, because why not?
Would anyone say this was better than normal Focus Point mechanics?
My solution isn't perfect by any means, and everyone who dislikes it can rest easy knowing it's something Paizo would never do. But claiming it would make Inventors weaker just shows you've got a pretty flawed understanding of Inventor mechanics.
The Inventor has always suffered from having failure chances on actions that grant benefits that are lesser than what you get for the same investment in other classes. Compare Overdrive to Exploit Vulnerability for the most obvious example, but you can also add Rage (pre-remaster, post remaster it's an even worse comparison).
And now that Swashbuckler's Bravado has changed Panache generation, they're the only class that requires a check to activate their main thing that doesn't work on a failure. So I hope they address it in this remaster, because it sorely needs it.
I don't think Paizo would never do that, the new swashbuckler is proof they obviously would, and I'd even argue its likely going to happen, even if not exactly like that. I feel overdrive on failure is pretty much a given, and unstable receiving changes is also very likely.
Also, if the new marshal is proof of something, its that its likely going to be an easy DC too for overdrive.
I found the Inventor to be woefully underserved in terms of creative options. I essentially didn’t want to take any of the available “streams” - weapon, armor or “pet”. Hopefully a Remastered Guns and Gear improves the breadth of options and makes me….want to play one.
|
|
Needing to spend another action to activate Overdrive every time you use an Unstable action would make the Inventor weaker and would mean they avoid Unstable actions.You know, it occured to me a very elegant fix to the Overdrive/Unstable problem would be to link them similar to how Panache is linked to Finishers.
First, we change Unstable. Instead of the flat check, we make it so Unstable trait actions need you to be in Overdrive to be used, and they end Overdrive after they've been used (like how Finishers need Panache and consume your Panache).
Then we change Overdrive so that Failure gives us Half-Int do Damage, Success gives us Full-Int and Crit Success gives us Full-Int + our next Unstable trait action doesn't end Overdrive. We get rid of the Crit Failure effect, since it adds nothing. We keep the 1 minute duration, but we get rid of being able retry to test, to incentivise people using more Unstable actions to cycle their Overdrive failures.
It's a pipe dream but hey, it gets rid of Unstable being far too random, it makes Overdrive better and it actually saves you page space.
If that's all I proposed you'd be correct, but it isn't.
Currently, Overdrive straight up has a chance of doing absolutely nothing. It's roughest at levels 1-2, where it's 35%, it's 20% for levels 3-6, and from then it's 15% or 10%, depending the level you're at, due to how Standard DC scales. And lets not forget, you always have a 5% chance of Critically Failing, which not only damages you but also prevents you from using Overdrive for 1 minute. And while Hero Points do exist, I've seen enough 1s rerolled into 1s to know this hurts immensely.
(Admittedly my numbers only take into account the Inventor's Proficiency Bonus and Item bonuses to crafting, since I'm unsure how many status/circumstance bonuses to crafting there are in the game.)
My changes get rid of those chances, leaving you with only a 5% chance it doesn't work,...
My highest-level PFS character is an Inventor. it's the class I have the most experience with in the system.
Right now, if I fail an Overdrive check, that's a great time to use an Unstable ability that doesn't call for a Strike. Your changes make that failure less likely, but take away this option entirely.
Right now, he uses an Unstable ability in most combats. Sometimes he gets lucky and uses several. Your changes mean that every time he does that, he needs to take another action to Overdrive again before he can do anything. He already has more things that he wants to do then he has actions for. That effectively increases the cost of all Unstable actions by one. That's a high cost without any improvement to the abilities themselves, which makes using them at all a lot less desirable.
Overdrive adds damage to all of your Strikes. Exploiting Vulnerability only adds it against one target. My Thaumaturge doesn't always bother Exploiting, because the action cost is high. She does it for her first target, but when that one goes down, and the other enemies are mooks or already damaged? Just hitting them is often more effective.
It's also often better than Overdrive, so that's a fair trade. You're adding that same downside to Inventors with this proposed change without the improvement (and if you made it equally strong, then they're just the same ability; they should be different!)
I don't want to be that guy, but I'm really surprised how there's more than one person that think these changes would nerf the inventor, when I seriously think few things could be made to make the inventor worse.
Overdrive adds damage to all of your Strikes. Exploiting Vulnerability only adds it against one target. My Thaumaturge doesn't always bother Exploiting, because the action cost is high. She does it for her first target, but when that one goes down, and the other enemies are mooks or already damaged? Just hitting them is often more effective.
If you don't exploit weakness as a thaumaturge you don't have class features, except if you have a very specific choice of implements. But regardless, a thaumaturge doesn't even need to exploit weakness to shame the inventor, implement's empowerment gives you a passive bonus equal to a success overdrive, which becomes a bonus equal to a critical succes overdrive when you get a striking rune and stays that way for more or less the first 10 levels of play. If you want to optimize exploiting your enemies there's the Sympathethic Vulnerabilities feat, which for 90% of encounters mean you won't have to exploit weakness more than once per encounter (last week the 2-year long campaign in which I was playing a thaumaturge from 1st to 16th level finished, and I could count with a single hand the amount of times I had to exploit more than once after I got that feat). The only real "advantage" inventors have is that they could technically use a greatsword, but since the most optimal uses of the class require gadgets it likely means most of the time you'll want to have a free hand available for that and the ocasional tool usage.
Even if TheFinish's proposed changes were made exactly as they proposed it, that wouldn't stop you from using unstable actions, in fact, you'll likely end up using way more in average. If the whole reason you were using those actions in the first place was because you failed at having a class feature your class gives you I think you should recognize there's some problems here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Implement's Empowerment just lets a one armed combatant do two armed damage. It's only a meaningful boost for range weapons. Mostly just thrown weapons, really.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I found the Inventor to be woefully underserved in terms of creative options. I essentially didn’t want to take any of the available “streams” - weapon, armor or “pet”. Hopefully a Remastered Guns and Gear improves the breadth of options and makes me….want to play one.
Just thought I’d clarify - I was, upon looking into the Inventor, interested in all three Innovations, but it was the available options for the Innovations that I found to be lacking.
Given the “remastering” likely may not provide much new “content” and instead shore up disparities between PF2 and PF2R, I’m guessing I won’t be exactly overwhelmed with the “update”. If there is anything to be hoped for, I hope at least the “power level” of the class doesn’t make it seem, on paper at least, and if the general consensus hereabouts suggests…somewhat….anaemic.
I am disappointed that a class with so much creative promise launched with so few options, and hasn’t exactly been given more as later books just….moved on.
|
|
I don't want to be that guy, but I'm really surprised how there's more than one person that think these changes would nerf the inventor, when I seriously think few things could be made to make the inventor worse.
First of all, I'm not more than one person. But I could say "I'm really surprised how there's more than one person that thinks these changes would empower the Inventor, when it would make them worse."
If you'd like to convince me otherwise, feel free. I gave a specific reason. You wrote a response to me, but there's nothing in there addressing my point about the increased action cost, requiring you to be in OverDrive but also requiring you to restart OverDrive.How could I use more Unstable actions on average? I wouldn't have any actions left to use them if I needed to spend more actions on OverDrive!
Overdrive adds damage to all of your Strikes. Exploiting Vulnerability only adds it against one target. My Thaumaturge doesn't always bother Exploiting, because the action cost is high. She does it for her first target, but when that one goes down, and the other enemies are mooks or already damaged? Just hitting them is often more effective.If you don't exploit weakness as a thaumaturge you don't have class features, except if you have a very specific choice of implements. But regardless, a thaumaturge doesn't even need to exploit weakness to shame the inventor, implement's empowerment gives you a passive bonus equal to a success overdrive, which becomes a bonus equal to a critical succes overdrive when you get a striking rune and stays that way for more or less the first 10 levels of play.
So they do have a class feature, then.
Y'know, I almost put in a point about how my Thaumaturge deals more base damage than my Inventor when neither have their thing going, but realized that it isn't even about their classes so I deleted it.
It's true of those two specific characters, but my Inventor uses a shield and a one-handed reach weapon. Of course he has lower base damage! If he used a maul instead, they'd be exactly the same (ignoring Weapon Spec, which favors him but that's just a level difference). 2d8+8 ~ 17, 2d12+4 ~ 17. Inventors can do the same thing, but they have other options. Having other options is an advantage, not a weakness.
(Although almost every weapon-using character has these options. Not really an advantage for Inventor but a drawback for Thaumaturge. Why are we talking about Thaumaturges?)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just thought I’d clarify - I was, upon looking into the Inventor, interested in all three Innovations, but it was the available options for the Innovations that I found to be lacking.
Yeah, like my first idea for an Inventor was "guy who has a one of a kind amazing crossbow". But when you actually get down to building this character you find that you very few of the weapon modifications even apply.
Like for the basic ones you can have Blunt Shot, and Complex Simplicity (making the simple crossbow into the martial arbalest with 10 more range, that's worth a feat equivalent), and Segmented Frame (which isn't useful in combat.) For the Breakthrough Modifications my choices are Rangefinder and Rope Shot. This is four whole options until you reach level 15, good thing you can retrain them efficiently so you can try every combination.
I get that there was initially an impulse to keep the guns half of the book separate from the gears half of the book, but I think with the benefit of hindsight we should consider the possibility that the inventor wants to use a reload weapon. If they can free up page space somehow, "more inventor modifications" is probably the best thing they could use it for.
First of all, I'm not more than one person
It was in reference to an earlier comment which said TheFinish's proposal would nerf the class.
How could I use more Unstable actions on average? I wouldn't have any actions left to use them if I needed to spend more actions on OverDrive!
Since unstable has a 30% chance of success, it means its very likely for inventors to not do more than one unstable action per encounter. With TheFinish's proposal, you could overdrive + attack + unstableaAction every turn as long as you don't have to move, except in the case you wanted to use explode which is (I think) the only unstable activity with two actions. Weirdly enough this would heavily buff Clockwork Celerity btw.
(Although almost every weapon-using character has these options. Not really an advantage for Inventor but a drawback for Thaumaturge. Why are we talking about Thaumaturges?)
I brought the thaumaturge into the discussion because its the class thats the closest to the inventor in terms of design. Both are 8 + Con HP, both are martials, both have an auto-scaling skill, and both have a damage bump they need to use first to benefit from it, though in the case of the thaumaturge, it has like way more positives when compared to overdrive like having an effect on failure and having an overall better damage progression.
Btw, I apoligize because I went a little too agresive in my previous comment. I tend to exaggerate a little when I speak so it likely worded what I said badly.
My highest-level PFS character is an Inventor. it's the class I have the most experience with in the system.
Right now, if I fail an Overdrive check, that's a great time to use an Unstable ability that doesn't call for a Strike. Your changes make that failure less likely, but take away this option entirely.
Right now, he uses an Unstable ability in most combats. Sometimes he gets lucky and uses several. Your changes mean that every time he does that, he needs to take another action to Overdrive again before he can do anything. He already has more things that he wants to do then he has actions for. That effectively increases the cost of all Unstable actions by one. That's a high cost without any improvement to the abilities themselves, which makes using them at all a lot less desirable.Overdrive adds damage to all of your Strikes. Exploiting Vulnerability only adds it against one target. My Thaumaturge doesn't always bother Exploiting, because the action cost is high. She does it for her first target, but when that one goes down, and the other enemies are mooks or already damaged? Just hitting them is often more effective.
It's also often better than Overdrive, so that's a fair trade. You're adding that same downside to Inventors with this proposed change without the improvement (and if you made it equally strong, then they're just the same ability; they should be different!)
Wait, I think I was being clear when I referenced Panache, but apparently I wasn't. The intent here is you still enter Overdrive on a failure, just like Bravado actions give you Panache until the end of your next turn (not sure yet if I'd also give this Overdrive the same limitation, but I probably would for the sake of balance). So it would only be a problem on a Crit Fail, but even that one is better since it would neither damage you nor lock you out of attempting Overdrive again. Which it does now.
Yes, Overdrive adds damage to all your strikes. It's also a lot less damage than equivalent abilities. Keep in mind Personal Antithesis gives you 2+Half Level. On a failure. By level 4, a Failure on Exploit Vulnerability gets you only 1 less damage than a Critical in Overdrive (Weakness 4 vs 5 Overdrive damage). As levels advance this gets worse and worse.
It's also an issue that this is the only thing Overdrive does. It gives you Damage. Exploit Vulnerability gives you information on the bad guy that can help your team. Rage gives you Temp HP and allows you to use Rage actions. Overdrive does literally nothing but add damage. And it's Manipulate too, which opens you up to AOOs.
And lets not forget Critting the Overdrive also prevents you from using it again for 1 minute after it ends. This is usually not a problem but it was a problem for me when I played my Inventor through Outlaws of Alkenstar because of how my GM played a particula enemy in one of the books. Is that something everyone's going to run into? No, but it's yet one more disadvantage on an action that really, really does not need any of the ones it has.
As for Unstable, that might be a personal preference. The Inventor I played the longest was pre-errata, so the DC was 17. But after book 1 of Outlaws the GM agreed to make it per action, which took the sting out a bit. Even then, I dislike abilities with random recharge, and the Inventor's unstable actions aren't actually powerful enough to merit this instead of just being something we put fully in the hand of the player (like Panache, or Cursebound levels, or Focus Points).
What I try to point out here is that in the given Class ecosystem the Inventor really does not need all these failure points to be engaging, or fun, or different. Both Overdrive and Unstable are just worse versions of similar mechanics we can find elsewhere, and the rest of the Inventor chassis does not justify this downgrade. They're still a martial class with a KAS that isn't STR/DEX, and only medium armor proficiency. In fact if you don't take Weapon or Armor, they don't even get Critical Specialisation for either.
My feeling was that there were way too few, and of those, not many narratively interesting, options. Especially for a class called the “Inventor”.
The comparison of Overdrive with Exploit Vulnerability is lacking. Yes, Exploit is stronger, but you also need to renew it for every enemy and can't "pre-buff" with it if you know/suspect there's trouble behind the next door. So especially in fights against multiple enemies, it's like comparing the damage of a 1-action spell to that of a 2- or even 3-action spell.
Inventor also get's another build-in damage buff with Offensive Boost at level 9. The additional 3.5 damage per hit are a decent upgrade. And you always get them even when you can't be in Overdrive due to lack of actions or a failed check.
I'm not saying that the inventor doesn't need help, mind you. It's martial performance compared to the Remastered Barbarian is terrible and while the unstable abilities are nice, after 2.5 years of playing an Inventor from level 3 to (currently) 17, I rarely find myself in a situation where using them seems like an actual good idea. Probably doesn't help that I neglected to pick up Clockwork Celerity, which is the only early one that doesn't actively mess up your action economy. But still, I use Explode and Megavolt (even with the Gigavolt Upgrade) maybe every like 5 encounters or so? That's not enough to balance the poor melee performance. Searing Restoration is decent when it comes to action economy, but I find myself using that one even less, probably because I'm build very defensively and simply don't really need it.
I found the Inventor to be woefully underserved in terms of creative options. I essentially didn’t want to take any of the available “streams” - weapon, armor or “pet”. Hopefully a Remastered Guns and Gear improves the breadth of options and makes me….want to play one.Just thought I’d clarify - I was, upon looking into the Inventor, interested in all three Innovations, but it was the available options for the Innovations that I found to be lacking.
Given the “remastering” likely may not provide much new “content” and instead shore up disparities between PF2 and PF2R, I’m guessing I won’t be exactly overwhelmed with the “update”. If there is anything to be hoped for, I hope at least the “power level” of the class doesn’t make it seem, on paper at least, and if the general consensus hereabouts suggests…somewhat….anaemic.
I am disappointed that a class with so much creative promise launched with so few options, and hasn’t exactly been given more as later books just….moved on.
This is a problem with a lot of the splatbook classes: they get very little support in other material. Core classes have gotten new options in APs or other books, but this almost never happens for the non-core classes.
That's something I really wish Paizo would change. Fighter does not need another new feat nearly as much as a class like Inventor does.
They've also tended to be passed over for errata, though hopefully the new errata policy will fix that.
|
|
Oh yes, it needs more or more interesting modifications. My Inventor has an armor Innovation so that he can use a flickmace, which fit the wacky weapon idea better than a martial weapon with a modification.
That is true.
Since unstable has a 30% chance of success, it means its very likely for inventors to not do more than one unstable action per encounter. With TheFinish's proposal, you could overdrive + attack + unstableaAction every turn as long as you don't have to move, except in the case you wanted to use explode which is (I think) the only unstable activity with two actions. Weirdly enough this would heavily buff Clockwork Celerity btw.[/ooc]
You could, but you wouldn't.Explosive Leap and Searing Restoration are one action. So is Electrify Armor, but you only use it once because the Unstable function lasts for a minute.
Explode, Megaton Strike, Megavolt, and Deep Freeze are two actions.
Distracting Explosion is a reaction.
It would make Clockwork Celerity do very little. A free action to gain an extra action, but you have to spend another action to use it. The cost and the benefit are the same thing. You could use it and then not Overdrive again until your next turn, but... then you don't have Overdrive active for the quickened turn.
I brought the thaumaturge into the discussion because its the class thats the closest to the inventor in terms of design. Both are 8 + Con HP, both are martials, both have an auto-scaling skill, and both have a damage bump they need to use first to benefit from it, though in the case of the thaumaturge, it has like way more positives when compared to overdrive like having an effect on failure and having an overall better damage progression.They have to spend actions on it repeatedly to keep it up, while Overdrive persists. It should be better.
...which is exactly why removing the persistence from Overdrive would make it a weaker feature.
Wait, I think I was being clear when I referenced Panache, but apparently I wasn't. The intent here is you still enter Overdrive on a failure, just like Bravado actions give you Panache until the end of your next turn (not sure yet if I'd also give this Overdrive the same limitation, but I probably would for the sake of balance). So it would only be a problem on a Crit Fail, but even that one is better since it would neither damage you nor lock you out of attempting Overdrive again. Which it does now.
Okay, but I was talking about your suggestion to have Unstable actions end Overdrive, increasing their cost significantly.
I'll just requote what I said.
f you want to optimize exploiting your enemies there's the Sympathethic Vulnerabilities feat, which for 90% of encounters mean you won't have to exploit weakness more than once per encounter (last week the 2-year long campaign in which I was playing a thaumaturge from 1st to 16th level finished, and I could count with a single hand the amount of times I had to exploit more than once after I got that feat).
going back to inventor, the one thing that is really required to change is the amount of modifications. There are simply too few, too far away, to really give the feeling of personalizing your special equipment as you become stronger.
A rate of like 1/5/9/13/17 would be much more appropriate imo.
I have to agree with this wholeheartedly, and add that I would like it if Inventors were actually better at using gadgets than other people.
The feats give you very few daily gadgets to use (It maxes out at 8 gadgets per day, and that requires three feats).
But, critically, Inventors don't have anything like Powerful Alchemy, they must always use Gadget DC and can never substitute their Class DC, which is a big bummer. And they don't get action compression feats to use their gadgets more easily (for example, Clockwork Celerity and Full Automation don't help you at all)
The fact that there's relatively few gadgets is also a bummer, but that one's probably not fixable with the caveat of keeping the page count the same.
I don't know if Paizo would want to make gadgets a part of the class itself rather a (must have) feat, but in the case they did, I wouldn't be surprised they got something similar to alchemical studies investigators. A number of versatile gadgets each day equal to your Int modifier, and an action like Quick Tincture to actually create them. If they went deep enough with gadgets they could possibly be an innovation on their own too.
I feel like "I want to be an inventor that is a master of gadgets" and "I don't really care about gadgets, I just want to have an incredible intricate innovation" are both things that should be supported by the class.
Like if I can build my "one of a kind intricate amazing crossbow" character and play that without having to worry about consumables more than another martial would, that would be great.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To some extent, yeah, but more than anything the inventor struggles with its identity and I'm not sure just putting more upgrades on your weapon solves that.
Like the class isn't especially weak, it's very serviceable, but the core issue I run into is that literally no one I know who was interested in the Inventor wanted to play a weird, slightly worse Barbarian, but that's ultimately what the class is in play.
So while giving out more upgrades is nice, I think the class needs a slightly more fundamental look at what it does.
I actually wouldn't mind innovations being few if they were more significant, one of the core problems with the current innovation system is that most of them just aren't super meaningful.
The last inventor I played took Entangling Form on a Halberd because grappling on a reach weapon seemed kind of cool, but I genuinely can't remember what my other innovations were as we leveled up. I'm pretty sure I took enhanced damage at level 15, because damage is damage, but that still didn't really have any impact on how I play, even though upgrading innovations is a core feature of the Inventor.
The most interesting part of the class was the unstable actions, and personally I actually really liked the gambling for extra uses... but in a post-remaster world where regaining 2 focus points is something you can do from level 1 I agree it no longer really feels like a boon for the Inventor.
It's sort of funny how another class changing can recontextualize how your class features work, but with everyone else getting raised up it definitely turns that into a pain point for Inventors.
The ship has %100 definitely sailed at this point but, strangely, mechanically, I really think the Exemplar playtest chassis made for a better inventor than the Inventor did.
You have innovations(ikons) you could turn on for a damage boost (like overdrive but no failure chance.) Every couple of turns you could activate a powerful unstable ability that would burn out that Innovation (turning off the overdrive) but automatically turn on a different innovation. And a bunch of feats that would let you customize and upgrade your innovations with new abilities or unstable actions at least while they were "on" and overdriven(Thrown trait on a melee weapon at 4, Reach at 12 etc.)
In all honesty, I could see the concept of innovations being removed and having inventors have the three of them at the same time and then take all the modifications and throw them into a single pool that you can take when you level up. I think that alone would make for a more interesting and customizable inventor that could be made into a really fun class if other minor tweaks were made into the class to "bring it up into the remaster era".
Yep. I was surprised you couldn’t take on a new innovation at later levels.
I know even less about Kineticists, and this is definitely apples vs oranges, but having more than one element seems pretty flexible. I would want to have more than one innovation and mix and match my modifications.
I know it seems like I keep saying variations on the same thing, but I was quite excited to play something I thought might be at least narratively interesting but I found the options quite pedestrian, and at times looking by level, I could see there were almost only levels where I would be choosing between “options that aren’t interesting” and “options I definitely don’t want”. And yes, too far between *having* that choice to begin with. So I don’t see the “multiple innovations” concept being reachable, let alone interesting enough unless the amount and diversity of modifications improves.
I don't know if Paizo would want to make gadgets a part of the class itself rather a (must have) feat,
Wait, what? Did I miss a memo? When did we decide that gadgets are a must have feat?
I don't use them and never felt the need to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In all honesty, I could see the concept of innovations being removed and having inventors have the three of them at the same time and then take all the modifications and throw them into a single pool that you can take when you level up. I think that alone would make for a more interesting and customizable inventor that could be made into a really fun class if other minor tweaks were made into the class to "bring it up into the remaster era".
Even if you don't get all of them at the same time, changing the Prototype Companion 1st level Feat to something like Prototype Innovation, and having it give you either a Prototype Companion/Weapon/Armor and having them Count as Innovations would at least let you mix and match Innovation feats later down the line.
Or a 2nd level feat similar to Order Explorer. Just a way to branch out within the class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find this weird.
Secrets of Magic needs a remaster. Guns and Gears doesn't.
This feels like it's being done just because people will buy it, which is the first time in this whole remaster I've felt that way.
We gave them grace because WotC forced this remaster on them. The assumption was that things would return to normal afterwards. But has it instead led to a new business model?
The idea behind having all three innovations at the same time came to me since the infinite innovation feature let's you change your innovation and its modifications by taking 1 day of downtime. Yeah, its a really high level feature, but its already assumed inventors will have all of them, so probably explore that concept a bit but earlier?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find this weird.
Secrets of Magic needs a remaster. Guns and Gears doesn't.
This feels like it's being done just because people will buy it, which is the first time in this whole remaster I've felt that way.
We gave them grace because WotC forced this remaster on them. The assumption was that things would return to normal afterwards. But has it instead led to a new business model?
Couldn't say this better myself. While I appreciate the effort that goes into a remaster I think I'd rather just have an errata. Then that effort can go into brand new material and I don't have to keep buying books I already own.
If the remaster was a wild success and a vast improvement over the original I don't think I'd feel this way. In my opinion it's been a necessary evil due to OGL and ended up being net neutral verging on negative. So, buying more remastered material does not excite me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find this weird.
Secrets of Magic needs a remaster. Guns and Gears doesn't.
This feels like it's being done just because people will buy it, which is the first time in this whole remaster I've felt that way.
We gave them grace because WotC forced this remaster on them. The assumption was that things would return to normal afterwards. But has it instead led to a new business model?
They need to reprint it anyway. Why not brush up on some things and include an encompassing remaster errata?
It also sounds like the pdf will get updated for free since it's basically still the same book. Sucks for the physical book users, but they ultimately always have this problem with any kind of errata.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find this weird.
Secrets of Magic needs a remaster. Guns and Gears doesn't.
This feels like it's being done just because people will buy it, which is the first time in this whole remaster I've felt that way.
We gave them grace because WotC forced this remaster on them. The assumption was that things would return to normal afterwards. But has it instead led to a new business model?
It's a slightly larger errata to a book that is due for an errata because it ran out of print some time ago. Paizo typically would have already worked on getting it to the printer, but likely couldn't due to the remaster. Now that the remastering efforts have died down, they can take the time to remove the (very few in comparison to something like Secrets of Magic) WotC-owned OGL references, and publish it under the ORC license. They're talking about a small enough amount of changes that the page numbers for everything in the book remains the same, so they really aren't changing much. This is not them raking in money from a new version of G&G you're going to need to buy again, it's a slightly larger errata cycle that also removes OGL elements. At least from everything we've heard.
Director of Rules & Lore
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Couldn't say this better myself. While I appreciate the effort that goes into a remaster I think I'd rather just have an errata. Then that effort can go into brand new material and I don't have to keep buying books I already own.If the remaster was a wild success and a vast improvement over the original I don't think I'd feel this way. In my opinion it's been a necessary evil due to OGL and ended up being net neutral verging on negative. So, buying more remastered material does not excite me.
If you already have Guns & Gears, you don't need to rebuy it. If you have the PDF, you'll get the updated PDF just like with any errata drop.
Guns & Gears is out of print and due for a new print run, so the thousands of new customers we've picked up in the last two years can't buy it, and our 3pp and licensed partners have some licensing difficulties to navigate with it being on the OGL instead of the ORC. The remastered version allows us to put out a run with the errata, do any final clean-ups to sync language and traits with the current version of the game, move it to the new license so our partners can use it easily and confidently in their products, and get one of the best-selling books of the edition back on shelves for new customers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They need to reprint it anyway. Why not brush up on some things and include an encompassing remaster errata?I find this weird.
Secrets of Magic needs a remaster. Guns and Gears doesn't.
Calling something a remaster vs calling it a reprint are very different things.
One is "new edition that's not being called a new edition, but everyone should rebuy the book."
The other is "you don't need to rebuy this every time we do another print run."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really? Reprints get an errata. That's always been the case. And it only makes sense to use that errata to make the book compatible with the newest version of the game.
They need the book reprinted because people still want to buy it and it's no longer available. What are they supposed to do in your opinion? Reprint it without any errata? Create an errata that updates the book but is still not fully compatible with the remaster rules? How would that make any sense?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find this weird.
Secrets of Magic needs a remaster. Guns and Gears doesn't.
This feels like it's being done just because people will buy it, which is the first time in this whole remaster I've felt that way.
We gave them grace because WotC forced this remaster on them. The assumption was that things would return to normal afterwards. But has it instead led to a new business model?
Secrets of Magic doesn't need a remaster, huge swaths of the book need to be fundamentally rewritten.
Updating guns and gears to remaster standard as part of its reprint is likely a much smaller endeavor (backed up by the fact that it's part of the reprint cycle, tbh).
And no, this isn't a new business model, Paizo has been updating books during reprint cycles for years. Stop trying to act like there's some weird conspiracy going on here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, reprints have always had all the errata included. The CRB for PF1 had like 7 rounds of errata applied to it.
It's just that in this particular go around errata also includes "scrubbing the book for OGLisms and changing the license." I have no idea if the Gunslinger and the Inventor are going to get similar sorts of polish attention as like the Witch and the Swashbuckler did in PC1 and PC2, but I hope they take the opportunity to do so.