| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just feel like bringing up one of these threads every blue moon until the next Gen Con releases are finally teased for pf2e and sf2e.
I'm in the camp that thinks runesmith and necromancer will debut with a remastered summoner and magus in what amounts to a replacement for Secrets of Magic. I'd love the team to take a new crack at general use magic archetypes as opposed to the wellspring, flexible casting, ley line, and true name type systems in secrets of magic. More stuff that would be drag and drop for an easy themed caster like shadow caster, time mage, and sanguimancer archetypes we have now; late stage pf2e has been a little better in giving casters archetype options but martials are still comparatively spoiled for choice.
What would you guys want from such a book? What portions of Book of the Dead and Secrets of Magic do you expect to possibly get reprinted in it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spellheart leveled spells need to get scaling DCs.
They right now usually cost a little more than a wand grating the equivalent R spell, so it shouldn't be a big power boost.
I would even be fine if spellhearts cost a bit more gp due to them not needing to be held.
But this is a needed change; I have seen one player buy a leveled spellheart, ever, and I think they regret the gp spend. Everyone grabs a spellheart for just the cantrip, and it's asinine that the devs didn't understand players enough to predict this.
This is even a usability/ readability issue. So many players think all PCs can use spellhearts, and that's enabled by them having static DCs like other spell-effect items. If they required the PC to have a spell DC from somewhere, that would prevent that easy misread.
_______________
Summoner Eidolons need a way to interact with and gain normal buffs. Most glaringly is their lack of movespeed. And no, players are not going to spend a L2 class feat for +10 status when that's an Archetype Dedication level slot.
My suggestion is for Eidolons to have a rule to enable them to take "self" buffs in place of the summoner.
It would honestly not really be a "proper design" fix, but buying buff wands as a band-aid for their lack of equipment buffs would still go a huge amount of the way to making the class more playable. It's bizzare that some Paizo dev knew they needed to scale with the SMN's weapon via handwraps, etc, but didn't finish the thought and realized Eidolons needed all such passive gear buffs. This grows worse and worse as the levels go up.
At L14, the Eidolon struggles to be a beneficial asset, like, at all. My +1 action is usually wasted on them making 25ft moves, because no way in hell am I spending a spellcaster's turn 1 to burn 1 FP and give them a 20ft speed boost.
Even Tandem Movement really needs to be changed to be Stride equivalent, else my Eidolon just struggles to even get moved. More and more stuff like Exemplar's Sandals or Commander is released, and it all makes SMN's 2 body problem hit worse and worse. You essentially only get 1/2 the benefit of a Stride compared to other classes.
Oh, and the need to invest the summoner's skills for the Eidolon to use Athletics is a surprisingly bad pain point. It's completely asinine that the Dual Studies feat exists to taunt you, but has 0 way to go beyond Expert, so it's actually worthless later on for battle stuff. If you trusted the system and picked it to give your Eidolon Athletics, then screw you I guess, and you'd better beg your GM for retraining.
And the two signature feats of Summoner, Weighty Impact's Knockdown and Grasping Limb's Grab features got nerfed badly, and need to be replaced with some half-improved grab feature that grants the old auto-grab / auto-trip.
My GM is great, but them picking the "gotta use the remastered monster action" ruling really gut the Eidolon's usability. If the class gets remastered and Paizo does force the Eidolon to roll for those, it genuinely would scar the class.
Yes, those 2 feats are very powerful, even compared to what other classes get. But that's all the more reason that existing power budget cannot be allowed to disappear, as I sure as hell don't trust Paizo to adequately buff the SMN elsewhere to compensate.
Overall, I have had a fun time RPing my Summoner, but they are honestly more frustrating to play than an Alchemist. With Alch, you at least get to forsee and anticipate the way below curve output. With SMN, it's very hard to anticipate just how bad things like lagging casting prof hurt, especially when you've got 4 spells per day. Also kinda sucks that 10HP / Level really doesn't help as much as I thought it would. My PC still gets 100 -> 0ed whenever the GM decides foes should have brains, lol.
Summoner isn't last in terms of power due to have 2 top R slots, but that's kinda the only reason. Their ability to Strike is left completely in the dust compared to martials, and they counted on their auto-condition feats to make Strikes worth it.
After I used Phantom Orchestra in a single session, I've come to realize how bad, Eidolon Strike is, at least once you get to R6 spells.
The spell does quite bad damage for the 2A cast, but does that same damage for every 1A Sustain thereafter. And does so anywhere in a 120ft range, 10ft burst. It's a pseduo ranged weapon that scales +1d6 p R.
And even the -1R casting will do significantly more avg damage than an Eidolon Strike, while being an AoE save.
Meaning, my Eidolon is now mostly making punches via Reactive Strikes, and spending MAP during the turn hoping for a Trip/Grab. The slow Eidolon needing melee is a big nail in the viability of Strike's coffin.
Basically, the math behind Eidolons is actually really bad, and they need better Strike damage, and better ways to invest feats into increasing that Strike damage. And FFS, this cannot cost combat actions! Even if this costs feats, the math behind Eidolons doing stuff simply has to be good enough to use. It's legit sad that they are kinda worthless.
The bonus spell from a familiar's Spell Battery ability should not let me do more damage via an all-combat sustain spell than my Eidolon's melee punches! That's an absurd state of affairs for the class.
(IDK about low level, I stared w/ Summoner at L11)
_______________
Great idea, absolutely stupid to think players would spend actions on them. It's just outright not possible to use them in most turns, because ya know, you've only got 3A total. Spending all 3A on a spell like that is such a non-starter, that a change to "slowed 1 for 1 turn" debuff upon use would be a huge upgrade.
But realistically, that would still make them never used. They need to be reworked to either nerf them until 0A is justified, or have the gp cost drop like a rock.
__________________
Kinda self explanatory. Once again thanks to that high level summoner, I was able to easily check the numbers and learn they were making spell attack rolls at a -4 compared to an Eidolon's strike.
I genuinely don't think the devs realized how bad this was when it was baked into pf2. It's not as noticeable at low level due to the lack of weapon runes, but damn, it legit kinda makes AC spells worthless. It's a bad enough state of affairs that the Shadow Signet alone is not enough, and this is kinda Paizo's one chance to add a new tool / rule to fix the spell attack issue. Which is to say, just make a Staff impart it's potency runes as an item bonus to spell attacks.
It's band-aid, but a giant one.
Just tweak the staff rules so that by level they have Potency Runes baked into the staff, and add a line where the staff imparts that Potency to all spell attack rolls made by a caster wielding that staff.
(No, Magus existing is not an excuse to keep this entire category of spell in such a bad state. Their all-or-nothing nature, while a serious pain-point, would be acceptable if they didn't slowly become worthless as the AC math assumed weapon runes that the caster cannot have.)
** spoiler omitted **
_______________
** spoiler omitted **...
I'm always down for scaling DC items! And for the summoner, yea, it has a little bit of the kineticist effect where the class is so unique a lot of the overlaying system doesn't mesh with it as well as it could.
One thing I'm hoping for in this book, whatever form it comes in, is a remaster of captivator (I don't think it would need much just limit spells to mental/illusion instead of enchantment/illusion). Alongside it, it would be wicked if we got similar archetypes for polymorph/morph, maybe healing, maybe summoning, maybe divination/revelation/scrying... Tons of options.
|
Reanimator rejigged to work with necromancer!!!
In the VERY unlikely event that summoner and magus get new goodies on top of hypothetical reprints, I really want a duel wielding hybrid study for magus. I think it'd be pretty easy by giving double slice for free and letting you spellstrike + double slice at once. Perhaps too many dice to roll at once, or perhaps, not enough!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kinda self explanatory. Once again thanks to that high level summoner, I was able to easily check the numbers and learn they were making spell attack rolls at a -4 compared to an Eidolon's strike.
I genuinely don't think the devs realized how bad this was when it was baked into pf2. It's not as noticeable at low level due to the lack of weapon runes, but damn, it legit kinda makes AC spells worthless. It's a bad enough state of affairs that the Shadow Signet alone is not enough, and this is kinda Paizo's one chance to add a new tool / rule to fix the spell attack issue. Which is to say, just make a Staff impart it's potency runes as an item bonus to spell attacks.It's band-aid, but a giant one.
Just tweak the staff rules so that by level they have Potency Runes baked into the staff, and add a line where the staff imparts that Potency to all spell attack rolls made by a caster wielding that staff.
(No, Magus existing is not an excuse to keep this entire category of spell in such a bad state. Their all-or-nothing nature, while a serious pain-point, would be acceptable if they didn't slowly become worthless as the AC math assumed weapon runes that the caster cannot have.)
The playtest had a dueling wand item that added item bonuses to spells. It also had touch AC early on for spell attacks. Both of those were removed.
So it's not like no one knew since those things existed in the first place for a reason. I feel like they didn't realize just how bad removing both of them would be, though, and when they did realize it the Shadow Signet showed up as the band-aid.
The remaster was the chance to fix it, but their fix was "have fewer spell attack spells" by changing some of them to target saves instead. Which isn't a real fix.
As they stand now, spell attacks are a trap that new players fall into because they fall off in accuracy fast and have some REALLY bad levels. 13-14 has them at -4 vs a martial attack and an absurd -6 vs Fighter/Gunslinger, and it feels really bad to have your only spell attack in the round at the same effective accuracy as the Agile Grace Fighter's 3rd attack, which is probably still more likely to hit because of flanking.
At this point I've lost all hope they'll ever actually fix it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally in the camp that attack spells are still very good and have their place, without item bonuses. To give them item bonuses would make them too strong imo.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Synthesist Summoner Class Archetype is too much to dare to hope for, but it's something people have wanted for a very long time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, hence the rules on Staves inside SoM being their last chance.
It also is kinda a better fix than the Shadow Signet, imo, as it at least has a Hand cost, so no one can really complain about it being OP / "unfair" to the Magus.
What is mondo frustrating is that there literally is text that says "though item bonuses to spell attack rolls are rare."
but them being "rare" would mean they have to exist. So where the hell are they? They 100% knew spell attacks needed item bonuses after they crowbarred weapon runes into the system, and just flipping didn't get around to it.
There are far, far too many god domains and focus spells in general that use spell attacks for there to be any excuse; refusing to publish new spells that target AC does nothing to erase how many existing options are STILL WAITING for that damn item bonus.
Absurdly unprofessional.
I think "absurdly unprofessional" is a bit much. Calling them rare just sounds like an oversight. They're not doing this to spite us, as annoying as the lack of "weapon" runes for spell attack rolls is sometimes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's just nonsense that spell attack rolls start of kinda great thanks to Gouging Claw, TK Projectile, etc, and slowly get worse and worse across the game.
There is no reason for that kind of "creeping failure" and we all know exactly why it happens, once upon a time playtesters didn't like the lack of magic weapons affecting core math, so the Paizo devs reworked their system to add weapon runes. Unarmed attacks were thereafter blursed with needing Handwraps; even if it's an ancestry spit attack, gotta wrap those hands.
But oops, Paizo forgot about spell attacks.
No, the original Pathfinder 2nd Edition playtest included runes.
RUNES
Some magic weapons and armor gain their enhancements from potent eldritch runes etched into them. These runes allow for in-depth customization of items.Runes must be physically engraved on items through a special process to convey their benefits. They take two forms: potency runes and property runes. ...
In fact, the potency runes in the playtest went up to +5. Furthermore, extra weapon damage dice was an automatic effect of the weapon potencty runes.
+1 weapon potency; Level 4; Price 65 gp+2 weapon potency; Level 8; Price 400 gp
+3 weapon potency; Level 12; Price 1,175 gp
+4 weapon potency; Level 16; Price 8,000 gp
+5 weapon potency; Level 20; Price 53,860 gp
There was an annoying downside. The weapons had quality: standard, expert, master, and legendary. Standard weapons could have +1 runes. Only expert or better could have +2 runes, only master or better could have +4 runes, and only legendary could have +5 runes. I am glad the developers dropped the quality scale.
The spellcasters never had a PF2 item to improve their spell attack bonuses or spell DCs. I think that the playtest was experimenting with spells that have a short-lived result on a Failure, so the developers wanted the spell DCs to stay low for the playtest. I guess they were satisfied with the experiment and decided that low spell DC were fine.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spellcasters never had a PF2 item to improve their spell attack bonuses or spell DCs. I think that the playtest was experimenting with spells that have a short-lived result on a Failure, so the developers wanted the spell DCs to stay low for the playtest. I guess they were satisfied with the experiment and decided that low spell DC were fine.
The playtest did have an item that improved spell attacks by granting the item bonus to it, though. It was removed. The absence of any such thing is why spell attacks fall off so hard in the middle level range.
Personally in the camp that attack spells are still very good and have their place, without item bonuses. To give them item bonuses would make them too strong imo.
Too strong at what? They're literally the worst attack roll in the game for basically the entire level range outside of "A Cosmos Oracle is trying to swing a staff for some reason."
The combination of lack of item bonuses and delayed proficiency bumps is an absolute mess when it comes to spell attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, as annoying as it can be, I do need to be careful when making any sort of statement like that, especially when it's a lazy tangent not central to the intended point.
It might be better to talk about the late removal of Touch AC as it's own stat, as that did a lot to explain why Alchemist had lagging Strike prof, and why and bombs themselves under-perform. Once upon a time, bombs were inherently a rare (unique?) weapon that only needed to hit TAC, not the full armored AC.
(quickly ctrl-fs a playtest pdf this time)
and yup, attack roll spells used to only need to hit the TAC by default, just like bombs.
That goes a long way to explaining why this was never fixed, as it only became a problem when TAC was removed. Once upon a time, the gap between AC and TAC would make for a dynamic consideration as to the choice of a spell attack roll.
For heavily armored foes, the -x caused by spell attacks lagging prof and rare item bonus could still result in a net positive due to bypassing the armor to target TAC. It gave spell attack rolls a lot more situational nuance as one tool for a caster to choose to carry/leave out.
Overall, I'd argue the main point still stands. We have more than enough history, including unremoved reference to spell attack item bonuses, to say that spell attack rolls were never intended to lag behind Strikes as badly as they do in the current system.
If anything, the hasty addition of the Shadow Signet was actually a huge effing problem, as now the devs really, really don't want to fix and + spell attack rolls, because that would mean every attack spell can also use that heightened number VS Reflex or Fort.
Which I guess means that I should amend my "Staff's Potency" suggestion from earlier. It would need to be a [spellshape] 0A effect to block stacking with Shadow Signet. While that sucks for the Sorcs, etc, it would be better than letting the two metamagics work simultaneously, imo.
Shadow Signet also explains why Paizo was so careful to not add item bonuses back in, as Shadow Signet was intended to help them get up to par, and would be too good if working with enhanced spell attack rolls.
This is why it's so important for systems/games to bundle changes into big errata passes or patches. If you rush and release a band-aid like Shadow Signet, you now "have to" nerf or delete it if you want to fix the core issue. The band aid itself makes it that much harder to actually get to the root problem.
I don't know if this is Mandella Effect or what but I remember Paizo (or someone) saying they were going to print a magic item with item bonuses to spells. I remember it was something I was excited about even though my table didn't fully switch to PF2e back then.
What I'm sure Paizo said is the synthesist for summoners. I'm still waiting though.
I don't know if this is Mandella Effect or what but I remember Paizo (or someone) saying they were going to print a magic item with item bonuses to spells. I remember it was something I was excited about even though my table didn't fully switch to PF2e back then.
Yeah I don't recall this. Lots of us have asked for it for years when it became apparent how lopsided the math is until level 19 when Legendary proficiency at least closes the gap back up some but I'm pretty sure Paizo has never actually commented on doing it.
What I'm sure Paizo said is the synthesist for summoners. I'm still waiting though.
The good news is that recent releases have been willing to add things to existing classes in a way that wasn't the case in the past for non-core classes, such as Battlecry adding a Thaumaturge implement.
So I can see this happening one day after Summoner is updated to ORC (or maybe in the same book).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect before they start adding more to summoner it is going to need its remaster pass even if it does not change much.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe someday if we get some Tian Xia books, or an international gathering of magic schools.
Maybe someday if we get some Tian Xia books, or an international gathering of magic schools.
We already got the international gathering of magic schools book and while it added 3 schools, none of them were from Tien Xia.
Next best chance for that is probably the next time we get an adventure set there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Necroing this thread a little. Personally I would love a 'golem' heritage. Not a full golem, but partial or slowly transforming type of heritage. Would fit well in a book about nex and geb, or just magic in general. Could have feats for being resistant to magic, physically tough, making a character slightly more construct like, etc. I really like the idea of a character that gets more construct like as time goes on.
Edit - I know the golem grafters archetype exists, but it's not an ancestry, and an uncommon ap archetype. It is really cool though, even if it only has a handful of feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why it's so important for systems/games to bundle changes into big errata passes or patches. If you rush and release a band-aid like Shadow Signet, you now "have to" nerf or delete it if you want to fix the core issue. The band aid itself makes it that much harder to actually get to the root problem.
Consider though, that the removal of most spell attack spells came after shadow signet, though likely the item was written while that process was in the works (certainly the GM core version was). And unless I'm missing a carve out, I don't think Spellstrike can be used with Shadow signet either.
So you might already be looking at the fix they decided on; that spell attacks don't need to function outside of activities like Spellstrike. And that there never will be a fix in the way you want to see, but not because they've written themselves into a corner, but because they simply decided not to go that route. And that shadow signet wasn't their trying to make spell attacks stay relevant, but further proof they'd rather casters play whack a save, going as far as to introduce an item that effectively deletes what few spell attack spells stuck around through the remaster.
Consider also the following: alchemist bombs are elemental damaging attacks that target AC and get full weapon bonuses, AND deal partial damage on a miss, meaning they use all 4 attack results instead of the normal 3 for attacks.
And pretty much everyone but me hates them.
So, and I am making a WAG here, I think the reception of alchemist bombs (and the earlier iteration of PF2 that was used internally and had chip damage on all weapon attacks) also convinced the development team that going further in on spell attack spells was not going to be a terrible popular decision, no matter how people thought about it in the abstract.
Edit: and in case I come across as peeing in your Cheerios, I would much rather they have decided to go the other direction. I love spell attacks conceptually and in fact wanted guns to work like bombs, to widen the number of classes that played in this sandbox (if you squint at least). But I've come to accept the decision they apparently made.
And pretty much everyone but me hates them.
This is the first I've heard of anyone hating bombs.
It's come up fairly frequently in discussions I've had on the topic, since I may well be the chief advocate for the mechanical concept, or at least one of the biggest ones not on Paizo's payroll. And, yes, of course I'm exaggerating that everyone hates them, there's at least a couple frequent posters that genuinely do hate how splash functions as chip damage. It's mostly conceptual from what I understand; since it is a miss instead of a partial success, and due to how attack rolls work on alchemists you "miss" so frequently, they see splash hits as a wasted action rather than a meaningful contribution that is calculated into the overall damage of bombs.
I want to say Lightning Raven was the person who spoke most eloquently on this topic, but he wasn't the only one.
This is why it's so important for systems/games to bundle changes into big errata passes or patches. If you rush and release a band-aid like Shadow Signet, you now "have to" nerf or delete it if you want to fix the core issue. The band aid itself makes it that much harder to actually get to the root problem.Consider though, that the removal of most spell attack spells came after shadow signet, though likely the item was written while that process was in the works (certainly the GM core version was). And unless I'm missing a carve out, I don't think Spellstrike can be used with Shadow signet either.
Shadow Signet came out in Secrets of Magic. No one had thought about GM Core back then. It's exactly the same item as far as I can tell.
So you might already be looking at the fix they decided on; that spell attacks don't need to function outside of activities like Spellstrike. And that there never will be a fix in the way you want to see, but not because they've written themselves into a corner, but because they simply decided not to go that route. And that shadow signet wasn't their trying to make spell attacks stay relevant, but further proof they'd rather casters play whack a save, going as far as to introduce an item that effectively deletes what few spell attack spells stuck around through the remaster.
They don't seem to know what to do with spell attacks, yeah. They didn't do the actual fix, which is related to their poor scaling. Shadow Signet is a band aid that works but makes the whole mechanic a lot more complicated. Spellstrike only works for one class effectively and itself causes other issues (like how mythic forgot it exists). Nerfing Sure Strike hurt one of the best ways to make spell attacks good.
So their solution appears to be "have fewer spell attack spells and hope people know when is a good time to use them." Maybe they just decided it wasn't fixable in the time available for the remaster, or maybe they don't think its a problem.
Consider also the following: alchemist bombs are elemental damaging attacks that target AC and get full weapon bonuses, AND deal partial damage on a miss, meaning they use all 4 attack results instead of the normal 3 for attacks.
And pretty much everyone but me hates them.
Yeah I don't really know where this is coming from. Bombs feel fine, especially in campaigns with a lot of weaknesses where they're really fun to use. (The Alchemist in my Spore War game sure isn't complaining about how bombs work, though they really want some Holy alchemy lol.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Couldn't they also throw holy water?
He can, but Holy Water is not a bomb (surprisingly) so a whole lot of stuff Alchemists get doesn't apply, including feats like Far Lobber and Quick Bomber. So how the character works suddenly changes a lot and that's somewhat confusing to navigate when you're used to having all those feats.
Said Alchemist would get Holy bombs by taking the Champion dedication.
Doesn't suit this character at all, unfortunately. We do have a Thaumaturge, so Share Weakness should work I think?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Couldn't they also throw holy water?He can, but Holy Water is not a bomb (surprisingly) so a whole lot of stuff Alchemists get doesn't apply, including feats like Far Lobber and Quick Bomber. So how the character works suddenly changes a lot and that's somewhat confusing to navigate when you're used to having all those feats.
Said Alchemist would get Holy bombs by taking the Champion dedication.Doesn't suit this character at all, unfortunately. We do have a Thaumaturge, so Share Weakness should work I think?
Yes with the usual caveat about Mortal Weakness: "This damage affects the target of your Exploit Vulnerability, as well as any other creatures of the exact same type, but not other creatures with the same weakness."
So, it would work with other Fiends with the exact same type, say all Abrikandilu, but not with other Demons, not to mention other types of Fiends.
Maybe I should have phrased it differently. The shadow signet was not the point, it was only an example.
Quick patch "fixes" that use indirect means of buffing under-performing things is unsound / problematic methodology. If a dev later attempts to rework the under-performing thing itself, they must also deal with the indirect buff still enhancing that thing, but now it could make it too powerful.
Meaning that a quick patch and indirect fix can cause the "fix effort budget" to be doubled; they need to both rework the thing, and rework / nerf the band-aid fix.
__________________
If attack roll spells were genuinely good on their own if cast raw, and more included on miss effects like Live Wire, then the existence of Shadow Signet and Sure Strike to improve those spells might make them "too good."
Every attack roll spell made has to contend with the existing means of enhancing attack rolls. Right now, it's actually a significant detail where Heroism + Off-Guard (Invisibility spell) can easily make a +4 swing. Which can also be granted a roll twice effect via Sure Strike.
There are no comparable boosts like Sure Strike, Invisibility, etc, for save spells. Think about how good a 1A spell to force a misfortune "roll twice" upon foe saves would be. The best you can generally do is to afflict foes with Sickened, Frightened, etc. And that tiny enhancement potential matters.
Part of the reason that normal save spells are "allowed" to have such good "on success" effects is because of how hard it is to affect the foe's save roll / spell DC. The harder that number is to buff, the more powerful it is allowed to be at baseline.
The more means there are to enhance something, the more the system has to expect and account for those enhancements in the math.
Strike being the perfect example for the opposite end of the spectrum from save spells. The game's math has to expect one heck of a lot of enhancements to Strike, to the point that all the boosts of Sneak Attack, Rage, Weapon Spec, etc, might be outright doubling Strike's weapon damage dice.
This means that abilities that grant or deal with Strike will under-perform for PCs without those boosts, because the ability's power is set /written with some expectation of the player spending limited build and resource budget to acquire boosts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So...
Back on topic:
I'm also guessing that the book will feature the Remastered versions of Summoner and Magus....Also, I want Synergist to stay in 1st edition. We do not need it back.
So long as we get Synthesist, I don't mind if Synergist stays in 1e. Eidolon abilities are much better suited to a player character than familiar abilities.
|
|
Something I'm foolishly hoping for is bloodrager.
Well, "bloodrager".
I don't hate the one we got, it's really cool actually. But I am still looking for something that captures the feeling of the 1e bloodrager. It could even have less spells than a wave caster, I just wanna play an angry guy who surges magic.
Something I'm foolishly hoping for is bloodrager.
Well, "bloodrager".I don't hate the one we got, it's really cool actually. But I am still looking for something that captures the feeling of the 1e bloodrager. It could even have less spells than a wave caster, I just wanna play an angry guy who surges magic.
Yeah. I have not tried out the new Bloodrager archetype for the Barbarian class, but with its Harvest Blood mechanic the PF2 bloodrager fits the name "bloodrger" better than the PF1 barbarian/sorcerer hybrid does.
However, 3 years ago I homebrewed a workable Bloodline Instinct for barbarian so that a PF1 bloodrager from my Iron Gods campaign could make an appearance in my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign: PF1 Bloodrager Val Baine Converted to PF2. Thus, I have a workable homebrew that no longer can claim its old class name. Fortunately, an Instinct for barbarian does not require a class name. The character would simply be a bloodline barbarian.
Maybe I should have phrased it differently. The shadow signet was not the point, it was only an example.
Quick patch "fixes" that use indirect means of buffing under-performing things is unsound / problematic methodology. If a dev later attempts to rework the under-performing thing itself, they must also deal with the indirect buff still enhancing that thing, but now it could make it too powerful.
Meaning that a quick patch and indirect fix can cause the "fix effort budget" to be doubled; they need to both rework the thing, and rework / nerf the band-aid fix.
No, I understood the point you were making. Probably I was not clear enough with my reply, but in the interest of keeping this thread on topic I'll just let it go. It wasn't terribly important or insightful anyways.
Yeah I don't really know where this is coming from. Bombs feel fine, especially in campaigns with a lot of weaknesses where they're really fun to use. (The Alchemist in my Spore War game sure isn't complaining about how bombs work, though they really want some Holy alchemy lol.)
This gives me hope that my feeling that most players either disliked or hated bombs was wrong. Because I do like them a lot, and the remaster allowing more options for perpetual bombs made that mechanic even more fun for me.
I did wonder if I was just encountering a lot of negative reactions that didn't reflect reality. If the dislike had been as widespread as I'd assumed, we'd have seen a lot fewer bombs published over the years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Couple days until we (probably) will get some info at Friday night's Paizo live. The impossible wait is almost over!!! (probably)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the book, I want a rare item (level 0) said to fortify thralls and enhance their endurance... it gives them a second hit point.
TBC this want goes away if it would give any significant benefit. I am saying I want an absolutely stupid useless magic item (hence while rare, still level 0)... I don't know why, I just think that's funny.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's happening! Pathfinder: Impossible Magic will have Necromancer, Runesmith, Magus, and Summoner. That and the Lost Omens high seas book has me pretty hyped.
Nice! Is this off PaizoLive or is there somewhere I can have a read? Very interested about how page count is going to work out here.
PaizoLive