[Drop Dead Studios] Spheres of Might Open Playtest

[EldritchWeaver]

The thing is, we have answered those questions, numerous times, starting with when people asked us why those limitations weren't in place. While we understand that you may not have read those questions and answers, there's a point where "We've been over this extensively" has to be enough, otherwise we're repeating ourselves over and over across multiple forums. There's not a wiki out there for "why we did things the way we did".
For reference, the things we're limiting are 6+ hit combos as early as level 2 with drawback manipulation, level 3 wide area field wipes, and a number of other issues I don't have in front of me right now. These issues were created by drawbacks allowing accelerated access to options that were ultimately supposed to be compatible, but shouldn't have been possible to assemble that early on.

It would have been easier for the understanding of your position, if you had posted in the first place the salient point (opens up combos too early, which are ok at higher levels) and explained that those interested can look for the reasons on the DDS forum. It would have made the issue more clear to those, who don't have the information you possess. Yes, re-explaining things is certainly annoying, but giving not enough information is just making people complain about not getting any info and being treated as children who can't make any decisions themselves. And it wastes more time overall.

But regarding the offending talents which should never be granted by a drawback: I really hope you have a list of those and that you could publish them. I get that you want to have drawbacks under tight control, but currently people can't just homebrew them without running into the combo issue by accident. If a player would have argued that he wants a different talent for a drawback, I would have likely allowed it, because I didn't know of that problem. Until officially additional drawbacks are released, having a list of talents which are at this point of time considered ok would be a great help.

[Quarian Rex]

I'd like to thank both Ssalarn and N. Jolly for the expanded replies. That does help quite a bit. I also hope that, in retrospect, it is clear how previous replies pointed to a far more muddled reasoning. It is statements like this...

You can get 10 different talents across 5 different spheres with drawbacks...

... that lead some of us to think that you might have been making arguments against some prior version of SoM that no longer exists. Sure, you can get 10 different talents across 5 different spheres with drawbacks, but that leaves you with virtually nothing to spend those points on, and of the options left virtually nothing would be of actual use (a focus recovery mechanic based on an option you no longer have isn't much of an option, etc.).

Sticking to the honest facts of why a decision was made is far more effective. It can even lead to better solutions. So, if limitations are now essentially hardcoded (I can accept that with the current reasoning) perhaps there is a slightly better way to do so? Some of the limitations make sense for what is being lost, but others don't, as has been discussed. How about for those drawbacks where the obvious limitation is not clearly defined (Warleader is the current poster child of this) you institute a policy of providing two thematically opposed but mechanically benign options. This way you can have a shout based warleader who leads through charisma instead of fear. A tactician whose go-to plan is something other than cowardice.

I think that most of the push-back you are getting on the drawbacks isn't necessarily about the idea of limitations, just the limitation choices that seem to dictate who the character is. I'm not seeing anyone gripe about a Bloody Slasher making Long Cuts, or a Savage Combatant abandoning kung-fu finesse to just Tear Flesh. The gripe comes when someone abandons tactics and then they have to become a fear monger, or stops screaming and becomes a coward. Those are not neutral values and have no correspondence to what was sacrificed. Like I said, providing two thematically opposed but mechanically benign options solves this issue completely. For any given drawback where the choice isn't clear letting the player fall on either side of a thematic fence removes a lot of potential b*tching.

Thoughts?

[khadgar567]

okay you gents said fencers hand book and I am so curious for it so when we can get it?

[Kaouse]

I'd like to thank both Ssalarn and N. Jolly for the expanded replies. That does help quite a bit. I also hope that, in retrospect, it is clear how previous replies pointed to a far more muddled reasoning. It is statements like this...

... that lead some of us to think that you might have been making arguments against some prior version of SoM that no longer exists. Sure, you can get 10 different talents across 5 different spheres with drawbacks, but that leaves you with virtually nothing to spend those points on, and of the options left virtually nothing would be of actual use (a focus recovery mechanic based on an option you no longer have isn't much of an option, etc.).

Sticking to the honest facts of why a decision was made is far more effective. It can even lead to better solutions. So, if limitations are now essentially hardcoded (I can accept that with the current reasoning) perhaps there is a slightly better way to do so? Some of the limitations make sense for what is being lost, but others don't, as has been discussed. How about for those drawbacks where the obvious limitation is not clearly defined (Warleader is the current poster child of this) you institute a policy of providing two thematically opposed but mechanically benign options. This way you can have a shout based warleader who leads through charisma instead of fear. A tactician whose go-to plan is something other than cowardice.

I think that most of the push-back you are getting on the drawbacks isn't necessarily about the idea of limitations, just the limitation choices that seem to dictate who the character is. I'm not seeing anyone gripe about a Bloody Slasher making Long Cuts, or a Savage Combatant abandoning kung-fu finesse to just Tear Flesh. The gripe comes when someone abandons tactics and then they have to become a fear monger, or stops screaming and becomes a coward. Those are not neutral values and have no correspondence to what was sacrificed. Like I said, providing two thematically opposed but mechanically benign options solves this issue completely. For any given drawback where the choice isn't clear letting the player fall on either side of a thematic fence removes a lot of potential b*tching.

Thoughts?

I agree with this idea.

[Domar]

For the Starfinder conversion of the Sniping sphere, you need a note that says that Focusing Reload regains focus when using a move action to aim. In Starfinder sniping is effectively a full round action, eliminating the normal opportunities for focus recovery.

[N. Jolly]

I'd like to thank both Ssalarn and N. Jolly for the expanded replies. That does help quite a bit. I also hope that, in retrospect, it is clear how previous replies pointed to a far more muddled reasoning. It is statements like this...

... that lead some of us to think that you might have been making arguments against some prior version of SoM that no longer exists. Sure, you can get 10 different talents across 5 different spheres with drawbacks, but that leaves you with virtually nothing to spend those points on, and of the options left virtually nothing would be of actual use (a focus recovery mechanic based on an option you no longer have isn't much of an option, etc.).

Sticking to the honest facts of why a decision was made is far more effective. It can even lead to better solutions. So, if limitations are now essentially hardcoded (I can accept that with the current reasoning) perhaps there is a slightly better way to do so? Some of the limitations make sense for what is being lost, but others don't, as has been discussed. How about for those drawbacks where the obvious limitation is not clearly defined (Warleader is the current poster child of this) you institute a policy of providing two thematically opposed but mechanically benign options. This way you can have a shout based warleader who leads through charisma instead of fear. A tactician whose go-to plan is something other than cowardice.

I think that most of the push-back you are getting on the drawbacks isn't necessarily about the idea of limitations, just the limitation choices that seem to dictate who the character is. I'm not seeing anyone gripe about a Bloody Slasher making Long Cuts, or a Savage Combatant abandoning kung-fu finesse to just Tear Flesh. The gripe comes when someone abandons tactics and then they have to become a fear monger, or stops screaming and becomes a coward. Those are not neutral values and have no correspondence to what was sacrificed. Like I said, providing two thematically opposed but mechanically benign options solves this issue completely. For any given drawback where the choice isn't clear letting the player fall on either side of a thematic fence removes a lot of potential b*tching.

Thoughts?

Before I reply to the suggestion, let me state that none of the writing team is paid to field questions and feedback or even playtest, it's not really included in our pay, and especially for me who started playtests for a few publishers, getting to some of the comments has been difficult. So really, the important thing that I'm trying to say here is that we're humans doing this for the love of the hobby, going out of our way to make sure we can do the best, and while we wish we could address more, there will always be issues in doing that considering what we're going through in order to do it.

There has been discussion about opening up drawbacks, but at the moment, we don't have the full team together. We're really in the full errata swing at the moment, and a lot of things are being both implemented and discussed, so while we'd like to get to it, I can't say for certain if we'll have enough people together to make these decisions before we want to get this out to print. We have a commitment to our backers to get this into print when we said we would, and sadly, that may mean not being able to view certain issues as much as we would like. It's not because we don't think they're important, but rather, that our resources are stretched almost hilariously thin at this point.

[digiman619]

Before we got off on the "Should SoM drawbacks be limited to specific talents?" tangent I asked the following:

Just out of curiousity, how close are you guys to getting a print run of SoM of the PDF of Champions of the Spheres?

Any chance of getting that answered?

[N. Jolly]

Before we got off on the "Should SoM drawbacks be limited to specific talents?" tangent I asked the following:

Any chance of getting that answered?

Right now we're finalizing the errata for SoM, which should mean that it's getting close to being put into print. That'll take a while, but it's almost certainly going to happen before CotS gets pushed into print, as there's a good chance we'll also have a grace period for errata for that book as well. I'd say 2 months for SoM and 3 for CotS, but I'm not a printer or publisher, I'm just a hero who writes.

Spoiler: Speaking of tangents

Show

Does anyone know where I should ask to get an avatar made? This current one is bad a lot and I feel I should get a better one at some point. Feel free to PM me about it

[AlienFromBeyond]

Does obtaining a Sphere Specialization with Conscript talents at 1/5/9/13/17 require you to already have gotten one with 3 points of your Combat Specialization? I could have sworn in the playtest that the intent was that it did not, but the special section now says "The conscript may buy an additional sphere specialization by trading away the bonus talents", which for some people I've talked to means that it only lets you get a 2nd sphere specialization, but does not let you get only 1 sphere specialization with talents and use your 5 points on other things.

[ChrisAsmadi]

Does delivering a spell via a thrown weapon attack (via a Card Caster Magus' Harrowed Spellstrike or a Cartomancer Witch's ability to deliver spells with cards) count for the bounce back part of Throwing Mastery?

e: Does normal Spellstrike count as an attack action, for that matter?

[Tariyan Draegr]

Question, now that the initial errata is out, is there anyway we can get something similar to a changelog file, listing the changes and logic behind them?

[kkplx]

I compared the original file with the updated one, and there's quite a significant list of changes - i'd be surprised if they can produce a changelog any time soon if they didn't prepare it in the first place.

Some questions/comments regarding the new printing:

In general, drawbacks seem even more restrictive now than they were in the first printing. Almost if not every Drawback calls out a specific talent you gain from it.

Sentinel
a) Adroid warden archetype is gone entirely and without replacement. Instead the base sentinel features no longer require you to use medium+ armor, correct?
b) The Armored Evasion Class Feature was removed entirely, without replacement, correct?
c) The class lost its Free Armor Training talent without replacement, correct?
d) No question - the Darkness Defender now gains berserker sphere related bonuses - its DR is also 1 point higher and scales faster than the normal sentinel.

Don't know enough about Scholars/Technicians to weigh in, especially Technician had a few things changed

Several changes/additions to archetypes - not invested enough to check them all - except for the adroit warden none were removed entirely I think.

many changes in the alchemy packages descriptions, which i'm not invested in

It seems every sphere that grants skill ranks now only grants up to 5, +5 for every additional talent taken in that sphere - nice choice.

Barrage
a) The Drawback for this sphere was nerfed quite hard, now applying a -1 to ALL ranged attack rolls, while at the same time removing the +1 to hit and damage of "melee archer", is that correct?

Barroom Sphere: Creatures used as weapons don't count as fragile. Makes sense

Brute Sphere: no changes, though the changed formatting is triggering my comparison tool HARD

Dual wielding has changes, but I don't care about the sphere - it has talents added and its base sphere updated to include TWF as assiciated feat. Tricky combo talent is gone ^{I have it on good authority that this sphere was buffed overall}

Duelist: No changes except a change to slickened grip - it now doesn't double, but applies half its debuff to all other maneuvers, too.

Equipment sphere:

a) Nerfed Balanced defense if you use natural attacks
b) Unarmored Training now starts at +3, but only increases by 1/3rd BAB or Skill Ranks. Added clarification for Polymorph and Alteration.

gladiator is filled with changes, most of them formatting, but I don't care about the sphere to much. Now scales off of Intimidate, not BAB.

Guardian is untouched.

Lancer sphere only has a Nerf to "Ragdoll Swing" - it can only be used against creatures of a size that you could use as an improvised weapon.

Open Hand sphere had "Bestial Training" removed entirely, compensated with the earlier mentioned change of "Unarmed Training" ^{(thanks irungol for the correction)} and "Suppressive Rush" was clarified to be free action attacks.

Minor corrections in Scoundrel

No changes in Scout

No changes in Shield

Sniper sphere's "Perfect shot" now only applies to miss chances, the cover part is GONE.

Trap Sphere:
a) Rapid Placement can no longer be combined with Trap wielder (it seems my build with Rapid placement, trap wielder and Opportunist tickled someone the wrong way)

Warleader was buffed to use Diplomacy ranks instead of BAB to determine Saving Throws

Wrestling sphere had "Choke Hold" clarified, as expected. "Slip and Strike" was nerfed to require a swift action if used against or as a creature with grab.

I don't bother with Legendary Talents

That's pretty much everything I see so far. If anyone wants to add the changes for the points I skipped, please go ahead.

[Mehangel]

Sentinel
a) Adroid warden archetype is gone entirely and without replacement. Instead the base sentinel features no longer require you to use medium+ armor, correct?
b) The Armored Evasion Class Feature was removed entirely, without replacement, correct?
c) The class lost its Free Armor Training talent without replacement, correct?

Well it looks like the Sentinel got hit hard with the nerf-bat. Losing access to both Armor Training + Armored Evasion to instead gain a situational bonus to CMD. How situational you ask? You only gain the bonus in any round where you move no more than 5 ft. The sentinel that I have been playing actually did move around alot (it is poor encounter structure to have all enemies all bunched up); and on the other side, the armored evasion saved my character on three separate occasions.

As for the Adroit Warden, it does look like it is gone (although there is still a bookmark for it in the pdf). Now if I were to be completely honest, Adroit Warden didn't really need to be an archetype, instead the sentinel could've had the Armor Knight class feature replaced with

'Defense Training: At 2nd level, a sentinel gains their choice of Armor Training or Unarmored Training as a bonus talent from the Equipment sphere; if she already possesses one of these talents, she may instead gain a talent from the Equipment sphere of her choice.'

and could've had the Armored Evasion class feature replaced with

'Evasive Training: At 2nd level and higher, a sentinel can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with incredible resiliency, using quick reflexes or a wall of steel to avoid the brunt of damage. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. If the sentinel possesses the Armor Training talent, evasive training can only be used if the sentinel is wearing medium or heavy armor or carrying a heavy shield or tower shield; if the sentinel possesses the Unarmored Training talent, evasive training can only be used if the sentinel is wearing light or no armor or carrying a buckler or light shield; if the sentinel possesses both talents, she gains the benefit of evasive training regardless of what armor or shield she is using. A helpless sentinel does not gain the benefit of evasive evasion.'

and could've had the Armored Stalwart class feature replaced with

'Stalwart Training: At 9th level, a sentinel can use solid steel or mental and physical resiliency to avoid certain attacks. If she makes a Fortitude or Will saving throw against an attack that has a reduced effect on a successful save, she instead avoids the effect entirely. If the sentinel possesses the Armor Training talent, stalwart training can only be used if the sentinel is wearing medium or heavy armor or carrying a heavy shield or tower shield; if the sentinel possesses the Unarmored Training talent, stalwart training can only be used if the sentinel is wearing light or no armor or carrying a buckler or light shield; if the sentinel possesses both talents, she gains the benefit of stalwart training regardless of what armor or shield she is using. A helpless sentinel does not gain the benefit of the stalwart training ability.'

and finally could've had the Armored Aegis class feature replaced with

'Perfect Aegis: At 16th level, even when a sentinel fails a saving throw, if that save would have a reduced effect on a successful save (including half damage on a successful Reflex save), she suffers the reduced effect rather than the normal effect for failing that saving throw. If the sentinel possesses the Armor Training talent, perfect aegis can only be used if the sentinel is wearing medium or heavy armor or carrying a heavy shield or tower shield; if the sentinel possesses the Unarmored Training talent, perfect can only be used if the sentinel is wearing light or no armor or carrying a buckler or light shield; if the sentinel possesses both talents, she gains the benefit of perfect aegis regardless of what armor or shield she is using. A helpless sentinel does not gain the benefit of the perfect aegis ability.'

[Ualaa]

I was planning on covering the tank role, for an upcoming game. The initial plan was to go mostly Sentinel for that chassis. Now I'm not sure if going Warder would not be a better idea. There is still the option of sacrificing some feats to gain a dip into the Martial talent pool.

The alternative is to stick with Light Armor (such as Elven Chain), instead of the planned Adamantine Full Plate (for the extra DR). And to then drop a few levels and pick up Sphere Druid in their place. With the druid levels, take Alteration and add Agile (+2 Dodge, Evasion, Initiative) and Plant (+2 Natural) armor bonuses. That might mean a Greater/Extreme Transformation in the build, but with spell points for the Druid off of Wisdom, the secondaries on Agile & Plant make up for not wearing Adamantine and retain the lost Evasion feature.

Sure, if you're making a character who is level 20, you may be tempted at the capstone... but if you're playing the character from 1st upwards, the loss of Evasion is a massive nerf and I see either a dip into something with Blankform or ditching Sentinel for Warder. I guess I had fallen in love with the previous Sentinel build.

[N. Jolly]

For those interested, here's the change log (most of it, some stuff was discussed in chat)

As for the sentinel, the team discussed that locking the sentinel into medium or heavy armor limited the concepts of some players, so the decision was made. Armored Aegis was a mistake on my part, and I do stand by that change, as full evasion for all saves was too much for me. There's a chance that the older version might come back as an archetype in later books, but I don't regret removing evasion from the class. What I might do in future books is give the sentinel a much easier road to getting evasion through feats or something else, as I still think it could be cool for them to have it (for less than a 20k ring), but this new sentinel helps open up certain build options that weren't there before.

The darkness defender has been buffed as well, working more as an offensive sidegrade to the base class, which was always the intention. It fills its purpose a lot better now without huge nerfs to the base concept, and I'm happy with how it worked out.

Barroom change was needed because of people being wielded as weapons and strange interactions there.

Tricky combo was deemed redundant with other things, but making TWF an associated feat was a group call which I think was needed, as was giving it a defined action type in dual strike.

Ragdoll's change was to stop certain silliness, like pixies impaling and wielding dragons.

Bestial training was kind of wrapped up into the base sphere, since as it was before, it was confusing and unneeded.

Same with the wrestling changes, mostly clarifications and such.

The rest of the changes should be in there, although as stated, some were in the internal convos, and I'm not braving that to pull them out. Most of the internal stuff was formatting issues.

[Ssalarn]

Does delivering a spell via a thrown weapon attack (via a Card Caster Magus' Harrowed Spellstrike or a Cartomancer Witch's ability to deliver spells with cards) count for the bounce back part of Throwing Mastery?

e: Does normal Spellstrike count as an attack action, for that matter?

Generally no, since core Spellstrike isn't an attack action. Options that let you treat it as an attack action, like the sphere archetypes for magus, or doing something like holding the charge and then making an attack action, would be necessary.

Before we got off on the "Should SoM drawbacks be limited to specific talents?" tangent I asked the following:

Any chance of getting that answered?

My understanding is that Adam intends to finish the errata for SoM and release the .pdf for CotS ASAP, preferably this weekend or shortly thereafter.
Once the errata is completed he'll have to send SoM to the printers for a proof, which can take anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months (expect it to be on the longer end this time of year since shipping for the proof will inevitably be delayed). Assuming there's no issues with the proof that need to be addressed, he can put in the full print order at that point and things will move pretty quickly from there on. We'll need to go through the same cycle for CotS; release .pdf, give it a month or to percolate and be reviewed for any layout glitches or issues that didn't get caught during initial playtesting, apply any errata, and then submit to printer for the physical proof before submitting the final print run order.

[Lirya]

The sentinel Stalwart ability still says

‘A helpless sentinel does not gain the benefit of the armored stalwart ability.

Clearly armored stalwart should be changed to stalwart.

Apart from that the Humble Combatant (gladiator drawback) says

You may not possess both this and the Alternate Boast or the Braggart drawback.

Since Alternate Boast seems to have been removed this also needs to be changed.

As for removing Evasion from the Sentinel, I still think that class should be plenty tanky. And I find Blockade from the Shield Sphere a thematic talent that is easy for them to pick up that gives partial access to Evasion anyway.

[AlienFromBeyond]

Damn, I was hoping Indifferent Defender would default to the Endure Pain talent, not Greater Delayed Damage. Guess I'll have to fix up my character, my Guardian sphere dip isn't looking so hot now.

[sunderedhero]

I really like most of the changes but I think I'll revert the "Adept progression exchanged feats" and "Sentinel's "guard wall" swap" changes for my game:

New Questions!
p40 Scholar's Flashbangs: The damage still goes from being "bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing" to "bludgeoning and piercing".
p50 Armored Aegis: They can spend a resolve point to do what?
p80 Sentinel Archetype: The Darkness Defender trades out "armor knight" but the Sentinel no longer has that.
p87 Alchemist Archetype: Is the Mortal Chemist not supposed to get a "Proficiencies" ability to let them select a Martial Tradition?
p89 Fighter Archetype: Just to double check, the "Martial Tradition" ability makes it so the fighter keeps his normal proficiencies AND gains a Martial Tradition?
p107/122 Barrage Sphere lost Rapid Shot as an associated feat but Duel Wielding gained Two-Weapon Fighting as an associated feat?

[Rungo]

Looking at the new wording of the Barrage sphere, I can see the intent, but it still fails to address the most important 'error' - that you should only get more attacks for every 5 points of BAB above 6.

Spoiler: Old Barrage

Show

Barrage: As a special attack action, you may make two ranged attacks at your full base attack bonus -2.
Beginning at 6 base attack bonus, you may expend your martial focus to make an additional extra attack, increasing the penalty to all your attacks from -2 to -4.
For every 5 points of base attack bonus you possess, you may increase this penalty by an additional -2 to make an additional extra attack.

Spoiler: New Barrage

Show

Barrage: As a special attack action, you may make two ranged attacks at your full base attack bonus -2.
Beginning at 6 base attack bonus, you may expend your martial focus to make an additional extra attack, increasing the penalty to all your attacks from -2 to -4.
For every 5 points of base attack bonus you possess, when expending your martial focus you may increase this penalty by an additional -2 to make an additional extra attack.

Spoiler: Suggested Wording

Show

Barrage: As a special attack action, you may make two ranged attacks at your full base attack bonus -2.
Beginning at 6 base attack bonus, you may expend your martial focus to make an additional extra attack, increasing the penalty to all your attacks from -2 to -4.
For every 5 points of base attack bonus above 6, you may increase this penalty by an additional -2 to make an additional extra attack when expending your martial focus .

Similarly, the rewording of the Barrage-specific drawback seems to have done very little other than replace the verbose description with the new title. It still appears to give a flat -1 to all ranged attack rolls you make, even if you're not using the Barrage sphere at all. The intent also seems to have changed from being an inverted point-blank shot (-1 to hit within 30ft) to a generic debuff (-1 to hit at all ranges during Barrages).

Spoiler: Old Wild Shooter

Show

Wild Shooter: You do not gain the +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls against targets within 30 ft. normally granted by the Barrage sphere, and instead suffer a -1 penalty to attack rolls instead. You must take Suppressing Fire with the bonus talent gained from this drawback.

Spoiler: New Wild Shooter

Show

Wild Shooter: You do not gain melee archer, and instead suffer a -1 penalty to all ranged attack rolls. You gain Suppressing Fire with this drawback.

Spoiler: Suggested Wording (Inverted PBS)

Show

Wild Shooter: You do not gain melee archer, and instead suffer a -1 penalty on attack rolls against targets within 30ft. You gain Suppressing Fire with this drawback.

Spoiler: Suggested Wording (General Debuff)

Show

Wild Shooter: You do not gain melee archer, and suffer an additional -1 penalty when using the Barrage special attack. You gain Suppressing Fire with this drawback.

[N. Jolly]

I really like most of the changes but I think I'll revert the "Adept progression exchanged feats" and "Sentinel's "guard wall" swap" changes for my game:

New Questions!
p40 Scholar's Flashbangs: The damage still goes from being "bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing" to "bludgeoning and piercing".
p50 Armored Aegis: They can spend a resolve point to do what?
p80 Sentinel Archetype: The Darkness Defender trades out "armor knight" but the Sentinel no longer has that.
p87 Alchemist Archetype: Is the Mortal Chemist not supposed to get a "Proficiencies" ability to let them select a Martial Tradition?
p89 Fighter Archetype: Just to double check, the "Martial Tradition" ability makes it so the fighter keeps his normal proficiencies AND gains a Martial Tradition?
p107/122 Barrage Sphere lost Rapid Shot as an associated feat but Duel Wielding gained Two-Weapon Fighting as an associated feat?

Ugh, thought we got in the armor knight thing, darkness defender trades out guard wall now.

[Lucas Yew]

Aww, the free full skill ranks are nerfed hard to initially 5 now? It was already hard enough to have both a 16d8 unarmed Vital Strike and making philosopher's stones together...

P.S. The Great Wyrm Iron Dragon is still missing their 1 extra skill.

[Kaouse]

Wait, nothing in the changelog states that the Spheres are losing their free ranks in specific skills. I don't think I'd be able to handle it if that were the case.

As for the Sentinel loosing access to Armored Evasion because having Evasion for all saves was hard to swallow, may I point out that DSP's Aegis class can gain access to both Stalwart and Evasion by Level 2, as well as Improved Evasion by Level 12, and Improved Stalwart by Level 16. There's also the Spheres of Power Thaumaturge, who by Level 15 can negate any effect they successfully saved against with an Invocation. By which I mean, there's well known precedent for a class to have access to both Evasion and Stalwart, and having access to both does not make a class overpowered or overturned or whatever else have you.

As for the rest of the changes, I don't really know what to think. I'd have greatly appreciated it if the changes were given some playtest time of their own, and some chance for player feedback instead of being hoisted on us at literally the last minute, but I suppose deadlines have to be met. Honestly, the whole thing leaves a sour taste in my mouth, knowing that even if I speak up with my concerns, it's impossible to change anything at this point. So I guess it'll be best if I stop annoying people with my posts on this subject and just quietly hope for some decent Handbooks down the road. Afterall, there's not much else I can do.

[Milo v3]

As for the rest of the changes, I don't really know what to think. I'd have greatly appreciated it if the changes were given some playtest time of their own, and some chance for player feedback instead of being hoisted on us at literally the last minute, but I suppose deadlines have to be met. Honestly, the whole thing leaves a sour taste in my mouth, knowing that even if I speak up with my concerns, it's impossible to change anything at this point. So I guess it'll be best if I stop annoying people with my posts on this subject and just quietly hope for some decent Handbooks down the road. Afterall, there's not much else I can do.

It would be rather weird if they held a playtest for a book that was already released, especially for only a tiny set of changes.

[EldritchWeaver]

Wait, nothing in the changelog states that the Spheres are losing their free ranks in specific skills. I don't think I'd be able to handle it if that were the case.

I can confirm, that at least for the Scout sphere the change has been made. Indirectly, this improved Greater Senses, since having just Scout and then taking Greater Senses adds 15 ranks. Formerly, I wasn't sure when to take GS at all would make sense.

It would be rather weird if they held a playtest for a book that was already released, especially for only a tiny set of changes.

Considering that alone the limited changelog is fourteen pages long, I'd say that having a number of eyes to weigh in would have been better. The balance of stuff has been shifted after all. Also some pesky typos could have been corrected, too.

[Mehangel]

For me personally, the change of removing free max ranks is the most frustrating. Why you might ask? As a GM I houseruled that the sphere ability to get free max ranks in a skill is called Associated Skill, which I would require players to put on their character sheets (and where I would write in on Monster Stat-blocks (between Skills & Racial Modifiers)) which would aid in reviewing creation accuracy. As a GM all I would have to do when checking their sheet is if they had the required sphere or talent, I wouldn't have to count how many instances of that talent they possessed.

Another gripe is that alot of my games use Roll20, and writing Macros for 'Associated Skills' were rather simple, but now with the update, macroing the abilities is far more difficult, if not impossible.

I also had a player who spent EVERY talent she had dipping into different spheres just so that she could have EVERY associated skill. The result? Pretty much the same as a Rogue with 20 INT but no sneak attack. It wasn't breaking anything, and allowed the player to be a skill monkey by sacrificing her combat prowess.

I thought that one of the design goals was to encourage martial characters to NOT be repetitively doing the same thing every round. Before the update, it was common to see characters who dipped into other spheres that have little or no mechanical benefit that would aid them in combat, but did so to help round or flesh-out their character with the bonus skill points. With this latest update, players are going to be even less inclined to dip outside their one or two chosen spheres (especially if that campaign begins or ends after level 5). Also characters not using a Spheres of Might class or archetype are also now less inclined to spend a feat on Extra Combat Talent to dip into a single sphere.

In short, I firmly believe that this change should've been brought to the community before it was implemented into the final draft (which from my understanding this version is).

[kkplx]

Mehangel, paying a single feat for a fully maxed skill was never a balanced price.

You can still houserule whatever you want.

[ChrisAsmadi]

Mehangel, paying a single feat for a fully maxed skill was never a balanced price.

Paizo disagrees: Cunning feat. Not entirely the same, mind, because spheres have other stuff as well as the skill ranks.

[Wartex1]

Paizo disagrees: Cunning feat. Not entirely the same, mind, because spheres have other stuff as well as the skill ranks.

I have been trying to find that feat for months. Closest I got was the human Prodigy feat.

[khadgar567]

Paizo disagrees: Cunning feat. Not entirely the same, mind, because spheres have other stuff as well as the skill ranks.

)
what a nice feat you got there that can be abuse able and some how society legal. ( starts thinking)