[Dreamscarred Press] New Playtest: the Highlord, a psionic leader!

[Forrestfire]

Hey all! With more of DSP's older playtests moving from "sitting for a while" to "finally released," Dreamscarred Press is moving on to some new material! Today I've got a playtest doc for a brand-new psionic class, the Highlord. This 6-level manifesting class uses their collective both for leading their allies and destroying their enemies, drawing foes into their mental network to force them to do their bidding... or merely crush their minds.

In the following document, you'll find the highlord base class, including many customization options, seven different subpaths, and an archetype! In addition, there's new feats both for the highlord and for other users of collectives, and a set of racial favored class options for the class!

To check it out, click on the image below:


http://i.imgur.com/WMZcDUG.png (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2wrIBB_sibYLbUHh_Dbh5Y0guEQgnYbFwjKnvS375w/edit?usp=sharing)

(or this link) (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2wrIBB_sibYLbUHh_Dbh5Y0guEQgnYbFwjKnvS375w/edit?usp=sharing)

Thanks for taking a look! We hope you enjoy.

[Deimosaur]

Excellent.

Yes. Hello. I wrote this. Forrest helped though! A lot.

This is the first class I've written for Dreamscarred Press, but I hope it won't be the last. What you're seeing here is the result of a lot of rewriting, a lot of messing around to change it from a horrible amalgamation of a tactician and a soulknife, to...well. A highlord.

There were a lot of sci-fi influences here. I'll admit it. Give a highlord a lightsaber and he could pass for a Sith lord. But I think that's hardly a bad thing.

The highlord can be a nasty tyrant, don't be too mean to your party members! Save some of that for your enemies.

Enjoy your rule over the battlefield, and let us know how it felt!

[Grand Arbiter]

Initial impression is two thumbs up, with questions/concerns in the spoiler below.

•For the Inspire decree I think the bolded part of this sentence is clunky/awkward and could be removed:
In addition, while this decree is active, the member of the collective affected gains temporary hit points equal to 4 + the highlord’s class level in temporary hit points at the beginning of each of their turns.


•Does the Tribute ability deny the ally the use of what they tribute? i.e. if they tribute Improved Initiative, does only the Highlord receive the +4 bonus from the feat? The Highlord's Greed Greater Decree implies the answer to normally be that the ally keeps it for use, but it is vague/unclear.

•Is Devour the Weak a requirement for the Die for Me Greater Decree?

•Can the Highlord move themself with Movement Command/Move the Masses?

•Tenets of Cultivation: Blood Shield is made to damage an individual who is not a member of the collective, correct?

•Tenets of Dominance: Siphon Strength: Round up?

•Tenets of Guile: Thieving Siphon: Range?

•Tenets of Slaughter: Talents: Should telepathic punch be telekinetic punch (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/t/telekinetic-punch/)?

•Tenets of Unity: Communal Siphon: Should psychical acceleration be physical acceleration (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/p/physical-acceleration/)?

Racial Favored Class options:
•Ophiduan: Should it be Charisma score instead of Charisma bonus?


Lastly, how much inspiration came from Blizzard's Starcraft games for this, because I can't help but think of a certain Character from the Legacy of the Void campaign...:smallbiggrin:

[Thealtruistorc]

I can now envision next years April Augmented: A highlord-drunken master-archetype called the contact highlord.

That aside, this is pretty cool. My only issues are the lack of powers from the vitalist list (combat healing can be a very good thing, maybe as an archetype) and the fact that it does not have spirit of many (which is what makes network powers good in the first place.

[Deimosaur]

Hey, Libro. Thanks for taking a look so quickly! I'll address a little bit of this now, but I'll revisit this post more in depth later. I promise!


•Does the Tribute ability deny the ally the use of what they tribute? i.e. if they tribute Improved Initiative, does only the Highlord receive the +4 bonus from the feat? The Highlord's Greed Greater Decree implies the answer to normally be that the ally keeps it for use, but it is vague/unclear.
It does not deny the tribute from ally normally. I'll adjust the wording to be more specific.


•Tenets of Cultivation: Blood Shield is made to damage an individual who is not a member of the collective, correct?
Correct. A notable exception to the rest.


•Tenets of Slaughter: Talents: Should telepathic punch be telekinetic punch?

•Tenets of Unity: Communal Siphon: Should psychical acceleration be physical acceleration?
Oops. Yes.


Lastly, how much inspiration came from Blizzard's Starcraft games for this, because I can't help but think of a certain Character from the Legacy of the Void campaign...:smallbiggrin:
I...uh, no comment? : P


I can now envision next years April Augmented: A highlord-drunken master-archetype called the contact highlord.

That aside, this is pretty cool. My only issues are the lack of powers from the vitalist list (combat healing can be a very good thing, maybe as an archetype) and the fact that it does not have spirit of many (which is what makes network powers good in the first place.
We've already gotten some feedback that lacking spirit of many is a little weird/awkward. Thanks for confirming.

[AlienFromBeyond]

I don't really understand why this is its own class instead of a Tactician archetype, like at all. Changing primary ability modifier is totally within the purview of an archetype, the Tactician already has some use of Unwilling Participant, and frankly the Tactician itself could use a little love. I don't like the extreme focus on Unwilling Participant either, it feels like an idea that seems cool in concept but lacking when actually applied. Having so many abilities that just don't work or are half effective if you aren't able to shove enemies into your Collective just feels really awful. Not to mention learning that the class is basically an attempt to shoehorn in Highlord Alarak (you even kept the name the same, that feels a bit too on the nose) into Pathfinder instead of having a more defined goal has also turned me off a lot from the class.

I would just rather play the Ghost Sovereign archetype for the Soul Waver in Drop Dead Studios's Battlemage's Handbook, though I know DSP of course is its own thing and can't design something while trying to keep the work of other 3pp in mind.

[Malroth]

You have to return to your base every 3 days or loose it? That's a very short period of time for any group even if they do posess supernatural means of travel. For a class that doesn't have it's own fast travel methods such a short duration claim would essentially amount to a class feature that reads "the local lord declares you a criminal"

[Deimosaur]

I'm going to split this up a little. Hope you don't mind.


I don't really understand why this is its own class instead of a Tactician archetype, like at all. Changing primary ability modifier is totally within the purview of an archetype, the Tactician already has some use of Unwilling Participant, and frankly the Tactician itself could use a little love. I don't like the extreme focus on Unwilling Participant either, it feels like an idea that seems cool in concept but lacking when actually applied.
The highlord and the tactician share the collective and the ability to manifest. Their concepts (outside of the shell of 'leader'), power lists and other class features are entirely different. This is much more than could be reflected in an archetype.


Having so many abilities that just don't work or are half effective if you aren't able to shove enemies into your Collective just feels really awful.
The highlord is designed to make conscription not a chore to use. Every tenet has a different way of conscripting enemies, and can resort to the normal Unwilling Participant feat if their unique method isn't suitable to a given situation. If he can't force enemies into the collective (there are a number of reasons why he may not be able to), then he can resort to supporting his party.


Not to mention learning that the class is basically an attempt to shoehorn in Highlord Alarak (you even kept the name the same, that feels a bit too on the nose) into Pathfinder instead of having a more defined goal has also turned me off a lot from the class.
The class is much more than that. They share a similar concept (psionic tyrant), but this highlord is a class with its own defining characteristics.


You have to return to your base every 3 days or loose it? That's a very short period of time for any group even if they do posess supernatural means of travel. For a class that doesn't have it's own fast travel methods such a short duration claim would essentially amount to a class feature that reads "the local lord declares you a criminal"
Okay. Seems like a good point. Numbers on highlord's mark can be adjusted.

[Tuvarkz]

Regarding the Ophiduan FCB: At level 10, it's +10 charisma score over a ML 10, so it's 25 bonus points, and four times that at level 20 for 100 PB. Lowering that down to 15 and 80 PP respectively due to Ophiduans effectively having 4 less charisma than most other highlords, it makes for a viable Ophiduan highlord with weaker save-abilities but more power points to play around with. HOWEVER, the issue is that the FCB can also be picked up via Mixed Blood trait, and that nets some of the stronger races for the class a FCB that, imo, is otherwise quite unbalanced at the later levels (5x the usual +1 PP per class level by max level).

[khadgar567]

Any ideas for eventual raynor( space marine) and kerrigan( psionic shifter class( queen b*tch of the universe)) classes? Please for raynors class fix( take back) and finish archforhe materials.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Very interesting. I'm sad I'll have to wait before an initiator archetype for this class is made. Such an archetype would hit both my favorite styles of Psionics and PoW. Hell, I have half a mind to homebrew it myself.

Two things: first, the Collective feature works differently for this class than the Vitalist and Tactician, since it rolls in a nerfed version of the Spirit of Many class feature; it took some looking up to figure out what network powers actually did before I realized they are used in almost the exact same way with the highlord, just removing the augment.

Second, a more minor one, but Affinity for Adaptation says the highlord halves the time and cost of retraining; how exactly does that work? The time I get, but retraining costs are a function of both time and level. Does that mean a fifth-level PC retraining something that usually takes four days would take two and spend 100 gp or 50 gp?

[Mehangel]

I don't really understand why this is its own class instead of a Tactician archetype, like at all. Changing primary ability modifier is totally within the purview of an archetype, the Tactician already has some use of Unwilling Participant, and frankly the Tactician itself could use a little love.

I have to agree. I am disappointed that this wasn't an archetype for the Tactician class. As an archetype it could've expanded/modified its Power List, primary ability modifier, etc.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I am incredibly disappointed that the Vitalist isn't an archetype for the Psion class. As an archetype, it could have modified its power list, primary ability modifier, etc...

:amused:

I'm a huge fan of the Tactician, and would go so far as to say it's my favorite class in Psionics. This is quite different enough to stand on its own, and I would have hated to see the archetype text for all these changes.

I'll have more when I finish this coffee, but for now it seems like you're doing a lot of restating your blood power damage, to the point that if you want to make feats to empower it you might run into issues with RAW.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I could see this as an alternate class, but I think it's good on its own. And, since I never played any Starcraft II, I don't know that much about Alarak, but I was reminded of Battlefield by Blind Guardian (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xIe1tPtyAk). "We claim the land for the Highlord... God bless the land and our Highlord! :smallamused:

Only thing that sticks out for me is action economy of the class itself clashing with the chassis. The highlord has the resources to buff up himself of the party à la the psychic warrior/tactician it gets its powers from, or take attack actions, or force someone into their collective (the various constriptions make this easier, but its still a save that may be failed), or use a Decree, which themselves take up significant amounts of actions. Coupled with that are all the things that allow saves; Ability Focus will only get you so far.

[Alea]

I have to agree. I am disappointed that this wasn't an archetype for the Tactician class. As an archetype it could've expanded/modified its Power List, primary ability modifier, etc.
Can I ask why? I don’t get it, it seems to really be a matter of semantics whether it’s a tactician archetype or its own class, and changing everything in an archetype would be really awkward and difficult to grok, IMO. If it doesn’t really make a difference, and one way is easier to understand than the other, why shouldn’t they do it that way? Plus it seems rather different from tactician to me.

[khadgar567]

I could see this as an alternate class, but I think it's good on its own. And, since I never played any Starcraft II, I don't know that much about Alarak, but I was reminded of Battlefield by Blind Guardian (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xIe1tPtyAk). "We claim the land for the Highlord... God bless the land and our Highlord! :smallamused:

Only thing that sticks out for me is action economy of the class itself clashing with the chassis. The highlord has the resources to buff up himself of the party à la the psychic warrior/tactician it gets its powers from, or take attack actions, or force someone into their collective (the various constriptions make this easier, but its still a save that may be failed), or use a Decree, which themselves take up significant amounts of actions. Coupled with that are all the things that allow saves; Ability Focus will only get you so far.
you know a ballad dont counts as inspiration of class but highlord is such material that best served with capital E in alignment and alarak is the perfect bastard to be inspired after our very own red fel he is ambitious protoss with eyes on ruling entire universe, he uses his own enemy to usurp control of his faction in legacy of void and only serves the one worty to defeat him(which is hard unless you have jesus as your co pilot).

[Mehangel]

Can I ask why? I don’t get it, it seems to really be a matter of semantics whether it’s a tactician archetype or its own class, and changing everything in an archetype would be really awkward and difficult to grok, IMO. If it doesn’t really make a difference, and one way is easier to understand than the other, why shouldn’t they do it that way? Plus it seems rather different from tactician to me.

I suppose a couple of my problems with it being a stand alone class include:
1) Ultimate Psionics: It is easy enough to say, Ultimate Psionics is allowed + Psionics Augmented (when it is finally compiled into its own book). But I dont like having to list off every single DSP product allowed.
2) Tactician: It is already the Psionic Leader class, why try and re-invent the wheel; Also as mentioned before, the tactician needs some love.
3) Class Features: The Highlord's abilities aren't all that too different from those of the Tactician. It also doesn't really offer anything to the table not already provided by the Tactician.

What would make the Highlord more appealing? Without requiring an archetype, give it automatic Martial Initiating w/ upto 6th-level Maneuvers.

[khadgar567]

I suppose a couple of my problems with it being a stand alone class include:
1) Ultimate Psionics: It is easy enough to say, Ultimate Psionics is allowed + Psionics Augmented (when it is finally compiled into its own book). But I dont like having to list off every single DSP product allowed.
2) Tactician: It is already the Psionic Leader class, why try and re-invent the wheel; Also as mentioned before, the tactician needs some love.
3) Class Features: The Highlord's abilities aren't all that too different from those of the Tactician. It also doesn't really offer anything to the table not already provided by the Tactician.

What would make the Highlord more appealing? Without requiring an archetype, give it automatic Martial Initiating w/ upto 6th-level Maneuvers.
that would be nice but i prefer rules to use spheres of might so maybe drop dead studios dreamscarred press colab on ultimate battle path of might supplement( now thats a product i deffinetly buy).

[Alea]

1) Ultimate Psionics: It is easy enough to say, Ultimate Psionics is allowed + Psionics Augmented (when it is finally compiled into its own book). But I dont like having to list off every single DSP product allowed.
I would not assume that an archetype published outside Ultimate Psionics would be included in a campaign that specified only Ultimate Psionics as allowed DSP material. So you’re basically wrong if you think you can get out of listing every book that way (why not just say all DSP? or invite people to ask about 3pp books, and allow/disallow material on a case-by-case basis?)


2) Tactician: It is already the Psionic Leader class, why try and re-invent the wheel; Also as mentioned before, the tactician needs some love.
I really do not want for tactician to be the only psionic leader ever and every psionic class that wants to do any leading has to be a tactician archetype. That’s awful.

It’s also already not true, the vitalist exists, the psion can certainly do leadership if he wants to, and so on.

Finally, I also disagree that making highlord a tactician archetype would be giving the tactician any “needed love.” That wouldn’t be giving tactician any love, it would be at best giving lip-service to the idea. The highlord-as-a-tactician-archetype would be a tactician in name only if we’re going so far as to rip out almost all of the unique tactician class features, massively downgrade its manifesting ability, and introducing an entire other subsystem to the class.


3) Class Features: The Highlord's abilities aren't all that too different from those of the Tactician. It also doesn't really offer anything to the table not already provided by the Tactician.
Well, even just having skimmed the highlord, I completely disagree with your assessment, but it’s too subjective for me to actually try to convince you on that.


What would make the Highlord more appealing? Without requiring an archetype, give it automatic Martial Initiating w/ upto 6th-level Maneuvers.
I don’t personally like that idea much at all.

[Wartex1]

Man, I've been looking for something like this for a while, even trying to make my own class like it (thought it was an arcane spellcaster focused more on being very durable rather than being more support-based). From just skimming over it, it looks very good, and I'll definitely comment on it more once I read into it a bit more.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

The Zealot also barges in and lays claim to the psionic leader role. Classes can take similar roles; the hybrid classes are all about it. Why wasn't the spiritualist an archetyped summoner? The mesmerist an archetyped bard? I believe it is suitably different than the tactician. If I had to connect it, I'd say it feels like a hybrid class of the tactician and psychic warrior.

[Wartex1]

The Zealot also barges in and lays claim to the psionic leader role. Classes can take similar roles; the hybrid classes are all about it. Why wasn't the spiritualist an archetyped summoner? The mesmerist an archetyped bard? I believe it is suitably different than the tactician. If I had to connect it, I'd say it feels like a hybrid class of the tactician and psychic warrior.

The reason why the Occult classes are separate is because they are different enough conceptually and thematically to justify separate mechanics, which they definitely use to fulfill different roles and play differently enough.

For instance, the Summoner is a caster with a big beatstick attached plus very strong spelllike abilities. Meanwhile, the Spiritualist is more of s utility character with a greater emphasis on skills, excellent scouting power, and plays a more active role in melee combat.

[ComaVision]

For the Collective ability, do you lose all the benefits if you stray past Medium range? I wasn't entirely clear on that, though the improvement at level 15 seems to imply that is how it works.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I don’t personally like that idea much at all.

I mean I want an archetype of this class that has maneuvers, but I think it works fine as a base class...


For the Collective ability, do you lose all the benefits if you stray past Medium range? I wasn't entirely clear on that, though the improvement at level 15 seems to imply that is how it works.

Generally if you leave the collective's range you are ejected from the collective.

[Deimosaur]

Regarding the Ophiduan FCB: At level 10, it's +10 charisma score over a ML 10, so it's 25 bonus points, and four times that at level 20 for 100 PB. Lowering that down to 15 and 80 PP respectively due to Ophiduans effectively having 4 less charisma than most other highlords, it makes for a viable Ophiduan highlord with weaker save-abilities but more power points to play around with. HOWEVER, the issue is that the FCB can also be picked up via Mixed Blood trait, and that nets some of the stronger races for the class a FCB that, imo, is otherwise quite unbalanced at the later levels (5x the usual +1 PP per class level by max level).
The response to this might be oops.


Very interesting. I'm sad I'll have to wait before an initiator archetype for this class is made. Such an archetype would hit both my favorite styles of Psionics and PoW. Hell, I have half a mind to homebrew it myself.

I mean I want an archetype of this class that has maneuvers, but I think it works fine as a base class...
Something is in the works regarding this, but it may be a while. But it's definitely on the list of archetypes to do. I'm happy to see someone is looking forward to it.


Two things: first, the Collective feature works differently for this class than the Vitalist and Tactician, since it rolls in a nerfed version of the Spirit of Many class feature; it took some looking up to figure out what network powers actually did before I realized they are used in almost the exact same way with the highlord, just removing the augment.

Second, a more minor one, but Affinity for Adaptation says the highlord halves the time and cost of retraining; how exactly does that work? The time I get, but retraining costs are a function of both time and level. Does that mean a fifth-level PC retraining something that usually takes four days would take two and spend 100 gp or 50 gp?
First: We are actually going to be looking into baking some variant of Spirit of Many (perhaps by buffing our current Gift of Power class feature) into the highlord. The difference is something that I've seen a lot of people run into. Would you say it's jarring that it doesn't work the same way as the other networkers?

Second: I would probably want it to halve the cost only once. The highlord's expediting the retraining, but they still pay for all the days they would have spent otherwise.


I'll have more when I finish this coffee, but for now it seems like you're doing a lot of restating the damage of your blood power damage, to the point that if you want to make feats to empower it you might run into issues with RAW.
Good point. It might not be necessary to restate it per tenet.


Only thing that sticks out for me is action economy of the class itself clashing with the chassis. The highlord has the resources to buff up himself of the party à la the psychic warrior/tactician it gets its powers from, or take attack actions, or force someone into their collective (the various constriptions make this easier, but its still a save that may be failed), or use a Decree, which themselves take up significant amounts of actions. Coupled with that are all the things that allow saves; Ability Focus will only get you so far.
I think we'll have to get some more public playtesting to see how it flows with other people. I do know that each tenet has different action economies and priorities, so it should be interesting!

Relatedly, if anyone does play a highlord and has feedback for it, I'd love to know what tenet you used, and your thoughts on how it plays.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Alright, coffee imbibed... very slowly, apparently.

There is a lot going on here. Take from that what you will as I'm withholding my opinion on it, but this seems to be as much as control class as a leader class - something that the other Unwilling Participant options had to sacrifice support features for.

Conscription doesn't appear to actually cancel out Unwilling Participant's usual save, although I assume it's intended to since it calls out a Charisma-based save?

I really like the use of Psionic Focus as effectively concentration on an ability here, though I'd have to see it in action with two (or more? I'm not up to date on psionics anymore so I don't know if you can get 3 or 4) before I could really comment on what I feel on the balance.

With Bear My Burden, does this include indefinite effects, such as being staggered via nonlethal damage?

With Forceful Tribute, a single save to basically know the entire repertoire that the enemy has seems incredibly strong for the action and opportunity cost, to the point that I can see this being taken just for the secondary effect.

Relatedly, Highlord’s Greed sounds incredibly amusing to use, but it begs asking... if you take a feat that is a prerequisite, does the target lose the ability to use all further feats from the chain? For instance, would demanding PBS more or less completely shut down any archers?

Further down, in tenants: a lot more replicated text, this time most of the conscriptions seem to reproduce the Unwilling Participant DC. Group Conscription is unique in that it uses a special calculations, but the others just seem to be the DC already in place.


We are actually going to be looking into baking some variant of Spirit of Many (perhaps by buffing our current Gift of Power class feature) into the highlord. The difference is something that I've seen a lot of people run into. Would you say it's jarring that it doesn't work the same way as the other networkers?


I would rather the Collective feature itself work the same across all collective users, barring basic alterations such as levels gained and the ability score it's based on, with other additions made as unique features. That said, I didn't actually see anything different about the feature? If anything, the Spirit of Many feature itself is kinda redundant, from my reading of the Vitalist. Could someone point out the differences to me?

~

As an aside to the other posters, I certainly have my own opinions on whether or not we needed another (fourth?) collective support class, but it's far too late for that kind of feedback to be of any use. Might I suggest providing feedback to the devs that is actually useful?

[Forrestfire]

Hey, wanted to post to let people know that we've reshuffled the Highlord doc a bit; Decrees and Greater Decrees now have their own sections, to make the class easier to parse. Thanks for reading, all! :smallbiggrin:

[LordOfCain]

I heard Sith Lord????

[Deimosaur]

Conscription doesn't appear to actually cancel out Unwilling Participant's usual save, although I assume it's intended to since it calls out a Charisma-based save?
Got it. We'll correct this wording a bit.


With Bear My Burden, does this include indefinite effects, such as being staggered via nonlethal damage?

With Forceful Tribute, a single save to basically know the entire repertoire that the enemy has seems incredibly strong for the action and opportunity cost, to the point that I can see this being taken just for the secondary effect.

Relatedly, Highlord’s Greed sounds incredibly amusing to use, but it begs asking... if you take a feat that is a prerequisite, does the target lose the ability to use all further feats from the chain? For instance, would demanding PBS more or less completely shut down any archers?
1) I believe so.
2) We can probably up the cost of it. But the cost does include psionic focus, needing to regain it for decrees, etc...we'll think about it, anyways.
3) I'm thinking yes. But there's several other ways to shut someone down with a decree at that level. But it's a hilarious way to do it!


Further down, in tenants: a lot more replicated text, this time most of the conscriptions seem to reproduce the Unwilling Participant DC. Group Conscription is unique in that it uses a special calculations, but the others just seem to be the DC already in place.
Got an eye on this. We'll fix it. Thanks a lot.

Edit: We have gone ahead and done this. The Conscription DCs have been cut from the wording of each tenet, since it's covered in other places and it's the same unless otherwise specified. Blood powers have gotten a similar treatment. Things should flow smoother.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Can the Tenet of Adaptation's Blood Flow be used to give up the 1d8 damage for the extra movement before you get to 2d8 blood strike?

[Deimosaur]

Can the Tenet of Adaptation's Blood Flow be used to give up the 1d8 damage for the extra movement before you get to 2d8 blood strike?
I would say yes! Your members of the collective can give up the damage entirely if they need to move, instead.

Addressing the remainder of Libro's first post:

•Is Devour the Weak a requirement for the Die for Me Greater Decree?

•Can the Highlord move themself with Movement Command/Move the Masses?
•It isn't. They're thematically similar, but no.

•By default, the highlord's decrees do not affect themselves. So no.


•Tenets of Dominance: Siphon Strength: Round up?

•Tenets of Guile: Thieving Siphon: Range?
•I believe the rule is typically to round down.

•Thieving Siphon's range is Close. Sorry for missing that.

If I missed anything (Libro or anyone else, I guess), feel free to bring it up!

[Roadie]

Highlord's Mark is just weird to me. How does "I own this place now" interact with other magic? What does the effect in last sentence of the second paragraph even look like in use?

[Castilonium]

Yes! YEEEEES! A tyrannical collective user that's way cooler than the Commander Tactician (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/tactician/archetypes/Dreamscarred-Press/commander/) and is a more castery alternative to the Void Prophet (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/classes/zealot/void-prophet-zealot-archetype/) Zealot! :sabine: Now to poke holes in it!

The table shows word of law at 14th level.

At 14th level, the +2 morale bonus from Highlord's Mark to attack, saves, and save DC seems abrupt. Would it be too much to give the highlord a +1 bonus to those at 8th level?

Supremacy at 20th level has inconsistent wording. It says "He suffers no change to his hit points or Constitution score, ignores ongoing damage for a round, and death effects simply fail to kill him ", then "The highlord is healed for an amount equal to the current hit points of the member who died for him. If this amount of hit points is not enough to bring the highlord back above the threshold of death, then the highlord still dies." The first sounds like he completely ignores the effect, while the second sounds like he gets damaged and then healed a la breath of life (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/breath-of-life/). Which is correct?

It'd be cool if Cultivation highlords could prevent or suppress conditions in the middle of battle rather than only cure them outside of combat. Highlords don't have Empathic Condition Relief (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/e/empathic-condition-relief/) or any thing like it on their power list. There's Countermand, but it only works against mind-affecting effects.

Tenets of Unity seems rather underpowered compared to the other tenets. It offers much less utility than the other supportive tenets like Adaptation and Cultivation, and has incredibly poor action economy. Not just for the highlord, but for allies as well! Maybe allies should get some kind of buff when using Blood Bond, and Fall in Line should be a free action once per round. I'm not even sure how United Presence is intended to be used. It seems that you need weak, low BAB allies to sacrifice their actions in order to debuff the attack bonus of enemies. But low BAB allies are either arcane casters and have much better things to do with their actions, or they're teeny tiny followers with low HD and thus a low save DC. And every teeny tiny follower you have in your collective counts towards your limit. Maybe at level 10+, a full BAB class could use it on a medium BAB ally to help them out a bit, but is it really worth the cost of losing their swift action? Affinity for Unity's secondary benefit is underwhelming, as you can already glom together a bunch of allies to brute force diplomacy checks, which are already easy because they're based on a static DC. Finally, what is the duration of the temporary hitpoints from Communal Siphon?

Ifrit's FCB adds +1 fire damage to blood power, and Sylph's FCB adds +1/2 fire damage to blood power.

That's all I've found so far. I absolutely love love LOVE everything about the highlord (except Tenets of Unity) and can't wait to playtest it! Thanks for all your hard work :smallsmile:

[Deimosaur]

Thanks so much for this feedback. I'll get to the rest eventually (probably tomorrow), but for now:

The table shows word of law at 14th level.

Ifrit's FCB adds +1 fire damage to blood power, and Sylph's FCB adds +1/2 fire damage to blood power.
Fixed these. Thanks for bringing them up.

[Inimer]

The class looks awesome and not at all like a simple archetype of the tactitian. More of a hybrid class tactician/psywarrior.

Just some of questions:
1) Why does this class have a low Fort and a high Ref save? Considering that they wear heavy armour and are overall a bit of a mix of tactician and psywarrior, should this not be reversed?
2) Is there any way to just replace/combine the "Blood*power" feature with the "Zeal" feature of the Zealot? They don't scale quite the same way, but why introduce a new thing?
3) Simlar to the above, could one introduce a feat to allow levels of Zealot and Highlord to stack for the purpose of "Blood power" and "Zeal" ?
4) Finally, why the name "Highlord"? It kind of bugs me because it is more of a title (and a rather high one a that) than a job description. Even though Pathfinder is not consistent there in general, it still sounds annoying.


Btw, was the computer game "Tyranny", with its Edicts(aka decrees) and Archons (in particular Graven Ashe) an inspiration for the Highlord?

[Alea]

4) Finally, why the name "Highlord"? It kind of bugs me because it is more of a title (and a rather high one a that) than a job description. Even though Pathfinder is not consistent there in general, it still sounds annoying.
I think it's pretty well established that it's a reference to a Starcraft character ("Highlord Alarak") that served as an inspiration for the class.

[khadgar567]

third user who thinks this class created from starcraft

[Alea]

third user who thinks this class created from starcraft
I said an inspiration, not necessarily the only one.

[Roadie]

I think it's pretty well established that it's a reference to a Starcraft character ("Highlord Alarak") that served as an inspiration for the class.

To me, that's more support to change the name if anything.

[Kaidinah]

I would rather the Collective feature itself work the same across all collective users, barring basic alterations such as levels gained and the ability score it's based on, with other additions made as unique features. That said, I didn't actually see anything different about the feature? If anything, the Spirit of Many feature itself is kinda redundant, from my reading of the Vitalist. Could someone point out the differences to me?I believe there is a misunderstanding here. Collectives are the same between all collective classes. Similarly, any collective class that has spirit of many uses the same wording for spirit of many. Of the collective classes/archetypes released and in playtest, more actually lack spirit of many than have it. For instance, thoughtsinger bard, ringleader mesmerist, and zealots all have no spirit of many class feature. The empath in playtest has a collective and no spirit of many.

Spirit of many is the vitalist and tactician's thing at the moment. It does actually provide something unique in that is allows [network] powers to pierce immunities, resistances, and to lose the [mind-affecting] descriptor. It also adds a sweet augment to all [network] powers.



2) Is there any way to just replace/combine the "Blood*power" feature with the "Zeal" feature of the Zealot? They don't scale quite the same way, but why introduce a new thing?
3) Simlar to the above, could one introduce a feat to allow levels of Zealot and Highlord to stack for the purpose of "Blood power" and "Zeal" ?To me, I do not like this idea. It feels like saying "Is there any way to just replace/combine the "tactician" feature of the cavalier with the "inspire courage" feature of the bard?"

These classes have different ways of buffing. In blood powers case, it is always on but triggered by many different actions you and your party engage in. In zeals case, it is on for a limited time and is triggered by stuff the zealot does. Combining them would be incredibly awkward and probably require a rewrite of all blood powers.

[Galacktic]

I believe there is a misunderstanding here. Collectives are the same between all collective classes. Similarly, any collective class that has spirit of many uses the same wording for spirit of many. Of the collective classes/archetypes released and in playtest, more actually lack spirit of many than have it. For instance, thoughtsinger bard, ringleader mesmerist, and zealots all have no spirit of many class feature. The empath in playtest has a collective and no spirit of many.

Spirit of many is the vitalist and tactician's thing at the moment. It does actually provide something unique in that is allows [network] powers to pierce immunities, resistances, and to lose the [mind-affecting] descriptor. It also adds a sweet augment to all [network] powers.

To me, I do not like this idea. It feels like saying "Is there any way to just replace/combine the "tactician" feature of the cavalier with the "inspire courage" feature of the bard?"

These classes have different ways of buffing. In blood powers case, it is always on but triggered by many different actions you and your party engage in. In zeals case, it is on for a limited time and is triggered by stuff the zealot does. Combining them would be incredibly awkward and probably require a rewrite of all blood powers.

Do you have a link to the Empath playtest if it's publicly available?


And I love this so far - I've given it a fairly thorough read and will write up my thoughts later when I have time.

[Kaidinah]

Do you have a link to the Empath playtest if it's publicly available?


And I love this so far - I've given it a fairly thorough read and will write up my thoughts later when I have time.
I do! Right here in the opening post of this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472513-Dreamscarred-Press-Psionics-Augmented-Occult&p=20210810#post20210810

Though much of this content in this thread has been released already. The Empath will be released to pdf shortly as well.

[Deimosaur]

Due to some feedback, we've gone ahead and made some changes to the organization of class features for the sake of readability. Hope it helps.

In the meantime:

1) Why does this class have a low Fort and a high Ref save? Considering that they wear heavy armour and are overall a bit of a mix of tactician and psywarrior, should this not be reversed?
Hmm. Considering this.


Supremacy at 20th level has inconsistent wording. It says "He suffers no change to his hit points or Constitution score, ignores ongoing damage for a round, and death effects simply fail to kill him ", then "The highlord is healed for an amount equal to the current hit points of the member who died for him. If this amount of hit points is not enough to bring the highlord back above the threshold of death, then the highlord still dies." The first sounds like he completely ignores the effect, while the second sounds like he gets damaged and then healed a la breath of life. Which is correct?
Fixed this.


Tenets of Unity seems rather underpowered compared to the other tenets. It offers much less utility than the other supportive tenets like Adaptation and Cultivation, and has incredibly poor action economy. Not just for the highlord, but for allies as well! Maybe allies should get some kind of buff when using Blood Bond, and Fall in Line should be a free action once per round. I'm not even sure how United Presence is intended to be used. It seems that you need weak, low BAB allies to sacrifice their actions in order to debuff the attack bonus of enemies. But low BAB allies are either arcane casters and have much better things to do with their actions, or they're teeny tiny followers with low HD and thus a low save DC. And every teeny tiny follower you have in your collective counts towards your limit. Maybe at level 10+, a full BAB class could use it on a medium BAB ally to help them out a bit, but is it really worth the cost of losing their swift action? Affinity for Unity's secondary benefit is underwhelming, as you can already glom together a bunch of allies to brute force diplomacy checks, which are already easy because they're based on a static DC. Finally, what is the duration of the temporary hitpoints from Communal Siphon?
This is a good point, I think. I'll be looking over Unity and thinking about what to do with it.

[Wartex1]

How exactly does the Perceptive Presence feature for the Tenets of Guile work with unwilling members of the collective?

Is the "opponent" supposed to be any creature, an "opponent" of both adjacent collective creatures, or an "opponent" of the Highlord themselves?

EDIT: Outside of this, after reading through the whole thing a few times, the class seems fairly strong even without manifestation ability. I'm no master of Pathfinder, especially regarding Psionics, so I'm not sure if it's too strong or just strong enough. I'm also not terribly sure on internal balance of the Tenets, but I don't have a firm enough grasp on actual play vs. theoretical play to say much, though I can definitely see how some would be much, much stronger in combat in exchange for little out-of-combat utility.

The feats seem very strong as well, especially Mind Trace.

I'm looking forward to playtesting this if my GM allows it.

[Deimosaur]

How exactly does the Perceptive Presence feature for the Tenets of Guile work with unwilling members of the collective?

Is the "opponent" supposed to be any creature, an "opponent" of both adjacent collective creatures, or an "opponent" of the Highlord themselves?
The second: "Opponents" to the members of the collective involved in the 'flank'. But remember, the highlord can deny people this ability, so this part shouldn't backfire on your party.


EDIT: Outside of this, after reading through the whole thing a few times, the class seems fairly strong even without manifestation ability. I'm no master of Pathfinder, especially regarding Psionics, so I'm not sure if it's too strong or just strong enough. I'm also not terribly sure on internal balance of the Tenets, but I don't have a firm enough grasp on actual play vs. theoretical play to say much, though I can definitely see how some would be much, much stronger in combat in exchange for little out-of-combat utility.

The feats seem very strong as well, especially Mind Trace.

I'm looking forward to playtesting this if my GM allows it.
I hope your GM does allow it. Have fun, if you do get to play it!

[Wartex1]

Okay, so you can't turn enemies into unwitting flankers. The wording of that ability could maybe use a bit of clarification, or maybe an editor's note or something.

There's a lot of new, sorta weird stuff in this class which requires its own unique language to express because PF doesn't have stuff like it built-in, so that problem might pop up a lot.

[Deimosaur]

Okay, so you can't turn enemies into unwitting flankers. The wording of that ability could maybe use a bit of clarification, or maybe an editor's note or something.

There's a lot of new, sorta weird stuff in this class which requires its own unique language to express because PF doesn't have stuff like it built-in, so that problem might pop up a lot.
It shouldn't be too bad here. Flanking's wording still covers this case: "You get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner." It's just changed to "if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character...adjacent!"

But we'll keep this in mind, thanks.

Speaking of new, sorta weird stuff! We're doing our best to standardize wording on these (such as decrees, and their duration being tied to psionic focus). But if you catch anything that's confusing, do let us know. I'd be happy to try and clarify.

[Wartex1]

It just sorta got weird with the collective mechanic which includes both allies and enemies, which is how I got confused, since I was not sure whether the intent was for it to work with only allies or for allow clever placements of allowing enemies to unintentionally flank each other.

[Quarian Rex]

Gotta say, I really like this class. It fills the niche that I wished the Tactician had when it came out (Tactician is a fine class, it just didn't quite work for me). For the most part I like all the things and most that I'm iffy on just need some playtesting to see if I'm being paranoid.

The only things that vaguely irks me are Siphon Servants and Gift of Power. Siphon Servants because you refund half of the base cost of a power yet don't specify whether to round up or round down on odd numbers. The base costs of all powers are odd numbers. Conventional wisdom says to round down (because players aren't allowed to have nice things...) but it would be great if you could spell this out here.

Gift of Power is annoying because I had to read through the class twice before I could figure out what it did. The Network descriptor itself does nothing and the range modification is buried in the Collective description. That leaves Gift of Power seeming like a giant pile of 'meh'. While I don't think the answer is to copy/paste Spirit of Many into the class I think that if you are going to add an ability like this then it should actually have some meaning.

How about adding in Siphon Servants that Network powers are refunded half of their total cost, including augments/metapsionics/etc? I think that would tie in rather elegantly, giving players the opportunity to even out power costs and allow one of their core abilities to have a more meaningful effect on play.

Thoughts?

[Deimosaur]

The only things that vaguely irks me are Siphon Servants and Gift of Power. Siphon Servants because you refund half of the base cost of a power yet don't specify whether to round up or round down on odd numbers. The base costs of all powers are odd numbers. Conventional wisdom says to round down (because players aren't allowed to have nice things...) but it would be great if you could spell this out here.

How about adding in Siphon Servants that Network powers are refunded half of their total cost, including augments/metapsionics/etc? I think that would tie in rather elegantly, giving players the opportunity to even out power costs and allow one of their core abilities to have a more meaningful effect on play.
Hmm. This is an idea. Pathfinder rules say always round down. Might feel pretty bad, every time you get a refund on siphon. But the power of that...hmm. Maybe concerning. I'll look into it?

[Thealtruistorc]

A few things are bugging me about this, namely that the rules kind of conflict with how the collective works. The whole idea of the collective is that you don't need line of sight or effect to target creatures with powers (and there is still no spirit of many ability, so the network descriptor add-on has no benefit RAW). My advice is to go back to the tactician class again and reread the rules on how it works. The ideas are cool, but more polish is needed.

[Axebird]

A few things are bugging me about this, namely that the rules kind of conflict with how the collective works. The whole idea of the collective is that you don't need line of sight or effect to target creatures with powers (and there is still no spirit of many ability, so the network descriptor add-on has no benefit RAW). My advice is to go back to the tactician class again and reread the rules on how it works. The ideas are cool, but more polish is needed.

The Collective ability itself makes [Network] powers usable on allies regardless of their usual targets.


If a highlord power specifies one or more willing targets (or is harmless) and has a range greater than personal, he can manifest this power on a member of his collective regardless of the range of the actual power. All other non-range restrictions still apply. He may manifest any power with the Network Descriptor this way, regardless of their actual ranges or targets.

Spirit of Many is strong, especially when you want to buff more targets than the power would otherwise allow, but it doesn't do the same thing.

[Kaidinah]

A few things are bugging me about this, namely that the rules kind of conflict with how the collective works. The whole idea of the collective is that you don't need line of sight or effect to target creatures with powers (and there is still no spirit of many ability, so the network descriptor add-on has no benefit RAW). My advice is to go back to the tactician class again and reread the rules on how it works. The ideas are cool, but more polish is needed.I am going to redirect you to an earlier post on this matter. This class's collective is actually a copy paste of tactician's, so it cannot be any less clear than it.


I believe there is a misunderstanding here. Collectives are the same between all collective classes. Similarly, any collective class that has spirit of many uses the same wording for spirit of many. Of the collective classes/archetypes released and in playtest, more actually lack spirit of many than have it. For instance, thoughtsinger bard, ringleader mesmerist, and zealots all have no spirit of many class feature. The empath in playtest has a collective and no spirit of many.

Spirit of many does actually provide something unique in that is allows [network] powers to pierce immunities, resistances, and to lose the [mind-affecting] descriptor. It also adds a sweet augment to all [network] powers.

[Forrestfire]

Hello, all! It's been quite a while. Over the past nearly-a-month, a lot has gone on our end, including receiving a decent amount of feedback on the highlord. There's been a couple recurring topics when it comes to the class; we hope that the large update we're posting today will help address them (along with many other issues, especially readability and wall-of-textness).

"Why does this class exist? What makes it unique/not just a tactician/etc?"

Overall, we want the highlord to have its own niche; from the start, we intended it to have a particular... callousness about the use of its collective, in a way. More than just a tactician, the highlord is a class that uses its allies as raw materials to win the fight, much like a kineticist (psion, not occult firebender) uses energy and matter to blow things up, or a shaper uses objects and ectoplasm as materials to bring their imaginations to life. Even a good-aligned highlord will often use their collective as a cudgel to beat their enemies with instead of just a network for directing their allies, and with that in mind, we've made some adjustments to the fluff, crunch, and direction of the class.

The core thing we want to express with the highlord is that they use their collective as raw materials; this is possible for them because of a slightly closer bond created by their collective. Instead of just touching the minds of creatures in the network, a highlord shares his mind, either assisting in a deeper manner, or overwhelming others through this stronger connection. This is represented in a couple abilities, including Open Heart, Lifeblood Siphon (formerly Siphon Servants), and their decrees. We hope that the adjustments made to the class' fluff and crunch will help it stand taller on its own, as its niche of a tight bond isn't a thing anywhere else in psionics yet.

"The class is really boring; it doesn't do anything of its own, and the tenets are underwhelming."

On the mechanical side of things, we've made some major adjustments to the highlord's tenets. Previously, they were a bit underwhelming; overall, they were focused on numerical boosts to the highlord or his allies, and while they might have been good from a mechanics standpoint, they didn't really grab many people. After going back over the class and revising it, we have changed the abilities of the tenets slightly, and added seven brand-new psionic powers, one for each tenet.

Unlike most psionic powers, these are unique to a given tenet, and can only be manifested by a highlord of the proper tenet. In a way, one might be better off thinking of them as unique "class features" that tie more heavily into the psionics subsystem than most features, and they exemplify each tenet's goals and thematics in their own ways. Where beforehand, many felt that the highlord was forced to scrounge for meaning through feats (or not taking the class at all), this
is no longer true—the tenets bring powerful, unique abilities for every highlord, alongside the rest of their progression and advancement.

"The class doesn't feel like it does enough to justify picking it."

With all of that in mind, we've also adjusted many of the abilities, including the siphon (changed to work better with the 6-level manifesting of the class), tribute, various decrees, and the resonance effects of each tenet. We hope that the new highlord catches your fancy in ways the old version didn't. As always, thanks for reading! We're using the same playtest document as before, which can be found here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2wrIBB_sibYLbUHh_Dbh5Y0guEQgnYbFwjKnvS375w/edit?usp=sharing) or through the link in the first post. :smallbiggrin:

[NekoIncardine]

I do like what I'm reading in the updates - though as usual for my skill level, trying to figure out a good set of picks for a specific character would likely be overwhelming for me.

In a final book release, it'd be nice to see some effective-use guides and/or sample builds.

[Axebird]

I'm not really sure why Open Heart is a class feature instead of just a sentence or two of fluff at the top of the class. It doesn't actually do anything at all, especially since picking your own displays is already a thing anyone can do.

[Forrestfire]

I'm not really sure why Open Heart is a class feature instead of just a sentence or two of fluff at the top of the class. It doesn't actually do anything at all, especially since picking your own displays is already a thing anyone can do.

The big reason it's a class feature is because it's an important statement about how the highlord's mechanics interact with the campaign's fluff—it has a distinct effect on the visuals and displays of a highlord's powers. This means that if someone is using the default displays normally (or customized displays, as described in Ultimate Psionics), it still takes effect over top of that. In design parlance, it's a "ribbon" ability: a class feature that has an effect on the class without weighing the class' balance in any particular direction.

A decent comparison might be timeless body, which shows up as a ribbon on several classes. It's a class feature that doesn't really do anything... a character aging over time is, in most campaigns, irrelevant. Still, it changes the way the rules work, so it's a class feature instead of a line at the start of the class.

We chose to make open heart a class feature because while it doesn't have a major effect, it does change the way the rules work (for the highlord's power displays). Thus, it's something we wanted to call out in the mechanics rather than the fluff.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Timeless Body does have mechanical effects (making the character immune to aging effects, which exist enough to be categorized), despite its main effect not being felt in a campaign. Open Heart doesn't seem to have any mechanical benefit, though I may be unfamiliar enough with displays to not tell the difference.

[Forrestfire]

That's a fair point! There are a handful of monsters and maybe some rare cursed items that can magically age you; however, at the time that Timeless Body was written... it really would have been effectively nonmechanical. In the core Pathfinder game, "aging effects" refers to a table on page 169 of the CRB, labeled Table 7–2: Aging Effects. That's my bad—though I would still call it a ribbon, because of its mostly-negligible effect.

In any case, in D&D 5e, where the term comes from, "ribbon" often does include things that are tiny bonuses or abilities (I believe the example given in the sidebar on these abilities is an effect that makes a character better at sailing). The idea behind them is that they're not important to balance, rather than not being important to mechanics at all.

We do plan on looking open heart over and possibly giving a small benefit to it. That got discussed in our internal chats earlier today, after I made my post. Don't have any word on that right now, though, so we'll have to get back to you.

(Really, the ability's main benefit is not weirding out your collective and allies when you manifest vigor. Non-customized Material displays are gross :smallyuk:)

[Deimosaur]

Hey, all! We're making a number of adjustments to the highlord.

In particular, we've gotten feedback that the highlord has many feats that seem like must haves (Psionic Meditation, feats that grant additional psionic focuses, etc). In addition to that, there's also a concern that the highlord can do mind control-ish things with effects that aren't mind-affecting.

To address those concerns, we're giving the highlord a few bonus feats as they progress in level, letting people be more flexible with their builds. We're making decrees mind-affecting by default, though individual decrees may drop the tag depending on their effect/fluff. In addition, decrees now give you back your psionic focus when they run their course, making recovering your psionic focus with actions and feats less of a priority (but still giving you some versatility in how you use your decrees). There's also a new feat to help address the taxiness of Psicrystal Containment, Collective Focus, which they and several other collective users might find quite appealing!

On a more focused level, there's been feedback that parasitic mind is too hard to shake off and overall makes the ghost too safe. Now, the ghost has to save against any effects that his target fails a save against. We're also giving the target a chance to eject the ghost by making a full-round action, which gives them an additional save against parasitic mind.

To make up for this, the ghost now has a larger range of where he can go if he is ejected from his target, and his 1 pp augment that gives him temporary hit points also gives him a bonus to saves as long as he's in a target.

Everyone who has thrown us feedback, here or elsewhere: Thank you! Once again, the highlord playtest document can be found here. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2wrIBB_sibYLbUHh_Dbh5Y0guEQgnYbFwjKnvS375w/edit?usp=sharing)

[meat_shield]

Bloodbath - that buffs your enemies as well assuming they are in your collective, IE They will be hitting "other members of the collective" - your allies, harder - unless I'm missing something here? Maybe add in something about "willing participants\unwilling participants" ?

[Deimosaur]

Bloodbath - that buffs your enemies as well assuming they are in your collective, IE They will be hitting "other members of the collective" - your allies, harder - unless I'm missing something here? Maybe add in something about "willing participants\unwilling participants" ?
It's intentional. The tyrant has the chance of a higher damage payoff with his lifeblood resonance per turn, but it has a chance of backfiring (though not too badly, unless he recklessly forces many enemies into the collective at once).

If it feels bad in playtesting we'll consider a revision, but for now it's something the tyrant should be playing around in exchange for his increased damage.

Does it seem odd to you? A first impression is also important feedback.

[angelpalm]

Any chance of you guys working on an initiator archetype for the Cryptic? That is something I know I would be interested in. Same goes for the hybrid classes that haven't been covered yet. Would love to see one for Hunter, Slayer, and Swashbuckler.

[Cieyrin]

Any chance of you guys working on an initiator archetype for the Cryptic? That is something I know I would be interested in. Same goes for the hybrid classes that haven't been covered yet. Would love to see one for Hunter, Slayer, and Swashbuckler.

I've made an initiating Slayer archetype, which utilized the currently published Ranger and Rogue initiator archetypes for recovery and what it replaces, respectively, as one of my players in Rise of the Runelords decided it was a good idea to skin Malfeshnekor and wear it, so after he left the campaign, he became a cursed NPC focused on the Black Seraph discipline. I compared with the Black Seraph-focused Stalker archetype, Brutal Slayer, for balance purposes, so while not the prettiest, it's usable.

[Deimosaur]

Any chance of you guys working on an initiator archetype for the Cryptic? That is something I know I would be interested in. Same goes for the hybrid classes that haven't been covered yet. Would love to see one for Hunter, Slayer, and Swashbuckler.
I'm not currently involved in any Path of War projects. I can't really say either way.

If I were to be doing anything with initiators (especially regarding classes besides the ones I'm directly working on), then it would be in the far future. I've got this class and its archetypes to do, after all!

[Kymera]

Does using a non-attack-role damaging power, such as telekinetic punch, count as an "attack" for purposes of the Tenet of Guile's Lifeblood Trickery and the Blind Eye decree?

How readily can the highlord be perceived while using Parasitic Mind? Are they effectively invisible, being hidden inside of the host? Do their powers appear to emanate from the host instead of from the highlord themselves? If they manifest without suppressing displays, does the host manifest the displays of the highlord's powers?

Parasitic Mind doesn't have a Target line in its header. Is this intentional?

Can a gnome highlord use their AFC to learn any talent, or only ones from the psychic warrior power list?

[Deimosaur]

Does using a non-attack-role damaging power, such as telekinetic punch, count as an "attack" for purposes of the Tenet of Guile's Lifeblood Trickery and the Blind Eye decree?

How readily can the highlord be perceived while using Parasitic Mind? Are they effectively invisible, being hidden inside of the host? Do their powers appear to emanate from the host instead of from the highlord themselves? If they manifest without suppressing displays, does the host manifest the displays of the highlord's powers?

Parasitic Mind doesn't have a Target line in its header. Is this intentional?

Can a gnome highlord use their AFC to learn any talent, or only ones from the psychic warrior power list?
That's kind of awkward. RAW, yes. If this proves to be a problem then we'll make it explicit in some way.

The host of Parasitic Mind appears to be manifesting the powers, unless the observer can detect the possession somehow. And Parasitic Mind was in fact missing a target line, which we have fixed.

I believe that Gnomes should be able to pick up any talents, not just from the psychic warrior list.

[Kymera]

Thanks.

Deceptive Conscription: This only works on characters denied their Dex to AC, but such denial is very often attacker-specific. For example, invisibility makes opponents lose their Dex to AC vs attacks from the invisible character, but not vs attacks from others who just happen to be fighting the same guy at the same time as the invisible one. Does Deceptive Conscription only work if they've lost their Dex to AC in a general sense (so everyone's attacks bypass Dex), if they've lost it vs anyone (even if they still have it vs the highlord), or does it work whenever they've lost Dex to AC vs the highlord himself? The latter option (lost Dex to AC vs the highlord) makes the most sense, at least to me, given the context, but as best I can tell, the strictest interpretation of the current RAW has it with the middle option (if there's anyone, anywhere, vs whose attacks the target doesn't benefit from Dex to AC, then the conscription works), which is by far the silliest (and also is functionally equivalent to just letting them do it without the restriction at all).

Also on Deceptive Conscription: The last sentence of this ability's description needs proofreading attention for a plurality mismatch.

Parasitic Mind: Can I stay in a host if that host ceases to be a member of my collective? For example, can I collectivize someone, hide inside of them for the fight, then kick them from the collective, so that Lifeblood Trickery won't boost attacks to them, and thus won't increase the damage that I'm taking half of?

Parasitic Mind, power description, paragraph 3, sentence 3: "hose" should be "host"

Does the Blind Eye decree allow all of the collective members to make a save to be able to see the targeted collective member, or is it only the targeted creature who has the option to save to avoid becoming pseudo-invisible, since it targets only the creature being made pseudo-invisible, not the ones who lose the ability to see that one?

[Deimosaur]

Deceptive Conscription: This only works on characters denied their Dex to AC, but such denial is very often attacker-specific. For example, invisibility makes opponents lose their Dex to AC vs attacks from the invisible character, but not vs attacks from others who just happen to be fighting the same guy at the same time as the invisible one. Does Deceptive Conscription only work if they've lost their Dex to AC in a general sense (so everyone's attacks bypass Dex), if they've lost it vs anyone (even if they still have it vs the highlord), or does it work whenever they've lost Dex to AC vs the highlord himself? The latter option (lost Dex to AC vs the highlord) makes the most sense, at least to me, given the context, but as best I can tell, the strictest interpretation of the current RAW has it with the middle option (if there's anyone, anywhere, vs whose attacks the target doesn't benefit from Dex to AC, then the conscription works), which is by far the silliest (and also is functionally equivalent to just letting them do it without the restriction at all).

Also on Deceptive Conscription: The last sentence of this ability's description needs proofreading attention for a plurality mismatch.
Whoops, and fixed. I hope it's clearer now.

He can only use this conscription method on creatures that are flat-footed, or creatures that are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC against an attack made against them by a member of the collective.


Parasitic Mind: Can I stay in a host if that host ceases to be a member of my collective? For example, can I collectivize someone, hide inside of them for the fight, then kick them from the collective, so that Lifeblood Trickery won't boost attacks to them, and thus won't increase the damage that I'm taking half of?

Parasitic Mind, power description, paragraph 3, sentence 3: "hose" should be "host"

I think you should only be able to stay in a host if they stay in your collective, so I've added some clarification. And I also hit that typo, thank you for that.

In addition, if your host leaves your collective for any reason, the power ends. You can otherwise dismiss this power as a free action.


Does the Blind Eye decree allow all of the collective members to make a save to be able to see the targeted collective member, or is it only the targeted creature who has the option to save to avoid becoming pseudo-invisible, since it targets only the creature being made pseudo-invisible, not the ones who lose the ability to see that one?

Yes, Blind Eye currently does not allow a save from other members of the collective.

[Kymera]

He can only use this conscription method on creatures that are flat-footed, or creatures that are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC against an attack made against them by a member of the collective.
Ok, so the highlord can use it at any time on someone who is flat-footed, but to take advantage of any other loss of Dex to AC to use it, they need someone in the collective to actually make an attack that benefits from such loss? Noted.



Yes, Blind Eye currently does not allow a save from other members of the collective.
Sounds good, and matches up with how most other invisibility and invisibility-like effects work, so I don't expect it to be a problem, just wanted to clarify. (Of course, if it does turn out to be a problem, after all, then I'll be back to say so.)


Does the extra damage from Lifeblood Trickery inherit the damage type of the attack it acts as a rider on, or does it stay untyped damage, as per most of the other Lifeblood Resonances?


Also, not specifically a highlord thing, but is a DSP thing, and came up while I was building a highlord to playtest: why are psicrystals' stealth mods so low? They have a +12 for being diminutive (CRB p106), +4 for having a minimum of 4 ranks (UltPsi p110), and +2 for their 15 Dex (UltPsi p448), and I don't see any sources of penalties, so they should have a +18 total modifier, but they're listed as having only +14 (UltPsi p448). Am I missing a penalty somewhere?

[Deimosaur]

He can only use this conscription method on creatures that are flat-footed, or creatures that are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC against an attack made against them by a member of the collective.
Ok, so the highlord can use it at any time on someone who is flat-footed, but to take advantage of any other loss of Dex to AC to use it, they need someone in the collective to actually make an attack that benefits from such loss? Noted.
Yep.


Sounds good, and matches up with how most other invisibility and invisibility-like effects work, so I don't expect it to be a problem, just wanted to clarify. (Of course, if it does turn out to be a problem, after all, then I'll be back to say so.)
Please do. : )


Does the extra damage from Lifeblood Trickery inherit the damage type of the attack it acts as a rider on, or does it stay untyped damage, as per most of the other Lifeblood Resonances?
I think it'd stay untyped damage, given precedent. Is there wording to imply that Lifeblood Trickery damage inherits the damage type of the attack?


Also, not specifically a highlord thing, but is a DSP thing, and came up while I was building a highlord to playtest: why are psicrystals' stealth mods so low? They have a +12 for being diminutive (CRB p106), +4 for having a minimum of 4 ranks (UltPsi p110), and +2 for their 15 Dex (UltPsi p448), and I don't see any sources of penalties, so they should have a +18 total modifier, but they're listed as having only +14 (UltPsi p448). Am I missing a penalty somewhere?
I don't know the answer to this. Sorry.

My instincts as a detective tell me you're making a ghost, so have fun with that! I'd love to know you and your group's impressions after you play it for a while.

[Kymera]

I think it'd stay untyped damage, given precedent. Is there wording to imply that Lifeblood Trickery damage inherits the damage type of the attack?
As I understand it, the description of it being "extra damage" on the attack makes it an increase to the damage dealt by the attack, rather than a separate instance of damage being dealt, thus causing it to inherit damage type (and also causing other effects dependent on that attack's damage to count it). Hopefully someone who knows this particular aspect of the rules better than I do will chime in with further clarification and/or citations.

As for the psicrystal stealth thing, I suspect they just accidentally used the stealth modifier for Tiny instead of for Diminutive, so until/unless I hear otherwise, I'm just going to go with my own calculated total based on the modifiers I know about.

Currently, the only way a ghost highlord can regain psionic focus (aside from the refunded focus when a decree ends) while possessing a host via parasitic mind is if he has Psionic Meditation or a similar feat (thus making the refocusing action an activation of a psionic feat, which is on the action whitelist). He can't refocus via the usual full-round action, because that action is not on the whitelist. Is this intentional?

The Cerebric Guardian feat (Psionics Augmented: Seventh Path) makes a few changes to a psicrystal, including making it impossible for anyone but the psicrystal's master to interact with the psicrystal, but the psicrystal can still be targeted by effects, if and only if they originate from its master. If that master is a ghost highlord, they could use the Cerebric Guardian as a host for parasitic mind, and thus be virtually impossible to attack in any way, while still being able to blast and otherwise psionically attack enemies nearby. I recommend disallowing Parasitic Mind from using Cerebric Guardians as hosts except when the Cerebric Guardian is manifested via its Manifest Mind ability.

[Deimosaur]

I must have missed your edit. Sorry. Let's see...


Currently, the only way a ghost highlord can regain psionic focus (aside from the refunded focus when a decree ends) while possessing a host via parasitic mind is if he has Psionic Meditation or a similar feat (thus making the refocusing action an activation of a psionic feat, which is on the action whitelist). He can't refocus via the usual full-round action, because that action is not on the whitelist. Is this intentional?
This is easily fixed. Done already. Thanks for catching it.


The Cerebric Guardian feat (Psionics Augmented: Seventh Path) makes a few changes to a psicrystal, including making it impossible for anyone but the psicrystal's master to interact with the psicrystal, but the psicrystal can still be targeted by effects, if and only if they originate from its master. If that master is a ghost highlord, they could use the Cerebric Guardian as a host for parasitic mind, and thus be virtually impossible to attack in any way, while still being able to blast and otherwise psionically attack enemies nearby. I recommend disallowing Parasitic Mind from using Cerebric Guardians as hosts except when the Cerebric Guardian is manifested via its Manifest Mind ability.
This...is slightly more awkward. We're taking a closer look. I'd like to find an elegant solution.

[Forrestfire]

Yeah, that's a bit of an odd one, rules-wise. We'll have something for it soon hopefully.

Right now, though, we've just finished up and reviewed a new archetype for the highlord; we've got several in the works, and this one is the first that's deemed ready for public eyes, so without further ado, the Cherished (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2wrIBB_sibYLbUHh_Dbh5Y0guEQgnYbFwjKnvS375w/edit#heading=h.di8yilmipsj).

The Cherished is a highlord with a custom, more expansive tenet that makes them much more focused on their allies than enemies. Instead of a conscription method, they've had their chassis and manifesting slightly revised. Better at supporting the party with psionic powers (particularly through the collective), and armed with the ability to empower a chosen champion to fight for them, the cherished is well-suited to playing as a backline support class. Enjoy!

[Axebird]

Is appointed champion supposed to grant options from metamorphosis' ability menu at 1st level? That seems off.

If it isn't, it seems like it's way too weak. Sharing powers from the metamorphosis line (other than major metamorphosis) is already going to be a thing they can just do with Cherished's Gift, but they'll last the full duration and not split your Air of Fragility (since you can't choose to activate it or not).

You're not just losing one round of actions on providing a buff, you're losing most of your actions throughout a fight concentrating on it, and it's only roughly as effective as any other level appropriate buff. Doing that instead of just manifesting virtually any other buffs or control powers you have known seems like a really awful value proposition.

[Deimosaur]

Is appointed champion supposed to grant options from metamorphosis' ability menu at 1st level? That seems off.

If it isn't, it seems like it's way too weak. Sharing powers from the metamorphosis line (other than major metamorphosis) is already going to be a thing they can just do with Cherished's Gift, but they'll last the full duration and not split your Air of Fragility (since you can't choose to activate it or not).

You're not just losing one round of actions on providing a buff, you're losing most of your actions throughout a fight concentrating on it, and it's only roughly as effective as any other level appropriate buff. Doing that instead of just manifesting virtually any other buffs or control powers you have known seems like a really awful value proposition.
It's the minor metamorphosis table at level 1. You can augment it to access the metamorphosis or major metamorphosis tables.

It's worth noting that, the cherished gets to choose from both tables of minor metamorphosis if she concentrates as a standard action. She's 2 pp ahead of minor metamorphosis in this way. Also, while the cherished is concentrating on appointed champion, she can use a decree on her champion without expending psionic focus.

But we'll be keeping an eye on appointed champion, though. Right now we're tuning down the power points costs of some augments. Thanks for letting us know your thoughts on it.

[Axebird]

"You choose a choice from both Enhancement Menu A and Ability Menu B"

Ability menu B is from metamorphosis. It's not normally an option from minor metamorphosis.

[Deimosaur]

"You choose a choice from both Enhancement Menu A and Ability Menu B"

Ability menu B is from metamorphosis. It's not normally an option from minor metamorphosis.
...

Shh.

Oops.

Thank you. We'll fix that.

[Kymera]

Guarded Rulership: The change to the DC of Unwilling Participant appears to be intended to swap Charisma in place of Wisdom, but you also swapped class level in place of manifester level. Is this intentional? There are few enough ways to boost UP DCs as it is, why prevent the few things that can increase your manifester level from helping with that DC as well?

Currently, highlords have basically the same options as a warrior (NPC class) for dealing with a swarm, aside from being slightly better than the warrior at running away. Is there any chance we could get a feat or magic item or some such that would allow collective-users to collectivize a swarm, bypassing the swarm's immunity to single-target effects?

Highlord's Decrees: "At 4th level and every highlord three levels afterwards, a highlord learns an additional highlord decree."
I think "every highlord three levels" should probably be "every three highlord levels"

Blood Reveler feat: How long do the temporary hit points from this feat last?

Sadism feat: Are the temporary hit points from this feat intended to stack with themselves? It kinda sounds like maybe they're supposed to, up to the stated limit of half your normal hp total, but the way it's currently written, they don't.

Another one that's not highlord-specific, but is a DSP thing, and came up while I was building a highlord: can a psicrystal use a shield, provided one is made for it at an appropriate size? It never mattered before, but with ghost, suddenly my psicrystal's AC actually matters to me. The psicrystal itself still won't be making any attack rolls, so non-proficiency shouldn't be a problem (and it will still be making stealth checks, so I'll probably stick to one with zero ACP, anyway).

Can a ghost highlord's actions (manifesting powers, for example) provoke attacks of opportunity while they are using parasitic mind? If so, does the attack target the host?

Can a ghost highlord rest and recover PP while still hiding inside a host via parasitic mind, provided he stays in them long enough? Does sleeping count as an action that he's forbidden from taking while in the host? What about the action once he's done resting that marks the moment when the PP are actually replenished?

[Deimosaur]

Guarded Rulership: The change to the DC of Unwilling Participant appears to be intended to swap Charisma in place of Wisdom, but you also swapped class level in place of manifester level. Is this intentional? There are few enough ways to boost UP DCs as it is, why prevent the few things that can increase your manifester level from helping with that DC as well?
We'll discuss this internally. I believe it was done this way to limit highlord dipping from being overly good for conscripting archetypes of other classes. We may be able to put manifester level back in.


Currently, highlords have basically the same options as a warrior (NPC class) for dealing with a swarm, aside from being slightly better than the warrior at running away. Is there any chance we could get a feat or magic item or some such that would allow collective-users to collectivize a swarm, bypassing the swarm's immunity to single-target effects?
In my opinion, this is unfortunately more of a problem with swarms than it is with any specific class design. Many classes (most martials, some focused casters or manifesters, and so on) have problems dealing with the numerous immunities a swarm has.

However, the highlord has the psychic warrior power list to draw from: Corrosive aura (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/c/corrosive-aura), stomp (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/s/stomp), shrapnel burst (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/s/shrapnel-burst), and breath of the black dragon (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/b/breath-of-the-black-dragon) are all reasonable options against swarms.


Blood Reveler feat: How long do the temporary hit points from this feat last?

Sadism feat: Are the temporary hit points from this feat intended to stack with themselves? It kinda sounds like maybe they're supposed to, up to the stated limit of half your normal hp total, but the way it's currently written, they don't.
If there's no duration specified on temporary hit points, they should last as long as normal temporary hit points do (until used).

Sadism, however, needs wording adjustments and has received them.


Another one that's not highlord-specific, but is a DSP thing, and came up while I was building a highlord: can a psicrystal use a shield, provided one is made for it at an appropriate size? It never mattered before, but with ghost, suddenly my psicrystal's AC actually matters to me. The psicrystal itself still won't be making any attack rolls, so non-proficiency shouldn't be a problem (and it will still be making stealth checks, so I'll probably stick to one with zero ACP, anyway).
Your psicrystal doesn't have hands, so I believe you'd need an animated shield. The imagery of a psycrystal with a tiny shield floating around it is pretty adorable.


Can a ghost highlord's actions (manifesting powers, for example) provoke attacks of opportunity while they are using parasitic mind? If so, does the attack target the host?

Can a ghost highlord rest and recover PP while still hiding inside a host via parasitic mind, provided he stays in them long enough? Does sleeping count as an action that he's forbidden from taking while in the host? What about the action once he's done resting that marks the moment when the PP are actually replenished?
They shouldn't provoke attacks of opportunity while in a host.

I don't think they can (or should) rest in a host. That sounds like it may be rather uncomfortable.

[Kymera]

Should a ghost highlord attacking while using parasitic mind trigger the 1-round disruption of the Blind Eye decree if the latter has selected the ghost's host as the hidden target? As it currently stands, using a non-combatant ally as a host and Blind Eye'ing them, is basically Improved Invisibility accessible from level 1, at least vs those enemies you've managed to collectivize.


We'll discuss this internally. I believe it was done this way to limit highlord dipping from being overly good for conscripting archetypes of other classes. We may be able to put manifester level back in.
Putting it back to manifester level instead of class level, but still restricting it to just your Highlord manifester level (so dipping highlord 1 on a LL/Sad Vitalist build won't let you use your full Vitalist level on it, for example) should solve that, right?

Parasitic Mind: "Your location is considered to be the location of your possession target."
Does this mean that, if your host is caught in the area of an AoE damage spell (and thus you're also in the area, since you're at the same location the host is), that you'd get hit twice, taking both the full damage from the spell hitting you, and half the damage that the spell did to the host? Based on the fluff of what parasitic mind is supposed to represent within the narrative, it seems like you should be taking only the half-damage from what the host took, not also being damaged directly by the AoE itself, but the current phrasing makes it sound like you'd get hit with both.

[Deimosaur]

Should a ghost highlord attacking while using parasitic mind trigger the 1-round disruption of the Blind Eye decree if the latter has selected the ghost's host as the hidden target? As it currently stands, using a non-combatant ally as a host and Blind Eye'ing them, is basically Improved Invisibility accessible from level 1, at least vs those enemies you've managed to collectivize.

Parasitic Mind: "Your location is considered to be the location of your possession target."
Does this mean that, if your host is caught in the area of an AoE damage spell (and thus you're also in the area, since you're at the same location the host is), that you'd get hit twice, taking both the full damage from the spell hitting you, and half the damage that the spell did to the host? Based on the fluff of what parasitic mind is supposed to represent within the narrative, it seems like you should be taking only the half-damage from what the host took, not also being damaged directly by the AoE itself, but the current phrasing makes it sound like you'd get hit with both.
Hello. Sorry about the (considerable) delay in answering this, but parasitic mind is rather complicated and I've been a bit busy. But here I am! So.

There's been a number of small updates (including the switch of class level to manifester level for Guarded Rulership), but the following paragraph is most relevant to your questions and concerns. I hope this address them.
For the purposes of your own abilities, your location is considered to be the location of your possession target. However, you cannot be directly targeted, or be affected by effects that target this space. Any actions you take seem to manifest from your host, ending effects such as cloud mind or the blind eye decree on your host if you take actions that would break these effects.

[Kymera]

There's been a number of small updates (including the switch of class level to manifester level for Guarded Rulership), but the following paragraph is most relevant to your questions and concerns. I hope this address them.
For the purposes of your own abilities, your location is considered to be the location of your possession target. However, you cannot be directly targeted, or be affected by effects that target this space. Any actions you take seem to manifest from your host, ending effects such as cloud mind or the blind eye decree on your host if you take actions that would break these effects.
Thanks, yea, that works. And yea, I'm well aware that Parasitic Mind is a very complex thing to get just right, but it's also my favorite new thing I've seen in the game in a long time.

Parasitic Mind: the heading of the Augments section is double-posted.
Edit: This has already been corrected.

Parasitic Mind: If the ghost highlord uses an ability that moves them to a new location, such as the Dimension Swap power, while using Parasitic Mind, what happens? Can they move the host around in place of themselves, and then they go along for the ride? Most such effects can be done thusly by using the "use personal-range power on host" clause to teleport the host, but I specifically picked Dimension Swap as an example because it's not a personal-range power.

If a ghost highlord uses Form Astral Armor (PsiAugment: Soulknife 2) to form an astral suit with the Initiator's Soul customization (PoW:E), do the initiation abilities gained from that customization count as "activating highlord class features" (since they came from a highlord power), and/or as "manifesting highlord powers", for purposes of Parasitic Mind's whitelist? Initiating maneuvers, specifically, wouldn't work from within a host anyway, since they always require the initiator to be able to move freely, but could things like stance-switching, readying maneuvers (if the FAA power's duration exceeds 10 minutes), or the Initiator Soul Aegis's full-round refresh method be used from within a host?

If I can activate a stance derived from a highlord power from within a host, would doing so with Infinity Mirror Stance result in mirror images of the host, or in the host being surrounded by a bunch of images of me?

[Deimosaur]

Thanks, yea, that works. And yea, I'm well aware that Parasitic Mind is a very complex thing to get just right, but it's also my favorite new thing I've seen in the game in a long time.
I greatly appreciate you saying this. That said, I'll address the edits you've made to your post now that I've checked again and noticed them. Sorry for being late.


Parasitic Mind: If the ghost highlord uses an ability that moves them to a new location, such as the Dimension Swap power, while using Parasitic Mind, what happens? Can they move the host around in place of themselves, and then they go along for the ride? Most such effects can be done thusly by using the "use personal-range power on host" clause to teleport the host, but I specifically picked Dimension Swap as an example because it's not a personal-range power.
I'm tightening up the wording of Parasitic Mind in this respect for cases like Dimension Swap.

When you manifest a personal-range power or a power that includes you or your position as a target, you may choose for the creature you are possessing to gain the effect of the power instead. You may use the aid another action on your possession target and any relevant allies within range of them. Creatures possessed by this power automatically fail any Will saves made against your decrees.

It may need more but I'm holding off on drastic changes for now.


If a ghost highlord uses Form Astral Armor (PsiAugment: Soulknife 2) to form an astral suit with the Initiator's Soul customization (PoW:E), do the initiation abilities gained from that customization count as "activating highlord class features" (since they came from a highlord power), and/or as "manifesting highlord powers", for purposes of Parasitic Mind's whitelist? Initiating maneuvers, specifically, wouldn't work from within a host anyway, since they always require the initiator to be able to move freely, but could things like stance-switching, readying maneuvers (if the FAA power's duration exceeds 10 minutes), or the Initiator Soul Aegis's full-round refresh method be used from within a host?

If I can activate a stance derived from a highlord power from within a host, would doing so with Infinity Mirror Stance result in mirror images of the host, or in the host being surrounded by a bunch of images of me?
Using highlord powers while in your host is whitelisted, but I'm afraid that using additional abilities gained from those powers wouldn't be inherently allowed. You won't be able to use maneuvers or stances gained from a highlord power since they're not allowed normally.

[Kymera]

I greatly appreciate you saying this. That said, I'll address the edits you've made to your post now that I've checked again and noticed them. Sorry for being late.
Is all good. Is there some way I can flag my edits or something so that they'll be easier for you to spot? I've avoided additional posts when I'm already the most recent one, in favor of edits, because I understand the forum rules to require such (and I can see why, as it consolidates lots of little messages into a few big ones, improving readability).


I'm tightening up the wording of Parasitic Mind in this respect for cases like Dimension Swap.
When you manifest a personal-range power or a power that includes you or your position as a target, you may choose for the creature you are possessing to gain the effect of the power instead. You may use the aid another action on your possession target and any relevant allies within range of them. Creatures possessed by this power automatically fail any Will saves made against your decrees.
It may need more but I'm holding off on drastic changes for now.
Still a bit clunky, but that'll smooth out as the playtest continues. In the meantime, it is at least now clear how the power is intended to function in that circumstance, which is the most important part.


Using highlord powers while in your host is whitelisted, but I'm afraid that using additional abilities gained from those powers wouldn't be inherently allowed. You won't be able to use maneuvers or stances gained from a highlord power since they're not allowed normally.
Oh well. I'm mostly interested in Form Astral Armor as a debuff at high levels, anyway, just figured if I'm gonna know it anyway, I might as well also explore the possibilities for casting it non-offensively, such as using Aura of Misfortune to help land my conscription and other key attacks on enemies with strong will saves. Should still work in cases where my host is an ally, or where I have a non-possessing ally nearby that I can put it on, just won't be able to project the aura myself or from enemy hosts.


Feats > Looming Presence > Benefit: There's an extraneous "to" after "collective".
Edit: has been fixed

Does conscription (or the regular use of UP to add someone to the collective) count as "attacking" for Blind Eye, causing its effects to drop until next turn?

Does the concealment from Blind Eye apply to mind-immune creatures? As currently written, it looks like immunity to mind-affecting effects only applies to Blind Eye if it is the target who is immune and they don't willingly accept the effect, but if the target does accept the effect, then others in the collective still lose sight of them, even if those other collective members are immune, because they're not being targeted by the effect. Is this intentional?

Parasitic Mind: If an enemy is aware of my host's presence, but unaware that there's someone possessing that host, is that sufficient to count them as unaware of my presence for purposes of causing them to lose Dex to AC vs my attacks, and thus also to be susceptible to my Lifeblood Trickery?

[Deimosaur]

I'll address the above in a bit, but for now:

It's showtime!

A new archetype makes its debut: The Virtuoso! (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2wrIBB_sibYLbUHh_Dbh5Y0guEQgnYbFwjKnvS375w/edit#heading=h.8kh85t50b65b)

The Virtuoso is a manifester that makes a show of blasting. Instead of conscripting enemies into their collective, he blasts them to pieces. While doing so, he's still capable of leading and supporting his party, or hindering enemies who aren't immediately destroyed by his powers.

Have fun! Let us know what you think about this.

[Kymera]

Parasitic Mind: If the host is immune to an incoming effect, but the ghost highlord is not, does the host's immunity automatically protect the highlord as well? If the host doesn't want the highlord to be affected, does the host have to make a save to try to protect the highlord (even though a failed save won't affect the host themselves, since they're still immune)? If the host does want the highlord to be affected, can they intentionally fail a save, thus exposing the highlord (while still being protected themselves by the immunity)?

If a ghost highlord is on fire, such as by having been attacked by a fire elemental and failing a save vs its Burn ability, and then uses Parasitic Mind while still on fire, what happens? Does the fire continue to burn them inside the host's mind (and leaving them with no way to put it out until they dismiss PM, since the full-round action to get another save isn't whitelisted)? Does discorporating into the host's mind extinguish the fire? Does it suspend the fire, which resumes burning the highlord when the possession ends? These last two both make sense to me, and seem like they would work pretty well, but the first, which doesn't seem to work as well either narratively or mechanically, seems to be the current RAW.

Does a host having detected a ghost highlord's presence within them, such as via making the perception check when they were possessed, give them enough perception of what the highlord is doing to allow them to "react to a blow" (as per the CRB's rule for when dexterity bonuses may be applied to AC) from the highlord?

If a ghost highlord uses Blind Eye on themselves to hide themselves from their PM host, after said host has made their perception check or otherwise become aware of the possession, does this remove their awareness of the possession and negate their option to make will saves to eject the highlord?

Can a host use the full-round action to attempt to eject an unwelcome ghost highlord if they failed the perception check when Parasitic Mind was manifested, but have since become aware of the possession by other means (for example, if they are familiar enough with highlords to recognize what is happening when a known ghost highlord is in the area and they suddenly start being the apparent source of powers and power displays that they didn't manifest themselves)?

Collective Focus feat: The second "(including you)" parenthetical note has close-parens both start and finish; the first should be an open-paren.

Should the Parasitic Mind augmentation allow the highlord to perceive through the secondary host's senses? The ability to use decrees and powers through them doesn't do nearly as much good if you can't use their senses to target those powers.

[Deimosaur]

Back to the Ghost, I see! I greatly appreciate your enthusiasm.


Does conscription (or the regular use of UP to add someone to the collective) count as "attacking" for Blind Eye, causing its effects to drop until next turn?

Does the concealment from Blind Eye apply to mind-immune creatures? As currently written, it looks like immunity to mind-affecting effects only applies to Blind Eye if it is the target who is immune and they don't willingly accept the effect, but if the target does accept the effect, then others in the collective still lose sight of them, even if those other collective members are immune, because they're not being targeted by the effect. Is this intentional?
Yes, conscripting is an offensive action. But we've added some clarifying text as to what breaks blind eye (it works like invisibility/cloud mind).

The concealment from Blind Eye is also mind-affecting, given that effects from decrees are mind-affecting unless otherwise stated.


Parasitic Mind: If an enemy is aware of my host's presence, but unaware that there's someone possessing that host, is that sufficient to count them as unaware of my presence for purposes of causing them to lose Dex to AC vs my attacks, and thus also to be susceptible to my Lifeblood Trickery?
Simply being unaware of someone doesn't make them flat-footed against them, assuming that combat has already started.


Parasitic Mind: If the host is immune to an incoming effect, but the ghost highlord is not, does the host's immunity automatically protect the highlord as well? If the host doesn't want the highlord to be affected, does the host have to make a save to try to protect the highlord (even though a failed save won't affect the host themselves, since they're still immune)? If the host does want the highlord to be affected, can they intentionally fail a save, thus exposing the highlord (while still being protected themselves by the immunity)?

If a ghost highlord is on fire, such as by having been attacked by a fire elemental and failing a save vs its Burn ability, and then uses Parasitic Mind while still on fire, what happens? Does the fire continue to burn them inside the host's mind (and leaving them with no way to put it out until they dismiss PM, since the full-round action to get another save isn't whitelisted)? Does discorporating into the host's mind extinguish the fire? Does it suspend the fire, which resumes burning the highlord when the possession ends? These last two both make sense to me, and seem like they would work pretty well, but the first, which doesn't seem to work as well either narratively or mechanically, seems to be the current RAW.
The host's immunity doesn't protect the ghost. Wording has been adjusted regarding this. If a host does want the ghost to suffer an effect they can save against, then yes they can willingly fail to subject the ghost to it.


If a ghost highlord is on fire, such as by having been attacked by a fire elemental and failing a save vs its Burn ability, and then uses Parasitic Mind while still on fire, what happens? Does the fire continue to burn them inside the host's mind (and leaving them with no way to put it out until they dismiss PM, since the full-round action to get another save isn't whitelisted)? Does discorporating into the host's mind extinguish the fire? Does it suspend the fire, which resumes burning the highlord when the possession ends? These last two both make sense to me, and seem like they would work pretty well, but the first, which doesn't seem to work as well either narratively or mechanically, seems to be the current RAW.
You would indeed stay on fire. A ghost's immunities don't treat preexisting conditions, I'm afraid. I recommend putting yourself out before hopping into a host.


If a ghost highlord uses Blind Eye on themselves to hide themselves from their PM host, after said host has made their perception check or otherwise become aware of the possession, does this remove their awareness of the possession and negate their option to make will saves to eject the highlord?
Total concealment =/= unawareness of their existence, so no. They can still attempt to evict a ghost.


Can a host use the full-round action to attempt to eject an unwelcome ghost highlord if they failed the perception check when Parasitic Mind was manifested, but have since become aware of the possession by other means (for example, if they are familiar enough with highlords to recognize what is happening when a known ghost highlord is in the area and they suddenly start being the apparent source of powers and power displays that they didn't manifest themselves)?
If they puzzle out that the ghost is possessing them, they can try and force the ghost out without making that Perception check.

[Kymera]

Back to the Ghost, I see! I greatly appreciate your enthusiasm.
Thanks. And yea, the character I'm currently running in connection with the playtest is a Ghost, so naturally, that's the parts that I'm paying the most attention to and thinking the most about, and thus that I'm most likely to find stuff with.




Parasitic Mind: If an enemy is aware of my host's presence, but unaware that there's someone possessing that host, is that sufficient to count them as unaware of my presence for purposes of causing them to lose Dex to AC vs my attacks, and thus also to be susceptible to my Lifeblood Trickery?
Simply being unaware of someone doesn't make them flat-footed against them, assuming that combat has already started.
I wasn't asking about flat-footedness. Enemies also lose Dex to AC, but do not count as flat-footed, if they "can't react to a blow" (CRB section on armor class), and while that's rather vague, there's extensive precedent that the enemy not being able to see you or track your movements effectively does suffice to cause loss of Dex to AC.
(Side note: If it were only flat-footedness that caused such loss of Dex to AC, and thus that enabled Lifeblood Trickery, then that would make LT pretty much irrelevant, since it'd be almost impossible to used it twice in a single encounter, and even at lvl1, an extra 1d8 damage isn't that much when it's only a single time per encounter.)



miscellaneous other answers
Cool. Thanks.

[Forrestfire]

(Side note: If it were only flat-footedness that caused such loss of Dex to AC, and thus that enabled Lifeblood Trickery, then that would make LT pretty much irrelevant, since it'd be almost impossible to used it twice in a single encounter, and even at lvl1, an extra 1d8 damage isn't that much when it's only a single time per encounter.)

Doesn't Lifeblood Trickery also work on flanked targets?

[Kymera]

Doesn't Lifeblood Trickery also work on flanked targets?

Yea, denied Dex to AC, or flanked. That's kinda tangential to the issue, though, unless being inside a host somehow automatically flanks targets.

Edit: Ah, referring to my side note about being too rarely used if only flat-footed. Yea, that does mostly address that issue, though for someone like a ghost highlord, being unseen is still quite a bit easier to pull off reliably than being in flank, and is definitely a lot more in line with the character themes that ghost highlord best lends itself to.

[Deimosaur]

Support update! New decrees that better enable a support-oriented playstyle, and a number of cherished adjustments.

The highlord playtest and the changes in context can be found here as always (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2wrIBB_sibYLbUHh_Dbh5Y0guEQgnYbFwjKnvS375w/edit?usp=sharing), but I'll put the new stuff down below for convenience's sake.

Stand Together: The highlord can activate this decree as an immediate action when a member of the collective is subject to an effect that allows a saving throw. The highlord designates two members of the collective to link together temporarily. Both members of the collective can attempt a saving throw against the effect, applying the more favorable result. When rolling, each subject uses their own save bonus and modifiers. If both saving throws fail, both members of the collective suffer the consequences of a failed save, even if the effect that prompted the saving throw only affected one of the members of the collective.
Alternatively, both members of the collective can choose to accept an effect even if it does not require a saving throw, and share it for its normal duration.
Unlike other decrees, this decree does not last beyond its initial use (and as such, cannot be dismissed to refund the highlord’s psionic focus).

Steal the Show: The highlord can demand the attention of a creature attempting to focus on a member of his collective, shifting their gaze from that member to the highlord. Activating this decree is an immediate action, and it lasts for a number of rounds equal to the highlord’s Charisma modifier (minimum 1 round). The highlord can activate this decree when a creature attempts to target a member of his collective with an attack or ability. The attack or ability is instead made against the highlord if he is an eligible target. The protected member can make a Will save to resist this decree, recapturing the attention of the attack or ability.
As long as this decree is active, the highlord can continue to redirect attacks or abilities made against a member of his collective towards himself as immediate actions. The highlord gains a +2 circumstance bonus to AC and his saves against attacks and abilities redirected in this way. At 4th level, and every 3 levels thereafter, these bonuses increase by +1.

Tactical Upload: As a swift action, the highlord can quickly distribute his knowledge of tactics directly to chosen members of his collective. Each chosen member of the collective temporarily gains a teamwork feat known by the highlord, even if they don’t qualify for them normally. At 5th level and every 4 class levels thereafter, the highlord can share an additional teamwork feat that he knows with each chosen member of the collective.
This decree lasts for a number of rounds equal to the highlord’s Charisma modifier. When the decree ends, the highlord's teamwork feats cease being shared. The highlord must know at least one teamwork feat in order to choose this decree.

And an extra treat for people determined to make their collective miserable:
Upload Betrayal: Creatures who receive a betrayal feat through the highlord’s tactical upload decree can be treated as abettors for betrayal feats for the duration of the decree (unlike other effects, which normally only allow granted betrayal feats to be used as initiators, not abettors). Each member of the collective who receives a betrayal feat in this manner are allowed a Will save to nullify this effect. The highlord must know the tactical upload decree and at least one betrayal feat in order to choose this decree.

First Command (Su): A cherished gains highlord’s command as her decree at 1st level. In addition, she gains an expanded use of this decree. While using its effect, the cherished can give a specialized command to an ally in her collective, allowing that ally to make a single attack with a weapon they are wielding, at their highest attack bonus. The ally does not gain any additional actions from this effect, but unlike other uses of the decree, this does not stagger them.

Air of Fragility (Su): Starting at 6th level, the cherished is surrounded by an aura that forces those who attack her to second-guess their actions. Creatures susceptible to mind-affecting effects who attack or target the cherished with a hostile ability must succeed at a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 the cherished’s class level + the cherished’s Charisma modifier) or become unable to follow through on their attack. The action is not lost, and resources are not spent, but until the end of the creature’s turn, they cannot attempt to harm the cherished with their actions (though they may still attack the cherished’s allies, so long as it doesn’t harm the cherished).
This effect persists until it affects a creature with a number of Hit Dice greater than 1/2 the cherished’s class level (regardless of their success or failure on the saving throw). When this occurs, the cherished’s air of fragility shatters, ending this effect until the start of her next turn.
A creature that fails its saving throw against this ability is treated as being a member of the cherished’s collective for the purposes of the next decree she uses within 1 minute of this effect.
This ability replaces lifeblood siphon.
Also some greater decrees, with (hopefully) more to come:

Hand of Intervention: As an immediate action, the highlord can prevent a member of his collective from dying. Any damage that would have killed them is prevented, and any death effects are nullified. Their hit points become –1, and they stabilize automatically.

Stay of Execution: Activating this decree is an immediate action, and it lasts for a number of rounds equal to the highlord’s Charisma modifier (minimum 1 round). The highlord can activate this decree when a member of the collective would deal an amount of damage to a creature that would slay it outright. After taking the damage, the creature enters a state of suspended animation for one minute.
While in this state, the creature is unaware of its surroundings. Outside forces can damage their body, but as long as their head remains attached to their torso and their brain remains intact, the physical damage can be healed. A coup de grace still forces them to make a Fortitude save or die. Healing can still affect them, but the stasis will remain even after they have been healed.
If the creature has negative hit points equal to or exceeding their Constitution score when the effect ends, they die. Otherwise, they stabilize. This effect can continue even after the highlord ends this decree, but he can dismiss this effect as a free action. As long as this decree is active, the highlord can continue to use this decree as an immediate action, sending defeated creatures into stasis instead of death.

[Kymera]

Unlike other decrees, a highlord can use this decree on himself.
As far as I can tell, this is not unlike other decrees; many of them would be either stupid or pointless to use on oneself, but there doesn't seem to be any blanket prohibition on doing so.


If two or more allies within highlord’s collective are threatening the same opponent
Needs a "the" before "highlord"

[shadisky]

How long does Parasitic mind actually last? The blurb says see text but the text doesn't seem to have a duration clause.

[Kymera]

How long does Parasitic mind actually last? The blurb says see text but the text doesn't seem to have a duration clause.

As currently written, it lasts until something ends it, either dismissal by the user, being forced out by the host (the two options in the text that the "see text" bit refers to), or by being dispelled or the like.

[Deimosaur]

That's right, yeah. Thanks.

Small update. Some decrees got some wording adjustments (including countermand, thank you Kymera) and small buffs. The mind-affecting label has been taken off of some decrees where we have judged it to be unnecessary or thematically off.

Also, this greater decree to bring the total to a nice even 10!

Formal Challenge: As an immediate action, the highlord can cause a successful melee attack by a member of his collective to become an insult that must be answered. Both the member of the collective and the recipient of the attack must make a Will save or be forced into one on one combat with one another. If both creatures fail their saves against this decree, the only creatures either of them are able to attack or affect with harmful abilities are each other. They cannot knowingly attack or affect another creature with abilities for the duration of the decree. This decree lasts for a number of rounds equal the highlord’s Charisma modifier (minimum 1 round) or until one of the creatures becomes helpless or dies.

[Kymera]

Formal Challenge: As an immediate action, the highlord can cause a successful melee attack by a member of his collective to become an insult that must be answered. Both the member of the collective and the recipient of the attack must make a Will save or be forced into one on one combat with one another. If both creatures fail their saves against this decree, the only creatures either of them are able to attack or affect with harmful abilities are each other. They cannot knowingly attack or affect another creature with abilities for the duration of the decree. This decree lasts for a number of rounds equal the highlord’s Charisma modifier (minimum 1 round) or until one of the creatures becomes helpless or dies.

Looks good, but I do see a few details that need to be addressed.

If two highlords have this decree, or one highlord using something like Collective Focus to maintain two instances of the decree at once, you could target the same enemy twice, with different second targets, and he'd be unable to make any offensive moves at all, since there's no one he could attack without at least one of the two decrees prohibiting it. Likewise, and even better (for the highlord), combining this with something that lets you force one enemy to attack another (which highlord can get easily enough) can let you lock two people who are allies of each other, but enemies of the highlord, such that the only person either can attack is someone they want to help, not harm. Are these interactions intentional? I'm unsure if either of these is a problematic thing to be able to do with an ability of this level; certainly, there are comperable things others can do at a tier-3 target at lvl10, but not being very clear on the balance target for the Greater Decrees specifically, how much of the class's total power they're supposed to account for, I can't really judge this, so figured it's at least something you should be aware of.

Decisively escaping the encounter (for example, de-summoning when a summon spell ends) should probably be added to the "becomes helpless or dies" list, to avoid things like using a summons that lasts just long enough to smack the guy, get Decree'd, then vanish, and then he's a sitting duck, unable to attack anything for half a minute or more while still vulnerable to being attacked.

Depending on the balance target, and whether it's intended for the party to be able to focus-fire a boss while that boss is kept at bay by a duelist who's either tanky, or unreachable, these might be easily fixed just by making the effect break, either permanently or just for the round like Blind Eye, for a particular participant any time someone from outside the duel attacks them.

[Deimosaur]

Looks good, but I do see a few details that need to be addressed.

If two highlords have this decree, or one highlord using something like Collective Focus to maintain two instances of the decree at once, you could target the same enemy twice, with different second targets, and he'd be unable to make any offensive moves at all, since there's no one he could attack without at least one of the two decrees prohibiting it. Likewise, and even better (for the highlord), combining this with something that lets you force one enemy to attack another (which highlord can get easily enough) can let you lock two people who are allies of each other, but enemies of the highlord, such that the only person either can attack is someone they want to help, not harm. Are these interactions intentional? I'm unsure if either of these is a problematic thing to be able to do with an ability of this level; certainly, there are comperable things others can do at a tier-3 target at lvl10, but not being very clear on the balance target for the Greater Decrees specifically, how much of the class's total power they're supposed to account for, I can't really judge this, so figured it's at least something you should be aware of.

Decisively escaping the encounter (for example, de-summoning when a summon spell ends) should probably be added to the "becomes helpless or dies" list, to avoid things like using a summons that lasts just long enough to smack the guy, get Decree'd, then vanish, and then he's a sitting duck, unable to attack anything for half a minute or more while still vulnerable to being attacked.

Depending on the balance target, and whether it's intended for the party to be able to focus-fire a boss while that boss is kept at bay by a duelist who's either tanky, or unreachable, these might be easily fixed just by making the effect break, either permanently or just for the round like Blind Eye, for a particular participant any time someone from outside the duel attacks them.
Thanks, Kymera! Here we go:

This decree becomes inactive if a creature affected moves out of close range (25 feet + 5 feet per 2 class levels) from their opponent. If the highlord maintains the decree in spite of this, the decree’s effect resumes if the creature re-enters the range of their opponent. A creature under the effect of this decree cannot be affected by another use of it (either from the highlord or another creature capable of using decrees).

[Deimosaur]

Giving the despot some love, with the following update on their power! The link to that, and the document on a whole, is here. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2wrIBB_sibYLbUHh_Dbh5Y0guEQgnYbFwjKnvS375w/edit#heading=h.k8kqtekcv9hr)

Creatures entangled by this power cannot willingly move in directions that would increase the distance between them and your location (including using abilities that would increase the distance between you and them, such as teleportation). Each turn you maintain this power, you can choose to drag creatures entangled by the power up to 10 feet (or 5 feet, if you are maintaining it as a move action) towards you.

You can drag entangled creatures when you move, by halving the distance you would normally move (to a minimum of 5 feet, even if halving it would result in a lower distance). You must still follow all the restrictions of your movement (such as where you can move, or where you must end your movement).

In both cases, if you would drag them into a space they cannot enter (such as a wall or that of another creature), you must either end this power’s effect on them, change direction, or stop moving. Otherwise, you can freely drag them along with you.

The movement of dragged creatures does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and your movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity from creatures you’re dragging. If you would drag a creature into a space that can’t support them or a hazardous location (such as the air for a nonflying creature or a pit of lava), they may make another saving throw against the power. If they succeed, they are not dragged, end the effects of the power upon them, and fall prone in their space.

Expose Weakness has been renamed Pack Mentality, and has received some adjustments to distinguish it.

[Mezzaluna]

I heard the first preview of the Highlord pdf was released today!
That was a bit of a surprise, since there were a few issues with the class I (and other people I play with) were keeping an eye on, but wanted to wait until we tried it more to give proper comment.

I'll list them here instead to see if anyone else has thoughts or experiences about them so far!

1) Certain Tenet Specific powers aren't very flashy
Most of them seem pretty cool, but there are two that feel lackluster in comparison:
Champion the Flock - This feels too situational and not worth the action, putting yourself in the line of fire to save one ally the move action to get where you would be. It can be useful at times, but not as broadly applicable or playstyle defining as many of the others, especially at low levels when you can't access the augments. I think it needs something more dynamic.

Similarly, Fractal Schism has the same problem: it's a good buff but all it encourages the Highlord to do is stand around and move their allies every turn, because of the standard actions needed to maintain it. This doesn't feel very fun to use until you can afford to keep it up without your concentration!
It only creates an engaging playstyle once the 8pp augment is available.

2) Decrees being Mind Affecting
I still disagree on the amount of decrees that keep the mind-affecting label, and the idea that it's based off thematics rather than balance: Collectives themselves aren't a mind affecting effect and mindless creatures can be members of your collective, so I think any decree that isn't outright compulsion or thought altering should be able to use the same 'wiring' of the collective and avoid being mind-affecting either.

An interesting comparison point is the 1pp Mesmerist, for two reasons:
-It's a class based around beguiling and enchanting, and can get the ability to bypass immunities (with limited reliability) as early as level 4 through Psychic Inception.
-Its Mesmerist Tricks are sort of similar to Decrees, and most of them aren't mind affecting. Admittedly, most of them are for use on themselves or willing allies, but there are a small handful that affect enemies but still don't have the mind affecting tag (Reflection of Weakness, Cursed Sanction)

Decrees I think don't need to be mind affecting are:
Bear My Burden (For non fear effects it's a direct parallel to Mesmerist's Reflection of Weakness)
Blind Eye (Can tamper directly with their sensory organs rather than their mind)
Damage Distribution (Similar to Bear My Burden)
Falter (Can involve sending false nerve signals to muscles or joints)
Forceful Tribute (You're scanning and copying them, not forcing them to do anything)
Living Shield, maybe (This one is iffy, but you could call it a burst of psychokinetic force moving them in the way)
Persistent Conscription (Because Unwilling Participant isn't mind affecting)
Restraining Order (If Despot's Suppression Link can restrain enemies without being mind affecting, so can this)
Tempting Target (Can be more about coordination than targeted influence)

Die For Me (Interfere with target's life energy directly)
Word of Law (As a high level effect you could say it's more about metaphysically altering your surroundings akin to a curse or creating new local fundamental laws than creating mental blocks)

While I can make a unique case for each decree, the main point here is that for the sake of fun and giving the class more diverse options against all enemies, it's better for something to be assumed non-mind-affecting unless necessary, rather than the reverse.

(I also think Cherished's Air of Fragility shouldn't be mind affecting by the same logic: even if they're mindless, zombies or golems have some sort of instinct or fundamental decision-making-CPU-component, and you can make the case the Cherished targets that. Also because it's one of the archetype's main features, and at the moment going against enemies immune to mind affecting would just make Cherished little more than a stunted base Highlord with more powerpoints and Metamorphosis picked for Gift of Power)

3) On the topic of Cherished's Air of Fragility
You've addressed this before but for the sake of putting it in the open:
Air of Fragility is in an awkward place because of the way it works now; it encourages delaying your turn and metagaming the initiative order to get the best use out of its ability, because it automatically discharges after being used against the first enemy of more than half your HD, which might not necessarily be the most threatening enemy on the battlefield. The best way around this is for the Cherished to constantly delay their turn so the ability always refreshes immediately before the enemy they're wary of can make their attack (and ideally putting as many weak enemies in between as possible, for free ability uses).

Even though you added in the Standard Action use ability to fill the same purpose, it doesn't change the fact you're still encouraged to game initiative in addition to everything else.

In contrast, at the moment Appointed Champion says 'you may freely choose to not protect an ally with either of these abilities', which sort of implies that Cherished can selectively choose which enemy to target when they're attacking the champion, but not attacking the Cherished themself?

4) Guarded Rulership and rules loopholes
This is a confusing point that had to be explained to me a few times, but I think it's a legitimate wording problem.

Guarded Rulership says 'When an unwilling member of the highlord’s collective dies, the highlord does not need to make a save to avoid losing power points and being sickened.'
However! Unwilling Participant says:
'Special: Creatures forced into your collective using Unwilling Participant are considered willing members for any collective-related effects unless they succeed on another Will save at the same DC to resist being forced into the collective. A successful save means the creature resisted the specific effect but is still a member of the collective.'

Guarded Rulership is a collective related effect! So this means that enemies forced into your collective can potentially count as willing members when they die if they fail or forfeit the save, putting the Highlord back in danger of losing power points and making that bit of Guarded Rulership useless.
I can't think of an easy way to surefire differentiate enemies for this purpose without also giving the Highlord the ability to designate allies as enemies to gain protection from their deaths as well. Maybe remove the penalty entirely? It doesn't come up too often and fits with the idea of the Highlord as a 'callous' collective leader.


Hope this wasn't too much all at once! Thanks again for all your work.

[Kymera]

What's the timing on Lifeblood Siphon? Are the damage, staggering, and the tenet-dependent effect applied before or after the associated power takes effect? The way it's currently written leaves this ambiguous, though the phrasing of the PP-refund clause does imply that it happens after the associated power has already been resolved. If this is the case, then that leaves the Ghost with very little opportunity to benefit, themselves, from the forced flat-footing from their Thieving Siphon, making it only useful in a group that has two ghosts, or a ghost and a rogue, or otherwise pairs the ghost with someone else who can put the flat-footing to good use; is this intentional? It does at least allow any other party member dependent on attack rolls to benefit from a lower enemy AC if the target has a Dex bonus, but most enemies tend to have fairly low Dex score, especially at high levels, making this a highly situational benefit. Thus, it seems to be a pretty solid ability, on par with those of the other tenets, in certain highly-atypical groups (for example, an all-stealth-focused party), but seems substantially weaker than the other tenets in more typical group compositions.

[Deimosaur]

We were planning on halting the playtest and releasing the highlord, but there was a miscommunication and the thread was never notified. I'm sorry about that.

However, luckily, we can make some last-minute changes to address some of your feedback. I really do wish it had come earlier, though. Even without extensive testing, simply sharing your thoughts means a lot to us. At this point, we'll be focusing on resolving rules conflicts over making design decisions.

Anyway: The highlord playtest is indeed reaching an end. It's been fun, and I hope anyone who's given the highlord a try has had fun as well. The playtest document will be remaining open for a while longer.

I hope you all enjoy the release!

[Kymera]

I just realized that Unwilling Participant only works on living creatures. That leaves most highlords completely hosed against undead and constructs. Is there any chance we could get a clause added to Guarded Rulership that allows them to use it on non-living creatures, or maybe a feat to enable this?

[Deimosaur]

Good news, everyone!

The highlord is released! Officially!

With the official release done, however, that means the playtest document will be taken down in a week.

Once again, my thanks to anyone who contributed to this thread with their feedback. And again, I hope everyone enjoys the release.

[twilsemail]

I just picked up Highlord and Highlord II and it seems like there are some editing errors. Is there a proper place to submit those?

[calyst]

Is Conscription Strike supposed to have a mind-affecting tag? Flavor text seems to indicate it might.

[Baldr]

Hello, I've just recently purchased Highlord II and was designing a Virutoso. However, I couldn't find the ability that grants the Virtuoso the Perform class skill. Is this intentional, an oversight, or have I simply missed something?