paizo.com Favorited Posts by KrispyXIVpaizo.com Favorited Posts by KrispyXIV2023-12-04T14:06:16Z2023-12-04T14:06:16ZRe: Forums/Paizo: General Discussion: Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo/other OGL companiesKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43qfp&page=16?Changes-to-OGL-and-Effect-on-Paizoother-OGL#7912023-01-18T13:31:58Z2023-01-17T14:23:06Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Aotrscommander wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
And the <i>computer games</i> industry couldn't get THAT to fly. It blew up in their faces sommat rotten. </blockquote><p>This whole situation could be summed up as a absolutely phenomenal example of "Failed to do the research/failed to learn from history."
<p>It's gross incompetence by whomever is directing things over there. They easily could have looked up what happened the last time something similar was tried.</p>Aotrscommander wrote:And the computer games industry couldn't get THAT to fly. It blew up in their faces sommat rotten.
This whole situation could be summed up as a absolutely phenomenal example of "Failed to do the research/failed to learn from history." It's gross incompetence by whomever is directing things over there. They easily could have looked up what happened the last time something similar was tried.KrispyXIV2023-01-17T14:23:06ZRe: Forums/Paizo: General Discussion: Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo/other OGL companiesKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43qfp&page=16?Changes-to-OGL-and-Effect-on-Paizoother-OGL#7882023-01-17T20:20:59Z2023-01-17T12:33:41Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Aotrscommander wrote:</div><blockquote><p> WotC really don't understand what roleplay is, do they?</p>
<p>They really ARE trying to make a computer game without making a computer game.</p>
<p>And it's clear they don't EVEN understand computer games, because making AI that is any good is EXTREMELY difficult and expensive (as anyone who has looked at basically any game of any complexity will find, there are always compalints of "AI is dumb."
<br />
</blockquote><p>They really cracked the code here, so to speak.
<p>Except they also forgot the part where most recent CRPGs live and die based on whether they have a dedicated mod community to keep them going...</p>Aotrscommander wrote:WotC really don't understand what roleplay is, do they?
They really ARE trying to make a computer game without making a computer game.
And it's clear they don't EVEN understand computer games, because making AI that is any good is EXTREMELY difficult and expensive (as anyone who has looked at basically any game of any complexity will find, there are always compalints of "AI is dumb."
They really cracked the code here, so to speak. Except they also forgot the part where...KrispyXIV2023-01-17T12:33:41ZRe: Forums/Paizo: General Discussion: Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo/other OGL companiesKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43qfp&page=12?Changes-to-OGL-and-Effect-on-Paizoother-OGL#5682023-01-12T17:55:41Z2023-01-12T17:36:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Leon Aquilla wrote:</div><blockquote> Pure rumors from unconfirmed leaks says that they may possibly be postponing the roll-out as they're noticing the massive wave of Beyond DND cancellations. But take that with a truckload of salt. </blockquote><p>It's gonna be a bad look if those leaks seem prophetic at 3 EST though.Leon Aquilla wrote:Pure rumors from unconfirmed leaks says that they may possibly be postponing the roll-out as they're noticing the massive wave of Beyond DND cancellations. But take that with a truckload of salt.
It's gonna be a bad look if those leaks seem prophetic at 3 EST though.KrispyXIV2023-01-12T17:36:33ZRe: Forums/Paizo: General Discussion: Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo/other OGL companiesKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43qfp&page=12?Changes-to-OGL-and-Effect-on-Paizoother-OGL#5532023-01-13T18:05:06Z2023-01-12T13:56:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Coridan wrote:</div><blockquote> I think accepting the idea of "corpos being corpos" is the path that leads us to Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare. </blockquote><p>I'd be less angry if it were clear that their decisions here were going to be financially beneficial to them, ultimately. Like, if you're going to be Corporate-Evil at least be competently Corporate-Evil.
<p>All their succeeding in doing is blowing up their own community and converting friendly competition into active competition. I dont see how this "works out" for them in the long run.</p>Coridan wrote:I think accepting the idea of "corpos being corpos" is the path that leads us to Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare.
I'd be less angry if it were clear that their decisions here were going to be financially beneficial to them, ultimately. Like, if you're going to be Corporate-Evil at least be competently Corporate-Evil. All their succeeding in doing is blowing up their own community and converting friendly competition into active competition. I dont see how this "works out" for them...KrispyXIV2023-01-12T13:56:18ZRe: Forums/Paizo: General Discussion: Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo/other OGL companiesKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43qfp&page=11?Changes-to-OGL-and-Effect-on-Paizoother-OGL#5202023-01-16T15:59:37Z2023-01-11T21:00:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">David knott 242 wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The only parts of the OGL 1.1 that are of any relevance are that they are apparently claiming that OGL 1.0a is no longer authorized for any purpose and that they can change any terms of the new license with only 30 days notice. Other things in that license are just examples of the bad things they might do under the new license. In other words, the new license basically boils down to WotC saying "Trust us". Is anyone insane enough to do that now?
<br />
</blockquote><p>I wouldn't have particularly cared if they had put out a new version of the OGL that was mustache twirlingly evil and utterly kneecapped themselves in regards to their new edition of DnD - if they want to cripple themselves, whatever, they can do them.
<p>My issue is, as you said, entirely to do with them trying to burn 1.0a in the process. It's a wholly unnecessary and entirely evil attempt to burn the industry and community in an attempt to eliminate competition (since they apparently can't stomach the thought of providing a better product).</p>
<p>If they walk away from trying to deauthorize old versions of the OGL, whatever. It's their problem. </p>
<p>Though any content creator would be crazy to trust them going forward... </p>
<p>There's no trusting WotC Hasbro anymore. None.</p>David knott 242 wrote:The only parts of the OGL 1.1 that are of any relevance are that they are apparently claiming that OGL 1.0a is no longer authorized for any purpose and that they can change any terms of the new license with only 30 days notice. Other things in that license are just examples of the bad things they might do under the new license. In other words, the new license basically boils down to WotC saying "Trust us". Is anyone insane enough to do that now?
I wouldn't have...KrispyXIV2023-01-11T21:00:28ZRe: Forums/Paizo: General Discussion: Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo/other OGL companiesKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43qfp&page=11?Changes-to-OGL-and-Effect-on-Paizoother-OGL#5042023-01-12T01:20:01Z2023-01-11T18:19:07Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dancing Wind wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Nocstar wrote:</div><blockquote> Of course, fans always have the option of a mass boycott of all Hasbro/WotC products. Corporations tend to listen when their bottom line starts taking a hit.</blockquote>Most ttrpg "fans" actually support WotC. There's a reason DnD overwhelms the rest of the table-top RPG market. Why would those folks boycott? </blockquote><p>Do they support WotC?
<p>That's why you get mad, post everywhere, raise a fuss. </p>
<p>We have news sites picking this up and youtubers with millions of followers talking about it. </p>
<p>A lot of people settle for 5e because it's "easy" - but if they're aware it's not the only option, it's not actually that hard to get them to move on.</p>Dancing Wind wrote:Nocstar wrote: Of course, fans always have the option of a mass boycott of all Hasbro/WotC products. Corporations tend to listen when their bottom line starts taking a hit.
Most ttrpg "fans" actually support WotC. There's a reason DnD overwhelms the rest of the table-top RPG market. Why would those folks boycott? Do they support WotC? That's why you get mad, post everywhere, raise a fuss.
We have news sites picking this up and youtubers with millions of followers talking...KrispyXIV2023-01-11T18:19:07ZRe: Forums/Paizo: General Discussion: Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo/other OGL companiesKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43qfp&page=10?Changes-to-OGL-and-Effect-on-Paizoother-OGL#4642023-01-11T18:52:09Z2023-01-11T01:21:21Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">pres man wrote:</div><blockquote><p> So who else is excited to hear that D&D is going to have a live-action show on Paramount+.</p>
<p>•Quickly ducks out before getting clobbered by thrown DMGs• </blockquote><p>Yep, I cancelled my subscription and in the reason indicated that they should ask Hasbro/WotC about the OGL, and explained that I would not currently support DnD directly or indirectly.pres man wrote:So who else is excited to hear that D&D is going to have a live-action show on Paramount+.
*Quickly ducks out before getting clobbered by thrown DMGs*
Yep, I cancelled my subscription and in the reason indicated that they should ask Hasbro/WotC about the OGL, and explained that I would not currently support DnD directly or indirectly.KrispyXIV2023-01-11T01:21:21ZRe: Forums/Paizo: General Discussion: Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo/other OGL companiesKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43qfp&page=9?Changes-to-OGL-and-Effect-on-Paizoother-OGL#4092023-01-11T01:00:23Z2023-01-10T17:18:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">breithauptclan wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">12Seal wrote:</div><blockquote>Can't help worrying that Golarion and the Pact Worlds may end up as Hasbro IPs, since it <i>started</i> as a D$D setting and has been OGL for so long. </blockquote><p>Again, disclaimer, not a lawyer and I am more familiar with open source software licenses than the OGL.
<p>First, the OGL is a distribution license - not a copyright.</p>
<p>Hasbro would have to sue in order to enforce their OGL 1.1 license. And trying to sue for violations of the OGL 1.1 on content that was published under the OGL 1.0a license isn't going to hold up well. That is the retroactive rewriting of the agreement that violates the very foundations of contract law. So they can't retroactively claim that the Paizo setting copyright belongs to Hasbro under the terms of OGL 1.1 now when it was created under OGL 1.0.</p>
<p>It is more possible that Hasbro could file suit that current content in the Pact Worlds setting needs to be published under OGL 1.1 going forward - but that can be handled by removing any Hasbro/D&D proprietary content from the setting and publishing it under a non-OGL distribution license or simply under their own copyright with no redistribution license. </blockquote><p>Yeah, also not a lawyer, but I'd guess that Hasbro/WotC ultimately doesn't <i>want</i> to force things in front of a judge who might actually rule on the situation.
<p>Changing the OGL like this seems to be a strong arm tactic to force other people out of the market (or to make it more expensive to sell/market their existing products, by virtue of adding legal costs to consider whether those products are now a liability) and to be able to restrict future products. </p>
<p>If Hasbro comes at other folks over this, it seems likely that their goal will be captivation or a settlement out of financial necessity well before things make it to a ruling.</p>breithauptclan wrote:12Seal wrote:Can't help worrying that Golarion and the Pact Worlds may end up as Hasbro IPs, since it started as a D$D setting and has been OGL for so long.
Again, disclaimer, not a lawyer and I am more familiar with open source software licenses than the OGL. First, the OGL is a distribution license - not a copyright.
Hasbro would have to sue in order to enforce their OGL 1.1 license. And trying to sue for violations of the OGL 1.1 on content that was published under...KrispyXIV2023-01-10T17:18:13ZRe: Forums/Paizo: General Discussion: Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo/other OGL companiesKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43qfp&page=9?Changes-to-OGL-and-Effect-on-Paizoother-OGL#4032023-01-11T02:07:40Z2023-01-10T16:29:52Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">mikeawmids wrote:</div><blockquote> How will this effect Youtube channels and podcasts that play 5e? I listen to Oxventure, Dragon Friends, Adventure Zone, Dungeon Dudes (among others), will they be able to continue producing new episodes after 13/01/2022 if they make money via adverts, merchandise or live shows? </blockquote><p>They probably need to hire a lawyer to answer that question.
<p>...which is, sadly, a summary of the base layer of why all of this is such a problem. </p>
<p>The vast majority of the "industry" now needs to lawyer up just to keep going.</p>mikeawmids wrote:How will this effect Youtube channels and podcasts that play 5e? I listen to Oxventure, Dragon Friends, Adventure Zone, Dungeon Dudes (among others), will they be able to continue producing new episodes after 13/01/2022 if they make money via adverts, merchandise or live shows?
They probably need to hire a lawyer to answer that question. ...which is, sadly, a summary of the base layer of why all of this is such a problem.
The vast majority of the "industry" now needs to...KrispyXIV2023-01-10T16:29:52ZRe: Forums/Paizo: General Discussion: Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo/other OGL companiesKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43qfp&page=6?Changes-to-OGL-and-Effect-on-Paizoother-OGL#2542023-01-10T03:32:21Z2023-01-08T16:10:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">mikeawmids wrote:</div><blockquote> My interpretation was that the OGL is now a ticking bomb. Maybe it goes off on the 13th of Jan, as indicated in the leaked documents, maybe it gets delayed to some undetermined point in the future, but sooner or later it is going to explode. If nothing else, this is a wake-up call that Hasbro is out to get you, and severing yourself from the OGL is both urgent and necessary. </blockquote><p>Oh, definitely. They've essentially torched any trust or goodwill with most 3rd party developers essentially overnight, as well as the security and confidence of the industry.
<p>Gasoline, match and maybe a little bit of extra fuel just to be sure. </p>
<p>Walking it back at this point may prevent the whole DnD brand from being tainted in the minds of a significant portion of the RPG community for years to come, but it seems to me like their professional relationships are going to be unsalvageable for the foreseeable future.</p>mikeawmids wrote:My interpretation was that the OGL is now a ticking bomb. Maybe it goes off on the 13th of Jan, as indicated in the leaked documents, maybe it gets delayed to some undetermined point in the future, but sooner or later it is going to explode. If nothing else, this is a wake-up call that Hasbro is out to get you, and severing yourself from the OGL is both urgent and necessary.
Oh, definitely. They've essentially torched any trust or goodwill with most 3rd party developers...KrispyXIV2023-01-08T16:10:00ZRe: Forums/Paizo: General Discussion: Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo/other OGL companiesKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43qfp&page=4?Changes-to-OGL-and-Effect-on-Paizoother-OGL#1742023-01-13T16:02:53Z2023-01-07T19:29:49Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:</div><blockquote><p> So this may be a hot take - but I think we should all chill and hold off on the torches and pitchforks.</p>
<p>Contracts, intellectual property, and licensing law is not for the faint of heart. There are a lot of doom-and-gloom articles and posts out there, but most of them are from folks who have no idea what they are talking about. The best one I saw was with an actual lawyer on Roll For Combat, and even he had a lot of qualifiers to his thoughts. He did seem to believe that this isn’t the end-of-the-world.</p>
<p>So I totally get the concern over our favorite hobby. But I’d wait until something official comes out (not a leak), and/or when Paizo comes out with something official. </blockquote><p>Taking action after a fire has started is the <i>least</i> effective time to take action to keep your house from burning down.
<p>There will never be a better time than now for more and more people to voice their anger over this - yesterday would have been better, but tommorow is definitely worse. </p>
<p>If enough people get mad about this that it makes Hasbro blink and not move forward, that is absolutely the best result.</p>Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:So this may be a hot take - but I think we should all chill and hold off on the torches and pitchforks.
Contracts, intellectual property, and licensing law is not for the faint of heart. There are a lot of doom-and-gloom articles and posts out there, but most of them are from folks who have no idea what they are talking about. The best one I saw was with an actual lawyer on Roll For Combat, and even he had a lot of qualifiers to his thoughts. He did seem to believe...KrispyXIV2023-01-07T19:29:49ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Spellcaster power progression.KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs439zq?Spellcaster-power-progression#252021-01-11T08:57:50Z2021-01-07T16:16:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">RPGnoremac wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
This does give me a random though, with how spells scale in PF2 why didn't they just give players fireball/lightning bolt at level 1 at 2d6? Video games do this for the most part and everyone loves those lol. I feel it would have made casters much more fun early on. Would a level 1 2d6 fireball really be too strong? or at level 3 a 4d6 fireball?</p>
<p></blockquote><p>Tradition, probably, is the primary reason. Fireball and Lightning Bolt are and have always been iconic 3rd level spells, with Burning Hands and Shocking Grasp being rhe 1st level nukes.
<p>Beyond that though, there's more to spell progression than just damage numbers - higher level spells inherently add more ability to affect changes in The World, going from close and limited areas with first level spells (burning hands, color spray) to bigger areas at range (fireball, hypnotic pattern) to truly epic at high levels (Meteor Swarm as compared to fireball). </p>
<p>Remember that not <i>every</i> interaction is intended to necessarily be scaled to the party. A seventh level party still deals with 1st level bakers and bartenders, meaning a 1st level charm spell still has a place in the world. Meteor Swarm is more than just a number of dice in damage - its the narrative power for a Wizard to lay waste to an entire company of soldiers or a village. </p>
<p>A 1st level spell shouldn't necessarily have the narrative potency of a Fireball.</p>RPGnoremac wrote:This does give me a random though, with how spells scale in PF2 why didn't they just give players fireball/lightning bolt at level 1 at 2d6? Video games do this for the most part and everyone loves those lol. I feel it would have made casters much more fun early on. Would a level 1 2d6 fireball really be too strong? or at level 3 a 4d6 fireball?
Tradition, probably, is the primary reason. Fireball and Lightning Bolt are and have always been iconic 3rd level spells, with...KrispyXIV2021-01-07T16:16:17ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: A lot of monsters in Paizo APs sit in their room waiting to dieKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xq&page=3?A-lot-of-monsters-in-Paizo-APs-sit-in-their#1152020-12-09T09:46:13Z2020-12-08T19:18:24Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">The Raven Black wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">KrispyXIV wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">RealAlchemy wrote:</div><blockquote> I admit I'm a bit late to the party, but one way to avoid combining encounters to the point of an auto-tpk is to not necessarily send everybody from the next room at the PCs at once. Something along the lines of <span class=messageboard-ooc>Grog! Go see what those idiots up front are brawling about! Don't make me get up and put down my mead!</span> And then send over only one guy. Which is also a hint to the PCs that somebody noticed them. </blockquote>The issue I run into with this sort of tactic is that you can end up feeding a later, generally more difficult, encounter to your party piecemeal and everything ends up easier. </blockquote>Grog's twin brother Grag appeared in the next room to keep its difficulty intact ;-P </blockquote><p>Nope, absolutely not, never.
<p>The "Bad Guys" having arbitrary, undefined, or unlimited resources is an absolute no for me. </p>
<p>One of the big restrictions on Bad Guys, that an rpg like this allows you to implement, is the idea that the bad guys are laboring under the same fundamental challenges as the players. </p>
<p>If the players clear out half a dungeon, the bad guys only have their surviving assets with which to secure the other half unless they can somehow receive outside support - persistent influence in the world is one of the big advantages of tabletop rpgs and I would not deprive my players of it.</p>The Raven Black wrote:KrispyXIV wrote: RealAlchemy wrote: I admit I'm a bit late to the party, but one way to avoid combining encounters to the point of an auto-tpk is to not necessarily send everybody from the next room at the PCs at once. Something along the lines of Grog! Go see what those idiots up front are brawling about! Don't make me get up and put down my mead! And then send over only one guy. Which is also a hint to the PCs that somebody noticed them.
The issue I run into with this...KrispyXIV2020-12-08T19:18:24ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo&page=2?Shields-and-Shield-Block#722021-04-27T21:24:16Z2020-12-08T19:13:20Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Caralene wrote:</div><blockquote>I love the high risk high reward feel of deciding its worth risking destroying a shield to block the damage that could otherwise down me. </blockquote><p>Some people like "high risk high reward" and others don't. It wouldn't be such an issue if it felt truly optional: several classes start with shield block and to use it, you're either using one of the limited options that actually have staying power or treat the shield as a consumable item [and some people also don't like those in general too].
<p>How many 1 bulk shields do you carry around in case you high risk goes wrong? </blockquote><p>The fact that several classes start with the Shield Block feat does not obligate them to use it, nor does it mean that they are "wasting" it by not doing so.
<p>The Shield Block feat essentially replaced Shield Proficiency- its no less optional than any of the other weapon or armor proficiencies you choose not to utilize. </p>
<p>Which is to say, its absolutely totally optional.</p>graystone wrote:Caralene wrote:I love the high risk high reward feel of deciding its worth risking destroying a shield to block the damage that could otherwise down me.
Some people like "high risk high reward" and others don't. It wouldn't be such an issue if it felt truly optional: several classes start with shield block and to use it, you're either using one of the limited options that actually have staying power or treat the shield as a consumable item [and some people also don't like...KrispyXIV2020-12-08T19:13:20ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo&page=2?Shields-and-Shield-Block#642021-04-27T21:24:16Z2020-12-05T15:30:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cyouni wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Draco18s wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Cyouni wrote:</div><blockquote> If you want shields to work as large AC buffs plus infinite-use DR X/turn, the numbers are going to have to go way down - just see the Indestructible Shield for example, which is both Rare and has 4 less hardness than the lower-level Sturdy Shield. </blockquote><p>May as well remove the "use your shield infinitely" feats then, if fighters aren't meant to use it infinitely.
<p>Because <i>holy cow</i> do they get a lot of reactions to use on Shield Block. Twice per round.</p>
<p>No one is going to take a "get a free bonus reaction to shield block every turn" feat if they're only meant to shield block <i>once a fight.</i> </blockquote><p>You know they can just not take that if they don't want to focus on blocking? And that also lets them Reactive + Block, AoO + block, etc. For example, with Reactive, that lets them use all 3 actions without ever having to worry about raising their shield. That effectively turns it into another attack at second MAP.
<p>Just because they get a second reaction that can only be used to block doesn't mean the first one has to be stuck doing that as well. </blockquote><p>And the great thing about The Design is that if they DO want to use both Reactions Blocking, there is a Common rarity shield option which allows for them to do just that for multiple rounds of combat.
<p>But as it stands, the design is absolutely about tradeoffs, through and through. As you've noted, there are clearly different types of shields and not all are intended to be used to Block / Block repeatedly. </p>
<p>Its fine for people to not like The Design, but its more questionable when its declared as flawed or broken. It may not be perfect, but it is perfectly functional - especially now that the extreme outliers have been patched with errata.</p>Cyouni wrote:Draco18s wrote: Cyouni wrote: If you want shields to work as large AC buffs plus infinite-use DR X/turn, the numbers are going to have to go way down - just see the Indestructible Shield for example, which is both Rare and has 4 less hardness than the lower-level Sturdy Shield.
May as well remove the "use your shield infinitely" feats then, if fighters aren't meant to use it infinitely. Because holy cow do they get a lot of reactions to use on Shield Block. Twice per round.
No...KrispyXIV2020-12-05T15:30:04ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Of Structuring and Encounters: A discussion on APs and how combat encounters in this edition impacts them.KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs4391e?Of-Structuring-and-Encounters-A-discussion-on#412020-12-06T22:14:48Z2020-12-04T20:22:27Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sporkedup wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">KrispyXIV wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Sporkedup wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">KrispyXIV wrote:</div><blockquote> Theres one encounter in book 4 thats built as a TPK machine, but thats mostly due to the involved monster being badly written and totally OP. </blockquote>Wait, what encounter is that? My players are just now hitting the last chapter and this book has been largely very smooth sailing. </blockquote>•• spoiler omitted •• </blockquote><p>Oh! Good catch. I was moving it till later in the adventure anyways, as I thought it would fit better •• spoiler omitted ••
<p>Good to know—I'll carefully review before I set that one up in a way that could wreck my players, haha. </blockquote><p>I'll say this - if I were going to run AoA a Third time, I'd just remove it and replace the encounter with one of the suggested "filler" encounters from later in the book.Sporkedup wrote:KrispyXIV wrote: Sporkedup wrote: KrispyXIV wrote: Theres one encounter in book 4 thats built as a TPK machine, but thats mostly due to the involved monster being badly written and totally OP.
Wait, what encounter is that? My players are just now hitting the last chapter and this book has been largely very smooth sailing. ** spoiler omitted ** Oh! Good catch. I was moving it till later in the adventure anyways, as I thought it would fit better ** spoiler omitted ** Good to...KrispyXIV2020-12-04T20:22:27ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Of Structuring and Encounters: A discussion on APs and how combat encounters in this edition impacts them.KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs4391e?Of-Structuring-and-Encounters-A-discussion-on#392020-12-06T00:19:19Z2020-12-04T20:03:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sporkedup wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">KrispyXIV wrote:</div><blockquote> Theres one encounter in book 4 thats built as a TPK machine, but thats mostly due to the involved monster being badly written and totally OP. </blockquote>Wait, what encounter is that? My players are just now hitting the last chapter and this book has been largely very smooth sailing. </blockquote><p>[Spoiler omitted]Sporkedup wrote:KrispyXIV wrote: Theres one encounter in book 4 thats built as a TPK machine, but thats mostly due to the involved monster being badly written and totally OP.
Wait, what encounter is that? My players are just now hitting the last chapter and this book has been largely very smooth sailing. [Spoiler omitted]KrispyXIV2020-12-04T20:03:47ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Of Structuring and Encounters: A discussion on APs and how combat encounters in this edition impacts them.KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs4391e?Of-Structuring-and-Encounters-A-discussion-on#372020-12-08T18:24:35Z2020-12-04T19:54:03Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Harles wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Sporkedup wrote:</div><blockquote> Wait, you're telling me you experienced a TPK one out of every four fights in Age of Ashes, even with a spare person? That is not a complaint I've ever heard before. Certainly not a scenario my table experienced, though we're only 75% of the way through book 4. </blockquote><p>Yep. Running it as close to RAW as I could do - adding no extra monsters or anything. We finished book 2 before the group fell apart.
</p>
We took great care to make sure everyone had their characters put in Pathbuilder correctly and all the automation on Roll20 was good. We had the right amount of magical gear and equipment. We used Hero Points, used separate initiative for all combatants (instead of grouping like monsters together).
<br />
We had about half the players who were extremely occupied with reading rules, making sure everything was as advantageous as they could figure out - and they'd pass along their suggestions to the other half of the party who were more casual players.
<br />
Though the party configuration changed often due to the TPKs we'd usually have something like the following: arcane caster (wizard/sorcerer), champion, fighter, divine caster (cleric/druid), and a bonus character (typically something agile like a monk or rogue).
<br />
I just don't get it. I've seen games where life is cheap (like OSR-type D&D games), but never something where it takes so long to make a character, requiring such an investment, to have your character frequently die after a couple encounters. </blockquote><p>I'd be seriously interested to see what's actually going on here. I've run most of Age of Ashes twice now with fairly distinctive party comps, and most of the "player characters threatened with death" happened in book one, in one of two encounters at the end of the book.
<p>Theres one encounter in book 4 thats built as a TPK machine, but thats mostly due to the involved monster being badly written and totally OP. </p>
<p>Most other player character deaths/near deaths I've seen have been due to how deadly poison and persistent damage can be. </p>
<p>Champions in both campaigns are seriously effective at mitigating the threat of death for their parties.</p>Harles wrote:Sporkedup wrote: Wait, you're telling me you experienced a TPK one out of every four fights in Age of Ashes, even with a spare person? That is not a complaint I've ever heard before. Certainly not a scenario my table experienced, though we're only 75% of the way through book 4.
Yep. Running it as close to RAW as I could do - adding no extra monsters or anything. We finished book 2 before the group fell apart.
We took great care to make sure everyone had their characters put in...KrispyXIV2020-12-04T19:54:03ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo&page=2?Shields-and-Shield-Block#532021-04-27T21:24:16Z2020-12-04T19:42:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Fumarole wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I added this feat to my game. My players have yet to reach a level where they can take this, so I have no idea how well it would work in action. There is a fighter in the party, but he seems to be focused on 1- or 2-handed weapons, as well as reach, so he may not go for it.</p>
<p><b>Durable Shield</b>
<br />
Champion 8, Fighter 8
<br />
Add your armor proficiency level to your shield’s hardness (+2 for Trained, +4 for Expert, +6 for Master, +8 for Legendary). Your shield’s HP and BT are not changed. This stacks with Shield Ally.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>This will mostly result in shields that are currently good at blocking getting way better, and shields that are bad at blocking getting marginally better, but still being pretty easily broken in 1-2 hits.
<p>If you want to go the stats modification route via a feat without significantly affecting power level, I would reccomend something like the following. </p>
<p>Shield Reinforcement - General 3
<br />
Requirements - Expert Crafting
<br />
You are adept as adept at reinforcing shields as you are repairing them. You can use the Repair action on a shield that already has its maximum hitpoints to Reinforce it, and when you do it gains "bonus" hitpoints equal to the number of hitpoints it would gain from the repair check. These hitpoints are lost before the shields normal hitpoints, and do not affect the shields BT or HP. </p>
<p>By increasing the effective HP of the shield, you don't increase the effective Resistance of the shield (a dramatic balance shift) but you do allow it to survive more blows. </p>
<p>Tieing this to an existing action and skill also allows for continuity and consistency in how things already work.</p>Fumarole wrote:I added this feat to my game. My players have yet to reach a level where they can take this, so I have no idea how well it would work in action. There is a fighter in the party, but he seems to be focused on 1- or 2-handed weapons, as well as reach, so he may not go for it.
Durable Shield
Champion 8, Fighter 8
Add your armor proficiency level to your shield’s hardness (+2 for Trained, +4 for Expert, +6 for Master, +8 for Legendary). Your shield’s HP and BT are not changed....KrispyXIV2020-12-04T19:42:18ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Of Structuring and Encounters: A discussion on APs and how combat encounters in this edition impacts them.KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs4391e?Of-Structuring-and-Encounters-A-discussion-on#172020-12-04T20:21:56Z2020-12-04T14:02:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Staffan Johansson wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
But that's not how the APs are written. They are definitely written with XP in mind, and with fairly low tolerances for missing things that might give XP. I know in the Show Must Go On, there was even text at the start of chapters 3 and 4 that said something like "By now the PCs should be 3rd level. If they're not, throw in some random encounters on the way so they can level up." </blockquote><p>I mean, theyre written for Exp because that is the default.
<p>But they also provide you with the appropriate Milestones, as found on page 3 of the Show Must Go On. </p>
<p>Milestone leveling is fully supported as written ;)</p>Staffan Johansson wrote:But that's not how the APs are written. They are definitely written with XP in mind, and with fairly low tolerances for missing things that might give XP. I know in the Show Must Go On, there was even text at the start of chapters 3 and 4 that said something like "By now the PCs should be 3rd level. If they're not, throw in some random encounters on the way so they can level up."
I mean, theyre written for Exp because that is the default. But they also provide you...KrispyXIV2020-12-04T14:02:34ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Of Structuring and Encounters: A discussion on APs and how combat encounters in this edition impacts them.KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs4391e?Of-Structuring-and-Encounters-A-discussion-on#82020-12-09T21:25:34Z2020-12-04T01:49:01Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Staffan Johansson wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>3. Say "This AP assumes you're using milestone leveling, and you'll level up once between each chapter. If you insist on using XP, there will not be enough presented in the adventure itself, and you'll have to add bonus awards and/or fights."
<br />
</blockquote><p>All of the 2E Adventure Paths tell you <i>precisely</i> when your party should be which level, meaning that Milestone leveling is essentially fully supported. by default. I'd absolutely recommend it to any DM over tracking experience points.Staffan Johansson wrote:3. Say "This AP assumes you're using milestone leveling, and you'll level up once between each chapter. If you insist on using XP, there will not be enough presented in the adventure itself, and you'll have to add bonus awards and/or fights."
All of the 2E Adventure Paths tell you precisely when your party should be which level, meaning that Milestone leveling is essentially fully supported. by default. I'd absolutely recommend it to any DM over tracking experience...KrispyXIV2020-12-04T01:49:01ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Of Structuring and Encounters: A discussion on APs and how combat encounters in this edition impacts them.KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs4391e?Of-Structuring-and-Encounters-A-discussion-on#32020-12-10T17:39:44Z2020-12-03T22:23:44Z<p>Now that they've added loot summaries to the start of chapters, the next bug Quality of Life add I'd like to see is "Rest" Summaries for encounter areas / dungeons. </p>
<p>Preferably in the same place they put all the details for walls and ceiling heights and such. </p>
<p>Something like, </p>
<p>"During Exploration in this area, the players should not have issues taking 10 minutes to search rooms or refocus after encounters. However, if they linger in one place for longer consider having one of the more mobile encounters engage in a patrol that might result in the encounter happening in a less flavorful position for the players. </p>
<p>The Players should have an opportunity for a single Long Rest while exploring this area, generally between the first floor and the basement - even if the Villain discovers their attack, they lack the resources and manpower to replace their lost allies and assets on short notice. However, after the first day the villain will begin consolidating their assets and the players should understand that additional long rests might allow them to make a clean escape."</p>
<p>Or "This area is intended to be cleared by the Party quickly - they may have time to refocus <b>once</b> without severe consequences, but they should understand that taking longer than that may allow their opponents to either secure additional allies or escape entirely."</p>Now that they've added loot summaries to the start of chapters, the next bug Quality of Life add I'd like to see is "Rest" Summaries for encounter areas / dungeons.
Preferably in the same place they put all the details for walls and ceiling heights and such.
Something like,
"During Exploration in this area, the players should not have issues taking 10 minutes to search rooms or refocus after encounters. However, if they linger in one place for longer consider having one of the more mobile...KrispyXIV2020-12-03T22:23:44ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo?Shields-and-Shield-Block#292021-04-27T21:24:16Z2020-12-03T14:27:43Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Stack wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Obviously you keep a special shield in one hand and a sturdy shield in the other.</p>
<p>Which is idiotic looking. </blockquote><p>Or, you know, choose one benefit or the other (blocking or utility) but not both?
<p>The design intent appears to be that you must choose between benefits - not for you to be able to get everything you want with no compromises.</p>
<p>That's also the fundamental building block of most RPG design in general, with choosing to excel in one area costing you strength in others. </p>
<p>If you want Shields that don't compromise on durability for utility, by all means make that happen in your home game - but that sort of "characters get everything they want with no compromises" design is pretty antithetical to the design of most games, and feels unwarranted to me in PF2E where shields in general - including non-sturdy shields - are already a pretty optimal choice for many characters (essentially any character with the actions or feats to support them).</p>Stack wrote:Obviously you keep a special shield in one hand and a sturdy shield in the other.
Which is idiotic looking.
Or, you know, choose one benefit or the other (blocking or utility) but not both? The design intent appears to be that you must choose between benefits - not for you to be able to get everything you want with no compromises.
That's also the fundamental building block of most RPG design in general, with choosing to excel in one area costing you strength in others.
If you...KrispyXIV2020-12-03T14:27:43ZRe: Forums: Advice: Blue_Frog's hideously biased guide to (spell blending) WizardsKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438wt&page=2?BlueFrogs-hideously-biased-guide-to-Wizards#542020-12-03T12:15:55Z2020-12-02T22:16:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Blue_frog wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Arachnofiend wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Squiggit wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I sort of disagree with the assessment of the combo. Bond Conservation is a good feat for universalists. The problem is the Universalist itself is abysmal. You're reducing your total number of spells per day, limiting yourself to only preparing two/three spells per level (though the ability to pick what you recast later makes that one a bit of a wash), and giving up your focus spell. That's rough.</p>
<p>That someone at Paizo legitimately thought losing all of those things for Eschew Materials was a good and balanced trade is, frankly, a little bit scary tbh. It is what it is, though. </blockquote>I'm pretty sure the incentive is supposed to be the super drain bonded item and eschew materials is an extra bonus. A Universalist should be focused on evergreen spells that you still want to cast well after they've been outscaled; using Command to make an enemy drop their weapon will always be good. Don't think I feel comfortable arguing this is better or equal to the Spell Blending Specialist, but it's sure not nothing. </blockquote>Enhanced command (level 5) is ok, but in my opinion the regular one is pretty bad. No effect on a save is a dealbreaker, and even on a failed save you trade two actions for two actions, which is a crappy deal - unless it's a boss, who'll probably save. </blockquote><p>Forcing someone to drop prone is either a lot of damage or a serious debuff if you have AOO's in your party composition. It won't fit in all party comps, but I don't think its particularly bad for a 1st level slot in many cases.
<p>A lot of spells - like Command and Fear - are great replacements for a Athletics or Intimidate specialist, if your party doesn't otherwise include those.</p>Blue_frog wrote:Arachnofiend wrote: Squiggit wrote:I sort of disagree with the assessment of the combo. Bond Conservation is a good feat for universalists. The problem is the Universalist itself is abysmal. You're reducing your total number of spells per day, limiting yourself to only preparing two/three spells per level (though the ability to pick what you recast later makes that one a bit of a wash), and giving up your focus spell. That's rough.
That someone at Paizo legitimately thought...KrispyXIV2020-12-02T22:16:33ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo?Shields-and-Shield-Block#132021-04-27T21:24:16Z2020-12-02T13:21:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Maliloki wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>It's weird (this is not meant to be sarcastic or passive aggressive or whatever...tone is hard in text form), but my table hasn't found this change to make shields overpowered. In fact, <b>none</b> of them are planning on making a shield user in the next campaign and the one who is using the shield has sworn them off for a while due to the action tax on their use.</p>
<p>The +2 bonus to AC from Raise Shield is solid, but you can get that, or almost that, a number of other ways (a weapon with the Parry Trait or feats that let you fight defensively with a particular weapon style. There might be something else too).</p>
<p>The shield block is nice, but it doesn't actually block all that much damage and most martial characters have other options to... </blockquote><p>As a GM, my experience is that a Champion with a Sturdy shield is, for all practical purposes, <i>unthreatenable</i> in any reasonable and level appropriate encounter that relies on physical damage. Their AC becomes so high that even hitting them becomes unreliable, and anything that then gets through they mitigate by blocking.
<p>A monk built to take advantage of Shields plays essentially the same way - though they dont have as good a way to funnel attacks into themselves. </p>
<p>There simply aren't enough rounds in most encounters to accumulate enough damage to drop such a character - which is fine, since they built that way and made sacrifices to achieve it. </p>
<p>As it stands, these characters have to balance Shield Block against the utility of something like a SpellGuard shield with its amazing and otherwise unprecedented stacking bonus to saves. They also have to take the shield over a harder hitting weapon (well, not monks) and use some actions to make it work. </p>
<p>This is the first level of compromise that gets removed by buffing all shields - now, one doesn't have to make the compromise of utility or shield stability for this level of survivability. </p>
<p>Anyone else using a Shield isn't quite as "immortal" (the difference in AC for other classes is significant), but it still mostly mitigates expanded crit ranges for anyone who only ends up a Master in AC and hugely increases survivability in squishier characters. If they do invest in Shield Block and a Sturdy shield, absolutely anyone can be pretty sturdy. </p>
<p>The main cost here isn't so much the general feat (which is more costly than a Skill feat, but less than a Class feat) but the actions and moreso the item cost associated with needing a Sturdy Shield to make blocking a reliable ongoing mitigation strategy. </p>
<p>Most of the alternatives to shields like the Parry trait and Shield Cantrip only provide a +1 bonus (which is deceptively inferior to a +2 bonus - weirdly, I'm pretty sure its close to a 10% reduction vs a 25% in many cases) and come with their own restrictions and opportunity costs. Worse, none of them work with Bastion which allows for anyone to get Reactive Shield and get +2 AC for their Reaction which is a huge boon for many classes that don't get access natively to a good Reaction themselves. </p>
<p>I'm on 4 campaigns of experience now, and what I've seen only reinforces that the core design of shields leads to a lot of choices regarding them - which to use, how many resources to dedicate to them, whether a character wants to invest in blocking in addition, if its worth a dedication - and has seen more and more players adding them (or at least a lesser version) as a core part of their kit because of how shockingly good the +2 AC is.</p>Maliloki wrote:It's weird (this is not meant to be sarcastic or passive aggressive or whatever...tone is hard in text form), but my table hasn't found this change to make shields overpowered. In fact, none of them are planning on making a shield user in the next campaign and the one who is using the shield has sworn them off for a while due to the action tax on their use.
The +2 bonus to AC from Raise Shield is solid, but you can get that, or almost that, a number of other ways (a weapon...KrispyXIV2020-12-02T13:21:39ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: A lot of monsters in Paizo APs sit in their room waiting to dieKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xq?A-lot-of-monsters-in-Paizo-APs-sit-in-their#362020-12-25T05:38:48Z2020-12-01T16:24:58Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Castilliano wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Most enemies have languages, most others can express distress, so I don't understand the "We don't know what that kerfluffle is next door" when your allies should be telling you exactly what's happening.
</p>
"Oh no, a paladin!"
<br />
"It burns! It burns!"
<br />
(refer to YouTube videos showing a mother animal crashing through the trees in response to their child's cry, even if the baby's safe.)
<br />
Combat's typically far more than the sounds of horseplay and banging, especially cinematic fantasy combat.•
<br />
Add that Perception quickly ramps up with level to beyond our mundane abilities so these folk can discern even more than we would.</blockquote><p>The best example I can think of living somewhere urban is, "Were those gunshots - or just a car backfiring or fireworks?"
<p>Generally, I think you'd be disappointed by the number of thinking, rational people that decide that sounds indicating danger or violence are non-dangerous sounds instead, because they perceive it to be safer for <i>them</i> and because such a determination lets them avoid being involved.</p>
<p>Animals, as you note, are actually far more likely to react with violence if something they care about is in danger - but far more likely to <i>flee</i> potential danger if they can avoid it and have no stake in it (ie, territory) than sentient creatures. </p>
<p>Remember as well that very few dungeons (excepting like, Hobgoblin dungeons or similar) are full of creatures that have anything resembling military training or conditioning. Most are populated by armed rabble or cultists, independent dangerous creatures that are by nature selfish and cruel and don't care about their 'allies', or mindless dangers that aren't going to react to much of anything. </p>
<p>I'm not saying people can't run their home games how is best for their players - I'm just saying that I dont find dungeons where creatures take hours to venture out to find out "what that ruckus was" particularly hard to believe. In many cases, thats a far more relatable reaction than goblins, cultists, or other bad dudes springing into action unless an alarm has specifically been set off.</p>Castilliano wrote:Most enemies have languages, most others can express distress, so I don't understand the "We don't know what that kerfluffle is next door" when your allies should be telling you exactly what's happening.
"Oh no, a paladin!"
"It burns! It burns!"
(refer to YouTube videos showing a mother animal crashing through the trees in response to their child's cry, even if the baby's safe.)
Combat's typically far more than the sounds of horseplay and banging, especially cinematic...KrispyXIV2020-12-01T16:24:58ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo?Shields-and-Shield-Block#82021-04-27T21:24:16Z2020-12-01T01:57:13Z<p>Definitely would not recommend a change like this personally. </p>
<p>Shields are already extremely strong, before Shield Block is even considered - once its considered, there's a very strong argument for the status quo of limiting Shield Block to Sturdy Shields and a few specific shields intended to work with it. Shield Block on a Sturdy Shield essentially doubles the already strong damage reduction provided (passively) by Raise Shield. </p>
<p>Letting all shields block like a Sturdy Shield is a <i>massive</i> buff for Shield users, and Shields <i>already</i> are a massively strong use of an action - they don't really need buffs.</p>
<p>Its your table, and you can do what you want - but your houserules make shields absolutely <i>insane</i>, and a player would be crazy not to try and build a Shield into <i>any</i> character they make, with Bastion dedication as well if they can make it happen.</p>
<p>If you <i>really</i> hate how Shields work currently, I'd recommend the much more moderate solution of either making the Bastion feat Shield Salvation a General 3 feat to follow Shield Block, or baking it into Shield Block. That lets you block once per encounter without losing your magical items, without making an already strong choice <i>massively</i> stronger.</p>Definitely would not recommend a change like this personally.
Shields are already extremely strong, before Shield Block is even considered - once its considered, there's a very strong argument for the status quo of limiting Shield Block to Sturdy Shields and a few specific shields intended to work with it. Shield Block on a Sturdy Shield essentially doubles the already strong damage reduction provided (passively) by Raise Shield.
Letting all shields block like a Sturdy Shield is a massive...KrispyXIV2020-12-01T01:57:13ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: A lot of monsters in Paizo APs sit in their room waiting to dieKrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xq?A-lot-of-monsters-in-Paizo-APs-sit-in-their#142020-12-26T08:31:54Z2020-11-30T20:38:10Z<p>The ability for living, thinking beings to decide something scary is someone else's problem, so long as they can't physically see it, is <i>no joke</i>.</p>
<p>As irrational as it is for an observer, it is absolutely <i>realistic</i> for something to actively decide that those sounds that sound like combat? Its probably just <i>those guys</i> arguing over something stupid again. </p>
<p>I mean, after all imagine how silly they'd look if they burst in there, ready for violence and it was just a card game gone bad?</p>
<p>Awkward or Negative events being "someone else's problem" is a Very Real problem that results in Very Real dangerous encounters going ignored and unreported all the time. </p>
<p>I dont find it particularly unreasonable for monsters or inhabitants of dungeons not to meaningfully respond to something happening rooms away...</p>The ability for living, thinking beings to decide something scary is someone else's problem, so long as they can't physically see it, is no joke.
As irrational as it is for an observer, it is absolutely realistic for something to actively decide that those sounds that sound like combat? Its probably just those guys arguing over something stupid again.
I mean, after all imagine how silly they'd look if they burst in there, ready for violence and it was just a card game gone bad?
Awkward or...KrispyXIV2020-11-30T20:38:10ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Are non-nimble Animal Companions still bad?KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438tv?Are-nonnimble-Animal-Companions-still-bad#252020-11-30T04:01:38Z2020-11-26T19:07:31Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Zapp wrote:</div><blockquote><p> We're talking about the fifth and equal member of the party, and a trusted friend.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>Companion characters are not designed in any way as being equivalent to a extra member of the party mechanically.
<p>They are designed to <i>simulate</i> an extra party member narratively, but that doesn't include the sort of mechanical balance you appear to be setting the bar at... and it should not. </p>
<p>If you want your companion to be another party member, ask to play a second character. That isn't what an Animal Companion - or any other companion - is designed to be</p>Zapp wrote:We're talking about the fifth and equal member of the party, and a trusted friend.
Companion characters are not designed in any way as being equivalent to a extra member of the party mechanically. They are designed to simulate an extra party member narratively, but that doesn't include the sort of mechanical balance you appear to be setting the bar at... and it should not.
If you want your companion to be another party member, ask to play a second character. That isn't what an...KrispyXIV2020-11-26T19:07:31ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: did they nerfed the wizard on the errata?KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438e8&page=3?did-they-nerfed-the-wizard-on-the-errata#1402021-03-06T04:05:42Z2020-11-17T13:20:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Temperans wrote:</div><blockquote><p> At level 20 when the campaign is over and it required that you spent 5 feats to multiclass into a divine or primal caster.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>I mean, its not like you <i>only</i> get benefits at level 20.
<p>You gain access to divine cantrips <i>and the entire Divine Spell List</i> for the purpose of items like scrolls and staves when you take the first Dedication feat.</p>
<p>And you gain access to lower level divine slots for your entire career, as you add more and more spellcasting dedication feats.</p>
<p>Sure, the 'I get 3 8th level heals' thing is only in effect at 20, but acting like thats the only benefit here is extremely misleading.</p>Temperans wrote:At level 20 when the campaign is over and it required that you spent 5 feats to multiclass into a divine or primal caster.
I mean, its not like you only get benefits at level 20. You gain access to divine cantrips and the entire Divine Spell List for the purpose of items like scrolls and staves when you take the first Dedication feat.
And you gain access to lower level divine slots for your entire career, as you add more and more spellcasting dedication feats.
Sure, the 'I...KrispyXIV2020-11-17T13:20:11ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Spellcasters and their problems ...KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ao&page=24?Spellcasters-and-their-problems#11642020-11-16T22:07:26Z2020-11-16T21:54:19Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Darksol the Painbringer wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Also, the fact that cantrips like Inspire Courage trump full-on buff spells like Heroism is, in actuality, a breach of intended design. Spells are supposed to surpass cantrips and focus abilities, because they are far more limited in use each day. This has been the design for balance since the original playtest, and across the entire board besides this one instance, that balance is in check. Not to mention, an ability that can combine both cantrips and focus powers to overpower any spell combination is broken to the point of either buffing everything else to compensate, or nerfing the outlier. And guess which is much, much easier to do at this point in development.
<br />
</blockquote><p>I think its important to keep in mind that the relationship between Spells, Focus Spells, and Cantrips varies based on the class in question.
<p>Electric Arc and Inspire Courage arent really comparable because both are Cantrips - that was just a common mechanic to use since both are repeatable magical effects. Not an indication that all Cantrips (or Focus Spells for that matter) are of relatively equal power.</p>
<p>I do, personally, wish the gap was less large in this case. The gap between Bless, Heroism, and Inspire Courage/Heroics is too large as it stands - you can't even really be a "bad" bard by using these spells, the only real substitute is to multiclass Bard...</p>Darksol the Painbringer wrote:Also, the fact that cantrips like Inspire Courage trump full-on buff spells like Heroism is, in actuality, a breach of intended design. Spells are supposed to surpass cantrips and focus abilities, because they are far more limited in use each day. This has been the design for balance since the original playtest, and across the entire board besides this one instance, that balance is in check. Not to mention, an ability that can combine both cantrips and focus...KrispyXIV2020-11-16T21:54:19ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Spellcasters and their problems ...KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ao&page=24?Spellcasters-and-their-problems#11602020-11-17T02:47:01Z2020-11-16T19:22:26Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Old_Man_Robot wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>Why are you okay with power disparity is the question. </p>
<p></blockquote><p>I'm okay with a general power disparity because Perfect Balance isn't an attainable goal, and someone is <i>always</i> going to be the worst class.
<p>Always buffing whoever is currently the worst leads to power creep (by definition, since you're always buffing whoever is currently in last place), which most people consider to be undesirable. </p>
<p>Much better, IMO, to ensure that all classes are in the "playable" range and buff anyone who falls short to be somewhere in that range. </p>
<p>If we have one or two outliers that are in the "overpowered" area outside of that range out of all the classes, and that number isn't growing? Its probably not worth worrying about it, except as education so GMs and parties can be aware of how Bards (and maybe Fighters) change the game. </p>
<p>Again, I'm risk averse - and making sure all classes are at least viable is a realistic goal that doesnt guarantee constant power creep.</p>Old_Man_Robot wrote:Why are you okay with power disparity is the question.
I'm okay with a general power disparity because Perfect Balance isn't an attainable goal, and someone is always going to be the worst class. Always buffing whoever is currently the worst leads to power creep (by definition, since you're always buffing whoever is currently in last place), which most people consider to be undesirable.
Much better, IMO, to ensure that all classes are in the "playable" range and buff...KrispyXIV2020-11-16T19:22:26ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: did they nerfed the wizard on the errata?KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438e8&page=3?did-they-nerfed-the-wizard-on-the-errata#1332021-03-06T04:04:11Z2020-11-16T18:58:48Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">demon321x2 wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The big benefit a prepared caster has is he can change his role, but how often does your blaster wizard suddenly need to change roles and be a supporter? </blockquote><p>In any case where we have a day or two (which is surprisingly often) to make preparations before venturing into... well, anywhere... a Wizard should be a diviner for a day. Find a nice place to hide near your goal, and start up with the Clairvoyance and Prying Eye and make yourself a map, identify your foes, and make preparations.
<p>That capability costs a Spontaneous caster valuable spells known - it costs a Wizard two entries in their spellbook, even if they are typically a blaster. </p>
<p>Time to prepare and scout massively favors Wizards, especially since neither Clerics nor Druids get the really good divination spells.</p>
<p>Just one example. They can do the same thing for infiltration, social scenarios, Battlefield and architectural engineering, etc.</p>demon321x2 wrote:The big benefit a prepared caster has is he can change his role, but how often does your blaster wizard suddenly need to change roles and be a supporter?
In any case where we have a day or two (which is surprisingly often) to make preparations before venturing into... well, anywhere... a Wizard should be a diviner for a day. Find a nice place to hide near your goal, and start up with the Clairvoyance and Prying Eye and make yourself a map, identify your foes, and make...KrispyXIV2020-11-16T18:58:48ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Spellcasters and their problems ...KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ao&page=23?Spellcasters-and-their-problems#11452020-11-28T16:53:40Z2020-11-16T17:57:02Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">AnimatedPaper wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">KrispyXIV wrote:</div><blockquote> Add to that that I'm not reluctant to use items or consumables to supplement a characters capabilities, and my conclusion is more or less that the advantages of a Wizard are in play more often than their competitions advantages.</blockquote>This might be another data point in whether or not someone enjoys the wizard class. If you think consumables are funny shaped gold pieces, like I do, rather than power projectors, then your likelihood of enjoying wizards in particular and casters in general is lower. </blockquote><p>The problem here is resolving this. You cant balance any spellcaster assuming that consumables <i>dont</i> exist, because the fact is they <i>do</i> exist.
<p>And they do significantly affect what characters are capable of.</p>AnimatedPaper wrote:KrispyXIV wrote: Add to that that I'm not reluctant to use items or consumables to supplement a characters capabilities, and my conclusion is more or less that the advantages of a Wizard are in play more often than their competitions advantages.
This might be another data point in whether or not someone enjoys the wizard class. If you think consumables are funny shaped gold pieces, like I do, rather than power projectors, then your likelihood of enjoying wizards in...KrispyXIV2020-11-16T17:57:02ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: did they nerfed the wizard on the errata?KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438e8&page=3?did-they-nerfed-the-wizard-on-the-errata#1292021-03-06T04:02:38Z2020-11-16T16:58:06Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">demon321x2 wrote:</div><blockquote> Arcane may have technically more spells but Occult poaches a lot of the interesting ones that aren't straight damage. It doesn't help Occult isn't helpless on the damage front (though more susceptible to being countered by an immune monster). </blockquote><p>I dont think its particularly controversial to suggest that the Occult spell list is probably somewhat overturned and overversatile, <i>probably</i> beyond what was intended by the designers.
<p>I still think Arcane has relative value due to its access to unique spells and elemental value, but I doubt we can find anyone who will say that Occult isn't <i>really good</i>. Probably better than it should be.</p>demon321x2 wrote:Arcane may have technically more spells but Occult poaches a lot of the interesting ones that aren't straight damage. It doesn't help Occult isn't helpless on the damage front (though more susceptible to being countered by an immune monster).
I dont think its particularly controversial to suggest that the Occult spell list is probably somewhat overturned and overversatile, probably beyond what was intended by the designers. I still think Arcane has relative value due to its...KrispyXIV2020-11-16T16:58:06ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Spellcasters and their problems ...KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ao&page=23?Spellcasters-and-their-problems#11412020-11-16T17:39:47Z2020-11-16T16:45:31Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">RPGnoremac wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">KrispyXIV wrote:</div><blockquote>And I still think Wizard is objectively superior as an Arcane caster to Witches and Sorcerers in most scenarios you actually find in published (ie, baseline expectations) adventures. Significantly more spell slots than a Witch, with the potential for either superior flexibility to a Sorcerer, or an extra spell slot at the spell levels that matter most. </blockquote><p>I am very confused about your comment. I don't think Wizard's are particularly bad but I wouldn't ever say they are objectively superior. For the most part that is true for pretty much every class since they all have pros and cons.
</p>
</blockquote><p>I generally rate Prepared Spellcasting as somewhat better than Spontaneous, as in most cases a bad day for a Prepared Spellcaster is not significantly worse than a bad day for a Spontaneous caster (both had to make prior choices for their spells, and a Spontaneous caster can mess just like a prepared caster - and both can take steps to mitigate this). On the other hand, with a bit of forewarning or simply time to look ahead, a Prepare caster can <i>ensure</i> he'll have a good day coming up.
<p>Yeah, you can totally mess up prepared casting and have a terrible day - but this is mostly an issue for new players, whom I'd heartily reccomend Sorcerer to, or reccomend Spell Substitution to for a Wizard as it functionally removes this issue. </p>
<p>Wizards also get their Bonded Object, which lets them double dip on any spell choice they need to, <i>when</i> they need to. </p>
<p>Beyond that, extra spell slots are generally better than focus spells <i>until you run out of spell slots.</i> Wizards can generally cast 2 top level or top -1 spells an encounter in most days, while others will likely be at 1 and a focus spell - more importantly though, in many of these cases a Wizard can be throwing two spells and a focus spell, which Sorcerers generally can't (because their better focus spells tend to cost 2 actions).</p>
<p>Witches get good action efficiency with their Hex cantrips, but they also pay more dearly by losing out on a spell <i>per level</i> vs a Wizard. </p>
<p>As you've observed, Wizards tend to lose out over longer adventuring days when the enhanced endurance of Focus spells becomes a factor - though a Wizard can also pace themselves, and be casting <i>at least one</i> high level spell slot an encounter longer than anyone else. </p>
<p>Add to that that I'm not reluctant to use items or consumables to supplement a characters capabilities, and my conclusion is more or less that the advantages of a Wizard are in play more often than their competitions advantages. </p>
<p>I'm not saying Sorcerers or Witches are bad or unplayable - but if I'm playing one with an Arcane list, it'll be because there's some thematic element im really into. Not because I think they're a superior arcane caster.</p>RPGnoremac wrote:KrispyXIV wrote:And I still think Wizard is objectively superior as an Arcane caster to Witches and Sorcerers in most scenarios you actually find in published (ie, baseline expectations) adventures. Significantly more spell slots than a Witch, with the potential for either superior flexibility to a Sorcerer, or an extra spell slot at the spell levels that matter most.
I am very confused about your comment. I don't think Wizard's are particularly bad but I wouldn't ever say...KrispyXIV2020-11-16T16:45:31ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Spellcasters and their problems ...KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ao&page=23?Spellcasters-and-their-problems#11402020-11-28T16:52:33Z2020-11-16T16:33:26Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Old_Man_Robot wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
That said, your own argument cuts both ways - if it's not a competition and intra-class balance doesn't matter, then why not them the best! It doesn't matter apparently, lets go nuts! </blockquote><p>Intra-class balance doesn't matter, but overall game balance does.
<p>The Bard is an example of what happens when a class is too powerful - having a Bard in an party distorts party balance significantly, making otherwise challenging encounters trivial or easy, independent of other factors. </p>
<p>Personal experience running AoA for two parties tells me that a 4 person party with a Bard and an Alchemist (as a detractor) exceeds the capabilities, significantly, of a five character party that lacks a Bard <i>in the exact same content</i>.</p>
<p>So when I'm saying Wizards are fine, my intent isn't to "keep Wizards down" or imply they're perfect so much as it to say they're <i>well within</i> the general power range for the game to be healthy. They're strong enough to not be a party detractor (like Alchemists can be if you dont play them <i>just so</i>), and a long way from being disruptive powerful. </p>
<p>Just in comparison to other casters, I'd say Wizards are less potent than Bards, Clerics, and Druids but significantly ahead of the other pure caster options. </p>
<p>What I dont want is more classes on the same power tier as Bard, which is where some people have explicitly or implicitly suggested they want Wizards to be - generally by comparing Wizard class features or focus spells unfavorably to Bard, such as Protective Ward, where the Wizard ability is probably what the <i>balanced</i> version of that ability looks like. </p>
<p>I'm not saying you're suggesting that level of a power increase, but I do feel like you're asking for more power "just because" the Wizard isn't "powerful enough", and that "powerful enough" standard certainly isn't based on the expectations of encounter design set out in the rules. Wizards are <i>fine</i> by that standard.</p>Old_Man_Robot wrote:That said, your own argument cuts both ways - if it's not a competition and intra-class balance doesn't matter, then why not them the best! It doesn't matter apparently, lets go nuts!
Intra-class balance doesn't matter, but overall game balance does. The Bard is an example of what happens when a class is too powerful - having a Bard in an party distorts party balance significantly, making otherwise challenging encounters trivial or easy, independent of other factors.
...KrispyXIV2020-11-16T16:33:26ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Spellcasters and their problems ...KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ao&page=23?Spellcasters-and-their-problems#11272020-11-18T08:16:18Z2020-11-16T14:46:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Old_Man_Robot wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Its tiring that these conversations always seem to devolve to the point of "The class isn't mechanically non-functional, ergo its fine." as if just working is the be-all-end-all. </p>
<p></blockquote><p>Except that this isn't a competition, Wizard doesn't have to be "The Best", and being a viable choice <i>is</i> in fact the standard to aspire to.
<p>Could the Wizard use some more cool stuff, and would it benefit from some balance oriented errata? Sure. Absolutely.</p>
<p>But Wizard isn't desperately in need of it, and given that errata just hit and it didn't have any power-increasing errata for Wizards at all, I'm presuming that Paizo mostly agrees. </p>
<p>Hopefully Secrets of Magic has cool stuff for all casters, Wizard included. </p>
<p>And I still think Wizard is objectively superior as an Arcane caster to Witches and Sorcerers in most scenarios you actually find in published (ie, baseline expectations) adventures. Significantly more spell slots than a Witch, with the potential for either superior flexibility to a Sorcerer, or an extra spell slot at the spell levels that matter most.</p>Old_Man_Robot wrote:Its tiring that these conversations always seem to devolve to the point of "The class isn't mechanically non-functional, ergo its fine." as if just working is the be-all-end-all.
Except that this isn't a competition, Wizard doesn't have to be "The Best", and being a viable choice is in fact the standard to aspire to. Could the Wizard use some more cool stuff, and would it benefit from some balance oriented errata? Sure. Absolutely.
But Wizard isn't desperately in need of...KrispyXIV2020-11-16T14:46:42ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Spellcasters and their problems ...KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ao&page=22?Spellcasters-and-their-problems#11002020-11-15T18:58:56Z2020-11-15T15:05:59Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Temperans wrote:</div><blockquote> Umm because of the errata the witch and sorcerer are getting 10th level focus spells. While the Wizard is cant get more 10th level spells. </blockquote><p>And which 10th level focus spells, exactly, are they lording over the Wizard that make them so much better?
<p>The Wizard still maintains an advantage in spell slots, and the gap between 9th and 10th is not so steep as to erase that advantage. </p>
<p>Also, this matters for 2 levels out of 20 - it <i>hurts</i> that Wizards don't get extra 10ths, and didn't feel necessary, but it doesn't break the game or the class.</p>Temperans wrote:Umm because of the errata the witch and sorcerer are getting 10th level focus spells. While the Wizard is cant get more 10th level spells.
And which 10th level focus spells, exactly, are they lording over the Wizard that make them so much better? The Wizard still maintains an advantage in spell slots, and the gap between 9th and 10th is not so steep as to erase that advantage.
Also, this matters for 2 levels out of 20 - it hurts that Wizards don't get extra 10ths, and didn't...KrispyXIV2020-11-15T15:05:59ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Spellcasters and their problems ...KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ao&page=22?Spellcasters-and-their-problems#10972020-11-18T07:45:21Z2020-11-15T13:44:07Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Zapp wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The sad conclusion is that playing with the Core Rulebook, there effectively exists no reason to play a Wizard at all, unless you're so excited to play one you're blinded to actual performance analysis.
<br />
</blockquote><p>I'm 100% dead serious when I say this - I haven't seen a single case where I'd actually prefer a Arcane Sorcerer or Witch over a Wizard. They just don't offer anything that looks like it will actually surpass the extra spell slots and power of a thesis.
<p>Once a Wizard is 3rd level and has a 2nd level of spells, they have enough of a spell advantage (it doesnt take a massive margin) that in a <i>typical adventuring day</i> the advantages from other classes having stronger Focus spells aren't likely to actually come up (its not like these classes have extra actions to magically cast these where a Wizard would not cast a spell) - and contrary to popular portrayal, Wizard class features and feats can be extremely strong, if boring. I'm looking at Spell Penetration. </p>
<p>Beyond that, no other class can reconfigure itself like a Wizard can overnight at need. Yes, a Cleric or Druid can change their spell list - but neither can take quite as hard a turn on role as a Wizard. A Wizard can be a Blaster or Buffer, but also a debuffer, illusionist, or Diviner if the upcoming day calls for it. Or on demand, with the right thesis. </p>
<p>And that's putting beside the fact that "Intelligence" being a BAD main stat is a bizarre and unusual main stat in my book, as I'm constantly craving more Trained skills and love being the "smart" guy. </p>
<p>If the class itself is boring, bring your own excitement when you build your character. A "boring" chassis is more room for the Player to bring "character" to the character. </p>
<p>So yeah, seriously, eye of the beholder.</p>Zapp wrote:The sad conclusion is that playing with the Core Rulebook, there effectively exists no reason to play a Wizard at all, unless you're so excited to play one you're blinded to actual performance analysis.
I'm 100% dead serious when I say this - I haven't seen a single case where I'd actually prefer a Arcane Sorcerer or Witch over a Wizard. They just don't offer anything that looks like it will actually surpass the extra spell slots and power of a thesis. Once a Wizard is 3rd level...KrispyXIV2020-11-15T13:44:07ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Spellcasters and their problems ...KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ao&page=22?Spellcasters-and-their-problems#10962020-11-27T06:22:10Z2020-11-15T13:31:53Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Hbitte wrote:</div><blockquote>color spray is very far from autowin even in critical fail and have incapacitation tag </blockquote><p>I said debuffs rarely had Incapacitation, not never had it. How many other exceptions have you got?
<p>Color Spray is also sort of grandfathered in, since it had an HD limit in PF1 and Incapacitation is the PF2 equivalent of that. </blockquote><p>I dont know, I wouldn't want to see Color Spray without Incapacitation. Dazzled isn't a bad result on a successful save, and the stack of debuffs (including Dazzled for a minute!) on a failed save are pretty darned crippling.
<p>If it didn't have Incapacitation, it'd be an insane debuff from a first level slot for a characters entire career, significantly better than other first level debuffs and many higher level ones IMO. </p>
<p>And its AOE!</p>
<p>I'm just saying, I think its fully intentional its Incapacitation, and not just grandfathered in.</p>Deadmanwalking wrote:Hbitte wrote:color spray is very far from autowin even in critical fail and have incapacitation tag
I said debuffs rarely had Incapacitation, not never had it. How many other exceptions have you got? Color Spray is also sort of grandfathered in, since it had an HD limit in PF1 and Incapacitation is the PF2 equivalent of that. I dont know, I wouldn't want to see Color Spray without Incapacitation. Dazzled isn't a bad result on a successful save, and the stack of debuffs...KrispyXIV2020-11-15T13:31:53ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Spellcasters and their problems ...KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ao&page=22?Spellcasters-and-their-problems#10772020-11-27T02:46:35Z2020-11-14T14:45:01Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ubertron_X wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
What do players what? Their actions to succeed on a regular basis. Lets say 60% hit and 40% miss is a good start. </blockquote><p>I think there's definitely a correlation in 'caster satisfaction' between those who are willing to see half damage/partial effect on a successful save as part of the 'I succeeded' spectrum, and those who won't.
<p>Casters are designed with a whole lot of extra 'successful spell' results on the enemies save-die in mind, and failing to recognize that will result in spells 'succeeding' way less often than the designers had in mind.</p>Ubertron_X wrote:What do players what? Their actions to succeed on a regular basis. Lets say 60% hit and 40% miss is a good start.
I think there's definitely a correlation in 'caster satisfaction' between those who are willing to see half damage/partial effect on a successful save as part of the 'I succeeded' spectrum, and those who won't. Casters are designed with a whole lot of extra 'successful spell' results on the enemies save-die in mind, and failing to recognize that will result in...KrispyXIV2020-11-14T14:45:01ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: did they nerfed the wizard on the errata?KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438e8&page=2?did-they-nerfed-the-wizard-on-the-errata#972020-11-15T02:56:02Z2020-11-14T14:39:08Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">NECR0G1ANT wrote:</div><blockquote> While I agree the arcane tradition is good, your points about niche spells and heightening are true of all prepared casters. In fact clerics and druids have an advantage over wizards and witches, since the former automatically know most of the spells of their tradition. </blockquote><p>If you look to the strong points of others for your comparisons, you're <i>always</i> going to come up short.
<p>Yes, Wizards don't get access to the entire Arcane spell list while Druids and Clerics get their entire lists... except, as noted by Unicore's numbers, Arcane is the size of both the Primary and Divine lists together when it comes to level 1 spells. </p>
<p>That's the advantage (theoretically greater spell diversity), and the associated disadvantage is having to collect those spells. </p>
<p>The strengths of others don't diminish your own strengths.</p>NECR0G1ANT wrote:While I agree the arcane tradition is good, your points about niche spells and heightening are true of all prepared casters. In fact clerics and druids have an advantage over wizards and witches, since the former automatically know most of the spells of their tradition.
If you look to the strong points of others for your comparisons, you're always going to come up short. Yes, Wizards don't get access to the entire Arcane spell list while Druids and Clerics get their entire...KrispyXIV2020-11-14T14:39:08ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Spellcasters and their problems ...KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ao&page=22?Spellcasters-and-their-problems#10712020-11-14T19:18:17Z2020-11-14T13:09:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Temperans wrote:</div><blockquote> Except that dial has a hair trigger sensitivity. 1 level too low and it jumps from an okay fight to "why even bother rolling". That sensitivity to a single +1 is not great when the goal is to allow multiple types of playstyles. </blockquote><p>There's nothing stopping any party from experimenting and finding out what works from them. Since the GM is in control, you can just change what doesn't work for you.
<p>The issue with the discussion is that you can't say, "I don't want things to be easier, I just want to succeed more often." in a game where success (accuracy) is the gatekeeper for difficulty. Which you are totally allowed to dislike, I suppose, but I've never seen a game where the opposite isn't "every encounter is a grindfest because each action matters less" or "rocket tag".</p>
<p>Both of those options exist - 5E for the first, and PF1E for the other.</p>
<p>2E is designed to neither be a grindfest, or rocket tag.</p>Temperans wrote:Except that dial has a hair trigger sensitivity. 1 level too low and it jumps from an okay fight to "why even bother rolling". That sensitivity to a single +1 is not great when the goal is to allow multiple types of playstyles.
There's nothing stopping any party from experimenting and finding out what works from them. Since the GM is in control, you can just change what doesn't work for you. The issue with the discussion is that you can't say, "I don't want things to be...KrispyXIV2020-11-14T13:09:29ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Spellcasters and their problems ...KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ao&page=22?Spellcasters-and-their-problems#10692020-11-14T21:25:34Z2020-11-14T12:51:59Z<p>I dunno, I think its pretty Heroic when the party faces off against an ancient immortal Wizard who has Ancient Dragons as minions, and they feel like minions due to the relative power of the party (being easily struck down by the Fighter in few blows) - all accomplished without changing any rules due to the amazing level based scaling in 2E.</p>
<p>Thats not a hypothetical scenario, btw, its one I've witnessed. A Level 19 Ancient Dragon is a terror to a level 15 party, and a minor threat to a level 20 <i>character</i>. By design. And it <i>works</i>.</p>
<p>If you want a "more heroic" game in PF2E, that dial already exists in game - and its using lower level creatures against the party.</p>I dunno, I think its pretty Heroic when the party faces off against an ancient immortal Wizard who has Ancient Dragons as minions, and they feel like minions due to the relative power of the party (being easily struck down by the Fighter in few blows) - all accomplished without changing any rules due to the amazing level based scaling in 2E.
Thats not a hypothetical scenario, btw, its one I've witnessed. A Level 19 Ancient Dragon is a terror to a level 15 party, and a minor threat to a level...KrispyXIV2020-11-14T12:51:59ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: did they nerfed the wizard on the errata?KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438e8&page=2?did-they-nerfed-the-wizard-on-the-errata#872020-11-14T13:37:56Z2020-11-13T23:25:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Draco18s wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">KrispyXIV wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Salamileg wrote:</div><blockquote> Or really any feats at all that interact with your thesis. </blockquote>I'd like a Focus spell that lets you substitute a spell on the fly for Spell Substitution. </blockquote><p>That would be too powerful. There's already a thesis that lets you spend 10 minutes to swap spells.
<p>Spending 10 minutes now to spend an action (up to three times!) at some point in the future is <i>incredibly</i> powerful. It doesn't only obliviate the thesis, but it starts making the wizard look like a sorcerer. </blockquote><p>The idea in question was a response to abilities that interact with Thesis, and the specific ability in question would likely <i>require</i> that Thesis. An upgrade or development, if you will.Draco18s wrote:KrispyXIV wrote: Salamileg wrote: Or really any feats at all that interact with your thesis.
I'd like a Focus spell that lets you substitute a spell on the fly for Spell Substitution. That would be too powerful. There's already a thesis that lets you spend 10 minutes to swap spells. Spending 10 minutes now to spend an action (up to three times!) at some point in the future is incredibly powerful. It doesn't only obliviate the thesis, but it starts making the wizard look like a...KrispyXIV2020-11-13T23:25:51ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: did they nerfed the wizard on the errata?KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438e8&page=2?did-they-nerfed-the-wizard-on-the-errata#822020-11-14T13:36:19Z2020-11-13T19:51:26Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Salamileg wrote:</div><blockquote> Or really any feats at all that interact with your thesis. </blockquote><p>I'd like a Focus spell that lets you substitute a spell on the fly for Spell Substitution.
<p>Or maybe a feat that lets you "un-blend" a higher level slot for multiple lower level ones in a pinch. </p>
<p>Maybe a focus spell that lets you Transform Familiar and reassign its abilities in the field. </p>
<p>That sort of stuff?</p>Salamileg wrote:Or really any feats at all that interact with your thesis.
I'd like a Focus spell that lets you substitute a spell on the fly for Spell Substitution. Or maybe a feat that lets you "un-blend" a higher level slot for multiple lower level ones in a pinch.
Maybe a focus spell that lets you Transform Familiar and reassign its abilities in the field.
That sort of stuff?KrispyXIV2020-11-13T19:51:26ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: did they nerfed the wizard on the errata?KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438e8&page=2?did-they-nerfed-the-wizard-on-the-errata#792020-11-14T13:35:37Z2020-11-13T18:09:54Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Old_Man_Robot wrote:</div><blockquote><p> It’s a commitment, one which sorcerers just don’t have to make. </p>
<p>Why should a Wizard have to make a choice which can strip them of, what is apparently, their most important value? It’s not even a question for sorcerers. </p>
<p>Wizards still have to use 2 class features to get a single spell slot over the sorcerer base. </p>
<p>Their role as “spell slot man” is undermined by the sorcerers having 4 base slots per level on top of their generally better focus spells. </p>
<p>It’s not like that extra spell is even special or more powerful.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Specialist Schools for a Wizard are no more of a class feature than a Sorcerer getting an extra spell per level. Its just a different way of providing the Wizard an extra spell per level than the Sorcerer - the Wizard doesn't have to "use" anything to get it, theres no opportunity cost.
<p>Likewise, bonded item is <b>not optional</b> and does not require the Wizard to "use" anything to gain the benefit - its literally just an extra free flexible spell slot for Wizards. </p>
<p>It is extremely misleading to imply that Wizards have to "use" class features to get these spells - 4 spells per level is a Wizard feature just like it is a Sorcerer feature, it just has extra thematic limitations to it. </p>
<p>And then, for free, they get an extra spell on top. </p>
<p>Arcane Thesis is what should be compared against a Sorcerer Bloodline, and many Thesis compare extremely strongly to the limited benefits provides by bloodlines (Spell Blending, Spell Substitution, and Familiar Master are all extremely strong).</p>Old_Man_Robot wrote:It’s a commitment, one which sorcerers just don’t have to make.
Why should a Wizard have to make a choice which can strip them of, what is apparently, their most important value? It’s not even a question for sorcerers.
Wizards still have to use 2 class features to get a single spell slot over the sorcerer base.
Their role as “spell slot man” is undermined by the sorcerers having 4 base slots per level on top of their generally better focus spells.
It’s not like that...KrispyXIV2020-11-13T18:09:54ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Best non-cleric class for in-combat healing?KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438ei?Best-noncleric-class-for-incombat-healing#342020-11-13T17:57:44Z2020-11-13T17:51:52Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">VampByDay wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Guys? Can we focus. Battle medicine hand requirements aside, (and like I said you could go the punchy route) I was thinking of good healers that aren’t clerics. I’m liking witch, as they have some hexes that grant fast healing and such. Actually built out a dude so see how it would work. It’s
</p>
Interesting. </blockquote><p>It is vaguely relevant.
<p>My Summoner example functions quite well with both hands free, since she has an Eidolon for doing violence to people. </p>
<p>Anyone else relying on Medic at this point needs to consider how their GM will enforce Battle Medicine, at least. </p>
<p>I think it will end up being "one free hand" eventually, which will allow your Investigators and casters to make good use of it, but I gotta agree that the Errata made such options more GM dependent. </p>
<p>That said, I think anyone that gets Focus Mechanics (or even if they dont) but whom doesn't get access to good Focus Spells (Wizards, some Rangers, even Fighters) make great use of Blessed One as an alternative to Medic. Lay on Hands isn't insignificant healing.</p>VampByDay wrote:Guys? Can we focus. Battle medicine hand requirements aside, (and like I said you could go the punchy route) I was thinking of good healers that aren’t clerics. I’m liking witch, as they have some hexes that grant fast healing and such. Actually built out a dude so see how it would work. It’s
Interesting.
It is vaguely relevant. My Summoner example functions quite well with both hands free, since she has an Eidolon for doing violence to people.
Anyone else relying on Medic...KrispyXIV2020-11-13T17:51:52Z