This conversation has me wondering whether partial casters are likely to exist in PF2. No high level slots and no CL scaling is going to limit you to utility or (relatively weak) debuffs unless you put in a bunch of class feat options (or taxes) to make up the lag....what if 2/3 casters still got slots for higher-level spells but not access to those spell levels? Then they could Heighten their lower-level stuff to scale properly, but the full-casters would have access to those shiny 7+ level spells...
Posted in another thread, but applies to this:
I had an idea.
The flexibility of the Bard has been what amounts to its identity. So with Bard class feats it is how you want to build your bard.
It may be that it doesn't intrinsically go up to full caster ( or specialize ? )
If you take a broad assortment of class feats you will still be the jack-of-all trades master of none. There in your flexibility is your strength and how well you pull of synergies.
Or your can specialize your Class Feats and go deeper down one the routes of bard, perhaps getting to full caster if you specialize on the mystical and spell.
Could be done, I suppose. Bards could innately get access to spell slots up to 10th, and the spell list up to 5th or 6th, but have to spend their class feats to get higher level spells. We have a precedent of individual 10th level spells being locked behind feats, and every full caster could in theory be getting the class feat of "7th level cleric spells" as part of their class chassis. Bards would simply have to select them, like the Vigilante playtest version of the Warlock or Zealot, and it would be competing against other potential class features.
This conversation has me wondering whether partial casters are likely to exist in PF2. No high level slots and no CL scaling is going to limit you to utility or (relatively weak) debuffs unless you put in a bunch of class feat options (or taxes) to make up the lag....what if 2/3 casters still got slots for higher-level spells but not access to those spell levels? Then they could Heighten their lower-level stuff to scale properly, but the full-casters would have access to those shiny 7+ level spells...
Seems like it would be hard to balance. You would then need to scrutinize every heightened spell in comparison to what an actually high level spell could do. I mean, I guess they do already, but it strikes me as less of a big deal when you are comparing options within the same class than when you start bringing other classes into it.
For example, if fireball scales too well compared to higher level counterparts, there's no compelling reason not to play a Bard for the higher hit points and armor proficiency.
This conversation has me wondering whether partial casters are likely to exist in PF2. No high level slots and no CL scaling is going to limit you to utility or (relatively weak) debuffs unless you put in a bunch of class feat options (or taxes) to make up the lag....what if 2/3 casters still got slots for higher-level spells but not access to those spell levels? Then they could Heighten their lower-level stuff to scale properly, but the full-casters would have access to those shiny 7+ level spells...Seems like it would be hard to balance. You would then need to scrutinize every heightened spell in comparison to what an actually high level spell could do. I mean, I guess they do already, but it strikes me as less of a big deal when you are comparing options within the same class than when you start bringing other classes into it.
For example, if fireball scales too well compared to higher level counterparts, there's no compelling reason not to play a Bard for the higher hit points and armor proficiency.
They've already made it clear that a lower level spell heightened into a higher level slot, is not quite as good as an actual higher level spell native to that slot. So LuniusM's idea actually balances just fine for a spellcaster intended to be weaker than a "full" caster because they're making up the difference in other abilities. I think that would be a great way to handle it.
They've already made it clear that a lower level spell heightened into a higher level slot, is not quite as good as an actual higher level spell native to that slot. So LuniusM's idea actually balances just fine for a spellcaster intended to be weaker than a "full" caster because they're making up the difference in other abilities. I think that would be a great way to handle it.This conversation has me wondering whether partial casters are likely to exist in PF2. No high level slots and no CL scaling is going to limit you to utility or (relatively weak) debuffs unless you put in a bunch of class feat options (or taxes) to make up the lag....what if 2/3 casters still got slots for higher-level spells but not access to those spell levels? Then they could Heighten their lower-level stuff to scale properly, but the full-casters would have access to those shiny 7+ level spells...Seems like it would be hard to balance. You would then need to scrutinize every heightened spell in comparison to what an actually high level spell could do. I mean, I guess they do already, but it strikes me as less of a big deal when you are comparing options within the same class than when you start bringing other classes into it.
For example, if fireball scales too well compared to higher level counterparts, there's no compelling reason not to play a Bard for the higher hit points and armor proficiency.
I strongly suspect that heal and summon monster are both going to heighten well forever.
That said, perhaps the reduction in flexibility is plenty enough mechanical room to give a “2/3 caster” bard a lot of other options.
Then again, maybe it is just enough to decrease the numbers of their spell progression? Like: bards could only have one or two spells of their hieghest level and two spells of their lower levels. However, That would maybe f~*! with the “tidiness” of all casters following he same spell progression.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, if you mean you want Sorcerers to have a scaling elemental damage cantrip, as well as some potent utility powers, then sure.Sort of. I want Sorcerers to have powerful at-will powers that can be boosted and molded with spell points (instead of Burn). These would be blasty for most bloodlines, but could be scrappy for Dragon (and perhaps Earth?) Sorcerers and debuffy/controlly for Fey Sorcerers. Then add a small number of arcane spells for utility.
Sorcerers have relatively few tricks but can use them in reckless abundance. As such, they share the design space of Kineticists. I think they should be combined into a perfect class for the concept rather than trying desperately to remain distinct and accept compromises to that end. I feel like making Sorcerers a primary arcane spellcaster with at least as many spells per day as the Wizard already makes it sort of redundant with the Wizard. This sort of thing should be covered by Wizard class feats.
I dunno, for me the Kineticist's "health-pool-as-resource" mechanics are really important and interesting and I wouldn't want to lose that to smush the class together with the Sorcerer. I think there's plenty of room for both.
I dunno, for me the Kineticist's "health-pool-as-resource" mechanics are really important and interesting and I wouldn't want to lose that to smush the class together with the Sorcerer. I think there's plenty of room for both.
Considering how much you like barbarians, I really shouldn't have been surprised by that statement, yet here we are.
I strongly dislike the health pool as a spell pool and hope that gets put on a bus. Especially since nonlethal damage works differently, and running yourself into even half health might kill you on accident.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Burn is pretty widely reviled. It's also widely accepted. I don't think it's even narrowly loved.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Burn is pretty widely reviled. It's also widely accepted. I don't think it's even narrowly loved.
I think Con-based spell points (and Save DCs) as a replacement for Burn is probably a good compromise that most people would be willing to live with.
It makes them very high HP, but in PF2, assuming 8+Con per level, no more so than Barbarians.
Burn is pretty widely reviled. It's also widely accepted. I don't think it's even narrowly loved.
There's obviously at least one person who likes burn. And as someone who participated in the kineticist playtest a great deal I can assure you I wasn't the only one who defended the mechanic.
Burn is pretty widely reviled. It's also widely accepted. I don't think it's even narrowly loved.I think Con-based spell points (and Save DCs) as a replacement for Burn is probably a good compromise that most people would be willing to live with.
It makes them very high HP, but in PF2, assuming 8+Con per level, no more so than Barbarians.
What? No. That doesn't emulate what burn does at all.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What? No. That doesn't emulate what burn does at all.
Of course not, I was never saying it did.
But a lot of people (I'd argue a strong majority) don't actually really like what Burn does. They like being an at-will Con based 'caster'. Burn is the price you pay for that in a lot of people's minds rather than an inherent good. Certainly that's the most common attitude I've seen even among fans of the Kineticist.
Frankly, even among those who support Burn, a lot simply argue that it works mechanically (which is objectively true), not that they really want that specific mechanic.
Burn as-is also presents a profound difficulty in PF2 in regards to characters straight up dying since nonlethal damage is no longer a thing.
Okay, so it's not a compromise, it's what you think is a "strong majority" of people want. Well I can say with some certainty that after how disastrous the Scarred Witch Doctor was Paizo isn't going to make another class that just gets con-based casting with no strings attached.
Count me as a fan of the existing burn mechanic as well. They'd have to find a new solution for PF2, of course, but I'm sure Mr. Seifter can come up with something fun and unique. ^_^
While I DON'T want burn to return, I could see Kineticists getting a unique condition that emulates the penalty of burn (knocking your butt out) without being at risk of dying. I'd say go ahead and call it "burned" but that might get confused with the actual burning condition. Let's go with "Overclocked" for now. You accept a level of Overclock in return for regaining some of your spell point pool. At a level of Overclock equal to your con modifier (so at Overclock 4 with an 18 con), you fall unconscious but stable.
|
|
Okay, so it's not a compromise, it's what you think is a "strong majority" of people want.
Well, it's a compromise as compared to them not being Con-based, which is where I was going there, but fair enough.
Well I can say with some certainty that after how disastrous the Scarred Witch Doctor was Paizo isn't going to make another class that just gets con-based casting with no strings attached.
I wouldn't assume that at all. In PF1, you could pretty readily get a Con north of 30 if you monofocused (which was much easier to do in PF1) and the difference between a Witch and Barbarian per level was only 3 points per level.
In PF2, in contrast, the difference between a 6 HP class and a 12 HP one is, well, 6 points per level, and it's 4 points even between 6 and 10. And pretty much every martial character is gonna wind up with at least con 18 due to how level up points work, while a stat higher than 24 is pretty impossible.
That means that a Kineticist, with 8 HP a level, maxes out at 310 HP at 20th level (if they're a Dwarf). A Fighter with Con 18 manages 290, and one with Con 20 maxes at 310 (and a Con 20 Fighter is very doable). Barbarians still max out higher than that, too (a Con 20 Barbarian has 350).
So a Con based 'caster' is only a problem if they do more damage than a Fighter or Barbarian (or have the same damage and much better utility). I don't think Kineticist is likely to be a problem in either of those ways.
|
Its very subpar damage for a mid range blast spell against weak CR monsters. Cone of Cold has been nerfed from its PF1 version and this is a very bad thingActually, at 10th level, the DPR of a Cone pf Cold vs. Redcaps assuming a Save DC of 23 in PF1 (5 Level + 8 Int) is only 28 points of damage. And none of them will die (while 1 in 5 die to the PF2 version).
So the DPR has actually gone up significantly.
It's lower than a Cone of Cold with all the additional stuff you can add via Feats and the like, but those could exist in PF2 as well, we just don't know.
What monsters are you fighting that have an AC higher than 31 at 10th level? You have to create NPC fighters with high amounts of magic items to get to that high of an AC by PF1 rules. I don't even think dragons approach that AC at CR10.Fact: An AC of 31 is about the default AC expected of a 10th level Fighter PC (or the equivalent) with only a single magic item (a +3 Chain Shirt). This can be easily determined by basic math and the info we have.
Fact: Monsters have been specified as on par with such PC characters in terms of AC, HP, and the like.
Conclusion: An AC of 31 is a reasonable AC for a Level 10 enemy.
Which leads to the additional conclusion that a level 12 or 13 monster (like a main boss for level 10 characters) might well have an AC at least 2 to 4 higher.
Please show me how a PF1 fighter with a chain shirt +3 and no other magic items has an AC of 30
|
|
Mark has specifically said weaknesses will be more common in PF2.Well I hope that monsters have been reworked to include weaknesses to spell damage more often. I do not recall a lot of monsters have spell damage weakness in PF1. (Red dragons & fire elementals not vulnerable to cold for example) Even in the PF1 preview, zombies have a slashing vulnerability with no magic vulnerability while skeletons get both resistance to non-bludgeoning and fire attacksI wonder why he didn't mention that when he was involved in this thread. Elemental resistances being less prevalent and weaknesses being more common is a rather big deal.Mark is very careful not to give out major system revelations in random forum posts. Especially ones that will be covered with a blog later in the planned reveal progression. He often collates information that's already been revealed, hints at things, or occasionally even reveals minor stuff...but major reveals in a non-Blog Thread? Probably not gonna happen.Very much this. Not going to drop spoilers before the blog, but happy to mention things in their due time.
Also, PF2 weaknesses are particularly good for AoE or DoT effects, as they apply a static amount of extra damage (the 1.5x calculation on the last page is using PF1 vulnerability). So if you are fighting a bunch of monsters with weakness 25 to fire, even a tiny AoE that does minor fire damage to all of them is going to be very effective.
That is a blanket statement that means very little since very few monsters had elemental weaknesses in PF1.
Case in point, skeletons have both weapon resistance slashing 5 and fire 1. Zombies have slashing weakness 5 but not elemental weakness. I think that is a bit odd. Even 1 point of elemental weakness would be an improvement, but casters get nothing.
Please show me how a PF1 fighter with a chain shirt +3 and no other magic items has an AC of 30What monsters are you fighting that have an AC higher than 31 at 10th level? You have to create NPC fighters with high amounts of magic items to get to that high of an AC by PF1 rules. I don't even think dragons approach that AC at CR10.Fact: An AC of 31 is about the default AC expected of a 10th level Fighter PC (or the equivalent) with only a single magic item (a +3 Chain Shirt). This can be easily determined by basic math and the info we have.
Fact: Monsters have been specified as on par with such PC characters in terms of AC, HP, and the like.
Conclusion: An AC of 31 is a reasonable AC for a Level 10 enemy.
Which leads to the additional conclusion that a level 12 or 13 monster (like a main boss for level 10 characters) might well have an AC at least 2 to 4 higher.
I'm fairly sure they're not talking PF1e rules, but PF2e. In PF2e with 10 Dex, Trained proficiency, and no Armor a creature has 20 AC at level 10. Add in the +2 Chain Shirt, +3 Potency, +4 Dex (easily doable by level 10, with 14 base and two +2 level bonuses), and bump up Proficiency two points and you've got 31 AC at level 10. The math is very much not the same as PF1e, so comparing specific PF1e and PF2e numbers alone is not a good comparison.
Please show me how a PF1 fighter with a chain shirt +3 and no other magic items has an AC of 30Its very subpar damage for a mid range blast spell against weak CR monsters. Cone of Cold has been nerfed from its PF1 version and this is a very bad thingActually, at 10th level, the DPR of a Cone pf Cold vs. Redcaps assuming a Save DC of 23 in PF1 (5 Level + 8 Int) is only 28 points of damage. And none of them will die (while 1 in 5 die to the PF2 version).
So the DPR has actually gone up significantly.
It's lower than a Cone of Cold with all the additional stuff you can add via Feats and the like, but those could exist in PF2 as well, we just don't know.
What monsters are you fighting that have an AC higher than 31 at 10th level? You have to create NPC fighters with high amounts of magic items to get to that high of an AC by PF1 rules. I don't even think dragons approach that AC at CR10.Fact: An AC of 31 is about the default AC expected of a 10th level Fighter PC (or the equivalent) with only a single magic item (a +3 Chain Shirt). This can be easily determined by basic math and the info we have.
Fact: Monsters have been specified as on par with such PC characters in terms of AC, HP, and the like.
Conclusion: An AC of 31 is a reasonable AC for a Level 10 enemy.
Which leads to the additional conclusion that a level 12 or 13 monster (like a main boss for level 10 characters) might well have an AC at least 2 to 4 higher.
DM meant that a fighter in PF2 is going to have an AC of 30 and proceeded to use that baseline to project out enemy AC.
Edit: pffffff. Ninja'd~
|
|
Please show me how a PF1 fighter with a chain shirt +3 and no other magic items has an AC of 30
As others have noted, I'm predicting PF2 enemy AC when talking about how much damage characters will do in PF2.
Using PF1 AC numbers to determine how much damage a PF2 character will do to PF2 enemies makes no sense at all.
|
|
...Because it doesn't seem worth a thread on its own to me, here's some info from the earlier PF2 panel that I noticed while watching it:
-We now know what Double Slice does. It allows you to spend two actions and make one attack with each of your two weapons. These attacks are both at your full bonus. Their damage is then added together before applying Resistance or Weakness. If you make a third attack it gets the full penalty for being a third attack (usually -10). This is actually super good (since it's effectively a +5 to hit on that second attack), and it's the introductory TWF Feat.
-We now know that stat-boosting items are in the game, though they were referenced as only at high levels (they also usually do other stuff as well, like a Belt of Giant Strength giving you Rock Catching and the ability to Enlarge yourself).
By math (based on Mark's comment regarding a 17-18 point swing between people who are terrible at a skill and specialists at 20th level), and combined with items giving up to +5 to skills (basically proved by the Gauntlet), we can infer that leveling Abilities past 18 with Level Ups must only give +1 rather than +2. This caps PCs at Ability Scores of 22 without magic (and, again due to the math, almost certainly at 24 even with magic).
-References were made to a Legendary Intimidate Skill Feat that is a Save or Die effect, as you literally scare people to death (it's limited to no more than one use per target per day). This bodes well for Skill Feats being powerful.
-In related news, you can spend your General Feats on Skill Feats if you want (and one Human Ancestry Feat gives a General Feat). Generally, you can't switch Feats between categories otherwise.
-Haste grants a bonus action (for a total of 4), but specifies that this action may only be used to Stride or Strike. In related news, the -10 for your third attack also applies to any subsequent attacks (like the one you could get from Haste) rather than escalating to -15.
EDIT:
+1. Am sure that martials will point out that its no big deal. That the feat cost justifies it...blah..blah..blah. Until high level sorcerers get a hold of it and THEN it will need to be toned down, by say switching intimidate from CHA to STR. I can see the posts writing themselves now
|
|
Please show me how a PF1 fighter with a chain shirt +3 and no other magic items has an AC of 30As others have noted, I'm predicting PF2 enemy AC when talking about how much damage characters will do in PF2.
Using PF1 AC numbers to determine how much damage a PF2 character will do to PF2 enemies makes no sense at all.
How does it make no sense? Do you think an ogre will have a radically different AC from PF1 to PF2? It for a fact does not. So my assumptions on AC for monsters seem to be a lot closer to the mark than yours
|
|
Case in point, skeletons have both weapon resistance slashing 5 and fire 1. Zombies have slashing weakness 5 but not elemental weakness. I think that is a bit odd. Even 1 point of elemental weakness would be an improvement, but casters get nothing.Spells do slashing damage, too...
Yes, blade barrier is one that springs to mind. Now I am not versed in every spell in every splat book but I don't remember many spells in the PF1 corebook in the level 1 to range that do slashing damage. None as a matter of fact spring to mind.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does it make no sense? Do you think an ogre will have a radically different AC from PF1 to PF2? It for a fact does not. So my assumptions on AC for monsters seem to be a lot closer to the mark than yours
We know they differ quite a bit more at high levels. The Grim Reaper, at level 21, has an AC of 45. 8 points north of where it'd be in PF1.
Add in that we know that they add level to AC just like PCs, and wind up with roughly equivalent AC to equivalent level PCs.
So no, PF1 ACs are a terrible measure by all the data we've got.
|
|
I'm fairly sure they're not talking PF1e rules, but PF2e. In PF2e with 10 Dex, Trained proficiency, and no Armor a creature has 20 AC at level 10. Add in the +2 Chain Shirt, +3 Potency, +4 Dex (easily doable by level 10, with 14 base and two +2 level bonuses), and bump up Proficiency two points and you've got 31 AC at level 10. The math is very much not the same as PF1e, so comparing specific PF1e and PF2e numbers alone is not a good comparison.Please show me how a PF1 fighter with a chain shirt +3 and no other magic items has an AC of 30What monsters are you fighting that have an AC higher than 31 at 10th level? You have to create NPC fighters with high amounts of magic items to get to that high of an AC by PF1 rules. I don't even think dragons approach that AC at CR10.Fact: An AC of 31 is about the default AC expected of a 10th level Fighter PC (or the equivalent) with only a single magic item (a +3 Chain Shirt). This can be easily determined by basic math and the info we have.
Fact: Monsters have been specified as on par with such PC characters in terms of AC, HP, and the like.
Conclusion: An AC of 31 is a reasonable AC for a Level 10 enemy.
Which leads to the additional conclusion that a level 12 or 13 monster (like a main boss for level 10 characters) might well have an AC at least 2 to 4 higher.
That AC does not make any sense. The PF2 ogre would have no chance to hit a 10th level character except on a 20. The PF2 ogre has an AC one worse than a PF1 ogre. If armor class works the way you claim, then the PF2 ogre's AC needs to be reworked. Also, how are you are getting legendary armor proficiency at level 10?
|
|
How does it make no sense? Do you think an ogre will have a radically different AC from PF1 to PF2? It for a fact does not. So my assumptions on AC for monsters seem to be a lot closer to the mark than yoursWe know they differ quite a bit more at high levels. The Grim Reaper, at level 21, has an AC of 45. 8 points north of where it'd be in PF1.
Add in that we know that they add level to AC just like PCs, and wind up with roughly equivalent AC to equivalent level PCs.
So no, PF1 ACs are a terrible measure by all the data we've got.
Where are you getting the grim reaper AC from? I have not seen this monster previewed. Also the redcap's AC is 20. That is hardly out of line for 5th level monsters in PF1. The zombie and skeleton's armor class seem to mimic PF1 equivalents as does the bugbear. The grim reaper may be an outlier if it exists
The grim reaper's statblock was previewed at Paizocon. It's been posted around a few places.
That AC does not make any sense. The PF2 ogre would have no chance to hit a 10th level character except on a 20. The PF2 ogre has an AC one worse than a PF1 ogre. If armor class works the way you claim, then the PF2 ogre's AC needs to be reworked. Also, how are you are getting legendary armor proficiency at level 10?I'm fairly sure they're not talking PF1e rules, but PF2e. In PF2e with 10 Dex, Trained proficiency, and no Armor a creature has 20 AC at level 10. Add in the +2 Chain Shirt, +3 Potency, +4 Dex (easily doable by level 10, with 14 base and two +2 level bonuses), and bump up Proficiency two points and you've got 31 AC at level 10. The math is very much not the same as PF1e, so comparing specific PF1e and PF2e numbers alone is not a good comparison.Please show me how a PF1 fighter with a chain shirt +3 and no other magic items has an AC of 30What monsters are you fighting that have an AC higher than 31 at 10th level? You have to create NPC fighters with high amounts of magic items to get to that high of an AC by PF1 rules. I don't even think dragons approach that AC at CR10.Fact: An AC of 31 is about the default AC expected of a 10th level Fighter PC (or the equivalent) with only a single magic item (a +3 Chain Shirt). This can be easily determined by basic math and the info we have.
Fact: Monsters have been specified as on par with such PC characters in terms of AC, HP, and the like.
Conclusion: An AC of 31 is a reasonable AC for a Level 10 enemy.
Which leads to the additional conclusion that a level 12 or 13 monster (like a main boss for level 10 characters) might well have an AC at least 2 to 4 higher.
2 steps above trained is master, not legendary.
Deadman is correct about the AC calculations. An ogre can't hit this Fighter without a 20 or flanking or something.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That AC does not make any sense. The PF2 ogre would have no chance to hit a 10th level character except on a 20. The PF2 ogre has an AC one worse than a PF1 ogre. If armor class works the way you claim, then the PF2 ogre's AC needs to be reworked. Also, how are you are getting legendary armor proficiency at level 10?
PF2 Ogres also have double the HP of PF1 Ogres. They've changed what type of monster the Ogre is, from a relatively standard CR 3, to a high HP + low AC Level 3. That's all.
And yes, I'd expect a 10th level Fighter would only get hit by an Ogre on very high numbers. And I think the +3 in the example is magic armor, not Proficiency.
Where are you getting the grim reaper AC from? I have not seen this monster previewed.
They showed it at PaizoCon, you can find the stat-block here.
Also the redcap's AC is 20. That is hardly out of line for 5th level monsters in PF1
Actually, PF1 CR5 recommendations were 55 HP and AC 18. 55 HP and AC 20 is what the Redcap had in PF1 as well as PF2, but it was CR 6 rather than 5 in PF1. So they dropped it to level 5 while leaving its AC intact. That implies AC is a bit higher at that level.
So it's a bit high by PF1 standards. A trend that, by all the math, seems to continue as levels get higher.
So, a 5th level creature has +2 AC over what we'd see in PF1 and a 21st level creature has +8. That'd peg a 10th level monster as about +4 which would give an AC of 28 assuming the progression is the same (which I wouldn't necessarily assume).
|
|
Where are you getting the grim reaper AC from? I have not seen this monster previewed.They showed it at PaizoCon, you can find the stat-block here.
Thanks for the link. I am very happy (not) for: "Resistances all damage 10". Bye "low" level blasting spells or magic missiles. He has saves of Fort +34, Ref +35, Will +36 and then it get to remove 10 points of damage from any source. If I get it correctly that mean any kind of damage, be it weapons, energy, force, mental damage or anything.
As a creature 21 isn't the equivalent of a CR 21 PF1 creature (i.e. a match for a party of 4 level 21 characters) but instead the equivalent of a level 21 character, that is really impressive.
|
|
Thanks for the link. I am very happy (not) for: "Resistances all damage 10". Bye "low" level blasting spells or magic missiles. He has saves of Fort +34, Ref +35, Will +36 and then it get to remove 10 points of damage from any source. If I get it correctly that mean any kind of damage, be it weapons, energy, force, mental damage or anything.
Yep. Very scary monster all things considered.
As a creature 21 isn't the equivalent of a CR 21 PF1 creature (i.e. a match for a party of 4 level 21 characters) but instead the equivalent of a level 21 character, that is really impressive.
Uh...a CR X creature is the equivalent of a Level X PC with full PC level gear in PF1 as well. That's actually the explicit guidelines for making a Level X NPC. I mean, their CR is Level -1 if using the Elite Array and giving them NPC wealth. You give them standard point buy and PC wealth and they go to CR = Level...this is made very explicit a few different places.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers have relatively few tricks but can use them in reckless abundance. As such, they share the design space of Kineticists. I think they should be combined into a perfect class for the concept rather than trying desperately to remain distinct and accept compromises to that end. I feel like making Sorcerers a primary arcane spellcaster with at least as many spells per day as the Wizard already makes it sort of redundant with the Wizard. This sort of thing should be covered by Wizard class feats.
This is completely wrong-headed. Sorcerers have a distinct design space for themselves, while Kineticists are completely different, both from a lore standpoint and from in their design.
Sorcerers are arcane spellcasters who sacrifice versatility in spell selection for versatility in their application of the few spells they know. They still are heavily tied to vancian casting and their bloodlines, the latter of which are only tangentially tied to elements.
Kineticists control the elements and can do damage all day long. They have some tricks tied to their elemental choices as well. That's their bag. They have nothing in common with Pathfinder Sorcerers, aside from being able to blast (and do that worse than Sorcerers as well).
Both should stay as distinct classes, since they have their own niches.
For our inevitable kineticist I want a TON of powers, powers every level, with abilities that let you extend the life of your spell point pool, as well as abilities that let you use up points to make your cantrips more potent.
I'd like to be able to play the avatar. That's what I want from a kineticist class.
|
|
As a creature 21 isn't the equivalent of a CR 21 PF1 creature (i.e. a match for a party of 4 level 21 characters) but instead the equivalent of a level 21 character, that is really impressive.Uh...a CR X creature is the equivalent of a Level X PC with full PC level gear in PF1 as well. That's actually the explicit guidelines for making a Level X NPC. I mean, their CR is Level -1 if using the Elite Array and giving them NPC wealth. You give them standard point buy and PC wealth and they go to CR = Level...this is made very explicit a few different places.
PF1
Determine APL: Determine the average level of your player characters—this is their Average Party Level (APL for short). You should round this value to the nearest whole number (this is one of the few exceptions to the round down rule). Note that these encounter creation guidelines assume a group of four or five PCs. If your group contains six or more players, add one to their average level. If your group contains three or fewer players, subtract one from their average level.
Difficulty Average
Challenge Rating Equals APL
A creature with CR X is an appropriate encounter for 4 characters of the same level.
4 Creatures CR +4
And an encounter with 4 creatures of the APL is above Epic level.
If in PF2 a level X creature is on the same power level of a level X character (as stated by Mark), a level 21 creature is weaker than a CR 21 monster that can be a average encounter for a party of four.
A PF1 monster with the same power of a single level X character probably need to be CR X+1
Adding NPCs: Creatures whose Hit Dice are solely a factor of their class levels and not a feature of their race, such as all of the PC races detailed in Races, are factored into combats a little differently than normal monsters or monsters with class levels. A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –1. A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept) is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2. If this reduction would reduce a creature's CR to below 1, its CR drops one step on the following progression for each step below 1 this reduction would make: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8.
That quote about NPC say that the a same level non player character is equivalent to a APL-1 encounter. Giving him PC wealth raise that to a same level APL encounter, but that is mostly because NPC don't care about gear expenditure and have gear maximized for a single encounter, not for multiple uses in a day.
How many NPC in an AP could be easily defeated by closing the door and returning after an hour?That CL 18 potion of shield of faith that give him a +5 deflection bonus will last 18 minutes, his divine favor scroll will last 1 minute, haste a few rounds and so on.
I recall several NPC that will go nova for a few minutes and then will be completely spend until they buy new equipment and become push over.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Determine APL: Determine the average level of your player characters—this is their Average Party Level (APL for short). You should round this value to the nearest whole number (this is one of the few exceptions to the round down rule). Note that these encounter creation guidelines assume a group of four or five PCs. If your group contains six or more players, add one to their average level. If your group contains three or fewer players, subtract one from their average level.A creature with CR X is an appropriate encounter for 4 characters of the same level.
Difficulty Average
Challenge Rating Equals APL
It absolutely is! But how are you defining 'average'? Because 'average' in PF1 is not defined as 'the PCs have a 50% chance of winning this fight'.
'Average' in terms of encounter design means that the encounter will eat up a significant amount of party resources without being especially likely to actually kill anyone or for the PCs to lose the fight.
Would you say that a fight of the PCs against their own evil copies (ie: an equal number of identical characters to them except for Alignment) is an 'average' difficulty fight? Because that's not an average encounter, it's one the PCs have a 50% chance of just losing and dying in.
Which is exactly what an APL +4 CR encounter is supposed to be.
Which would mean that, mechanically, a single PC is balanced around being a fair fight (50% chance of victory) with a single creature of the same CR. However, if you have the PCs fight, say, 4 fights (one day's encounters on average) where they only have a 50% chance of victory, their chance of winning all four is somewhere around 6% so and no party would ever last more than a couple of days, so they intentionally designed the encounter builder to send you up against foes weaker than the party (ie: ones they have a higher than 50% chance against).
Or to put it another way: 'Average difficulty encounter' does not mean 'fair fight' in Pathfinder and never has. Saying 'Creatures have equivalent stats to PCs of their level' does mean they'd be a fair fight one on one, which means that the encounter design focuses on you fighting less of them than there are PCs most times so as to avoid extremely frequent party wipes.
|
Yes, blade barrier is one that springs to mind. Now I am not versed in every spell in every splat book but I don't remember many spells in the PF1 corebook in the level 1 to range that do slashing damage. None as a matter of fact spring to mind.Case in point, skeletons have both weapon resistance slashing 5 and fire 1. Zombies have slashing weakness 5 but not elemental weakness. I think that is a bit odd. Even 1 point of elemental weakness would be an improvement, but casters get nothing.Spells do slashing damage, too...
The spells in PF2 Core Rulebook are not going to all be direct ports of the PF1 Core rulebook. We have a lot more spells to choose from now. The cantrip telekinetic projectile that does bludgeoning damage, for instance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be specific, telekinetic projectile can do any type of physical damage (presumably based on the projectile you're using). Which means that a wizard is as good or better at exploiting a zombie's slashing weakness than a martial would be.
|
|
To be specific, telekinetic projectile can do any type of physical damage (presumably based on the projectile you're using). Which means that a wizard is as good or better at exploiting a zombie's slashing weakness than a martial would be.
I doubt that you will need a physical object to use telekinetic projectile. It what you think is right, the spellcaster would be forced to bring ammunition for the spell, as it is not granted that there would be appropriate objects to launch at the enemy in the location of the fight.
I think it will deal bashing damage from direct application of telekinetic force.
If it require ammunition, it is hardly "unlimited use". Based on the weight of a pouch of bullets in PF1 an average wizard will have problems bringing enough to have them last long.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My impression was that telekinetic projectile needed an object, but could reuse the same object over and over again if you wanted (until it broke, anyway). Which would indeed make it unlimited.
Also, you could fling objects in the surrounding area. Like pebbles. Or ones with no meaningful weight like playing cards.
All that would be consistent with the PF1 version, as well as Mark Seifter noting that you could use it to throw your crossbow at people.
Where are you getting the grim reaper AC from? I have not seen this monster previewed.They showed it at PaizoCon, you can find the stat-block here.
Thanks for the link. I am very happy (not) for: "Resistances all damage 10". Bye "low" level blasting spells or magic missiles. He has saves of Fort +34, Ref +35, Will +36 and then it get to remove 10 points of damage from any source. If I get it correctly that mean any kind of damage, be it weapons, energy, force, mental damage or anything.
As a creature 21 isn't the equivalent of a CR 21 PF1 creature (i.e. a match for a party of 4 level 21 characters) but instead the equivalent of a level 21 character, that is really impressive.
"Resist all damage 10" will actually make spell blasting DPS relative to relative to martial DPS since the spell blast will tend to do all its damage in one big hit rather than over numerous smaller hits. Reaper seems like a bad ole boy in general.
Edit: Doing some quick head math, I am guessing lv. 20 martials will hit at their highest BAB roughly 50% of the time and the guy will fail its saves roughly 35% of the time (and crit succeed its saves about 15% of the time). Just looking at accuracy, I guess this makes martial DPS a bit more feast or famine (since they will essentially be doing full damage or zero damage) which Caster DPS is going to be more reliable (with them generally doing full damage or half damage).
Mark said that weaknesses are more common now, so multiple attacks instead of a single big hit can be a benefit, if you attack the weakness.
The best thing will be to be able to choose between a single big hit or multiple smaller hits.
Then a blasting wizard can switch to scorching ray or a damage over time spell and take advantage of that paradigm as well.
As DMW said, martial characters can indeed switch to a more "one big hit" strategy by taking either the power attack or double slice feats. If we want to compare "apples to apples" though perhaps we would need to compare those characters to a blaster who has some kind of feat support for their casting.
So this from the Sorcerer preview is pretty awful.
The sorcerer's feats primarily deal with her spells. Sorcerers get metamagic feats, many of which they share with other casters. One we haven't shown off yet is Overwhelming Spell at 8th level, which lets a spell that deals acid, cold, electricity, or fire damage ignore the first 10 points of a target's resistance.
If you want to make a blaster, you can pick up Dangerous Sorcery, which increases the damage of your spells by their spell level (with the exception of cantrips).
This does not bode well for Maximize or Empower spell options existing or being very good.
|
|
So this from the Sorcerer preview is pretty awful.
This does not bode well for Maximize or Empower spell options existing or being very good.The sorcerer's feats primarily deal with her spells. Sorcerers get metamagic feats, many of which they share with other casters. One we haven't shown off yet is Overwhelming Spell at 8th level, which lets a spell that deals acid, cold, electricity, or fire damage ignore the first 10 points of a target's resistance.
If you want to make a blaster, you can pick up Dangerous Sorcery, which increases the damage of your spells by their spell level (with the exception of cantrips).
That version doesn't cost an action. One that does could be much more powerful.
That aside, my analysis last page demonstrated that Disintegrate could nearly double no-Feat Fighter DPR (once you took into account items adding to to-hit and target lower TAC foes). Blasting is looking solid to me at the moment.
That version doesn't cost an action. One that does could be much more powerful.
I'd concur. Low bonuses can add up when they're passive and can be stacked. It remains to be seen what you can stack with Dangerous Sorcery, and whether there are any multiplier effects that are applicable. It also has the upshot of, unlike comparable PF1 effects, not locking you into specific spells or elemental types. On the other hand, this isn't even close to the power of something like spell specialization in PF1. It really depends on what you can do with it, what you can stack with it, and how much competition it's getting for that feat slot.