| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard) get 1 or two new spell casting slots each level as well as a selection of new spells to go with those spell slots. Spells have historically been very powerful especially at higher levels. We have also been shown that full casters have a lot of other abilities (see the druid and bard blogs for instance).
What isn't clear to me is what non casters get. They have lost their advantage in regards to BAB and multiple attacks. So what do they get beside more hitpoints? I believe even saves have been evened out now.
More skills? In some cases this is true (rogue and Ranger) but we still have a full caster (Bard) that has almost as many. I think this could be a good option. I think non casters should all have 6+ skills vs casters having 2 or 4 per level (not sure what the new default is now for trained). Maybe only martials should get access to legendary skill abilities to make them different from casters?
More feats? It seems full casters still get lots of feats. Do non casters get a bonus feat each time a caster reaches a new spell level?
Class abilities? These are great, but seem to be more limited than before. Classes are not as front loaded. Based on the Multiclassing blog it does seem like some things are unique to classes (i.e. DX to damage is rogue only). I hope this happens more. I think classes should get unique stuff that can't be borrowed via multiclassing.
Spell like powers. Some non casters get these. The Paladin, maybe the ranger. The alchemist has a whole system to himself which is cool (alchemy).
I Guess I am still concerned about non casters vs. casters. What are your thoughts. How will a fighter or rogue compare vs. druids and wizards in PF 2E
To further comment on spell casters, it does appear that they get a few less spells in the new edition and there may be an action cost to maintain buffs.
Perhaps the answer was to make spells weaker?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with Martials in DnD/PF has never been power. Martials are good at killing things from the start to the end. My issue has always been versatility.
Full attacking every round might've been optimal but was in no way fun when it becomes the default option. PF2 thankfully seems to be making great strides in giving martials more options to tackle the evolving battlefield with and in so, adding more of a tactical and dynamic element to combat.
However, I admittedly am still not satisfied with the seeming lack of narrative options for such characters as far as I know. Hopefully the playtest will have those a nice surprise. Combat is fun, but it isn't the end all be all. If I wanted to do nothing but fight as a martial type character, I'd probably just pick run an Only War campaign or something similar.
Fighters at least look like they get weapon proficiencies at a vastly accelerated rate. Whether this will make their progression a match for casters will have to wait until we see what can be done with higher tier weapon-type feats, but that is looking like something that spells wont be able to replicate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with Martials in DnD/PF has never been power. Martials are good at killing things from the start to the end. My issue has always been versatility.
Full attacking every round might've been optimal but was in no way fun when it becomes the default option. PF2 thankfully seems to be making great strides in giving martials more options to tackle the evolving battlefield with and in so, adding more of a tactical and dynamic element to combat.
However, I admittedly am still not satisfied with the seeming lack of narrative options for such characters as far as I know. Hopefully the playtest will have those a nice surprise. Combat is fun, but it isn't the end all be all. If I wanted to do nothing but fight as a martial type character, I'd probably just pick run an Only War campaign or something similar.
Agreed. Fighters have always been good at killing things. I was hoping the new skill system would favor them. Why shouldn't a fighter get just as many skills as a ranger? Just have them be of a different type (i.e. rangers get nature stuff, fighters get city stuff?).
I like a casters to be 2 skills per level and non casters be 4/6/8 (using PF1 terms, not sure what PF2 equivalents are). Give them some versatility!!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the past martials have generally been pretty balanced in combat. The problem with narrative power comes in out of combat situations. Boosting the power of skills and making it so there are fewer spells that negate skills entirely should help with this. The problem then becomes that for some insane reason the fighter and barbarian have fewer skills points than clerics druids and sorcorrers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like they will get juicy class features, feats, and skill unlocks that enable them to do badass stuff.
Proficiency means a lot more than the numbers it would seem; Legendary sounds like it will unlock Beowulf-type shenanigans.
Issue with that is, martials don't seem to get non-combat class features, and everyone gets things like legendary skill feats including the casters (though rogue gets more than other classes). So mages get "Spells" + "Class Features" + "Skill Feats" while martials just have "Skill Feats".
I doubt Paizo will make the spells weaker. The Pathfinder 1st Edition spells are time-tested for power. Adjusting the power level of every spell for Pathfinder 2nd Edition would be an enormous amount of work and would introduce errors in the form of overpowered and underpowered spells.
The spellcasting classes are bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard. Monk and paladin receive spell points to cast spells represented as mystic or divine abilities. Those mystic spells can be ramped up like the spellcaster's spells. Alchemists make bombs and potions that act like spells.
That leaves barbarian, fighter, ranger, and rogue as the spell-less classes.
Barbarians have an easy method of ramping up their power: rage powers.
The fighter preview told about special actions, such as Sudden Charge. We can see more of these special action on the Valeros pregen character sheet at ENWorld. These special actions will give the fighter a marvelous action economy, but I have trouble imagining how they can keep up with higher-level spells. Maybe the figher will be awesome at combat and terrible at everything else. That is how the class works in PF1.
The ranger preview features two non-feat ranger abilities, hunt target and snares. Hunt target is based on the D&D and PF1 favored enemy mechanic, which ramped up reasonably well, with an annoying need to guess future targets. Snares are kind of like spells, but their utility is very limited, so I also cannot imagine how they will keep up with higher-level spells. Maybe the ranger will receive a few special feats that mimic their PF1 spellcasting efects.
The rogue is a master of skills. Even the polymath bard won't be able to keep up. That class also has Finesse Striker and Sneak Attack for combat. Thus, like PF1, the rogue will use his skills to unlock doors and spot traps and bamfoozle townsfolk so that the wizard does not have to cast Knock or Charm spells. Perhaps legendary skills will be as powerful as higher-level spells, but it would take a lot of creativity to make them so.
It sounds like when your weapon proficiency gets high enough you get critical specializations, which provide some cool control/debuff riders.
We don't have a lot to go on for fighter or barbarian exclusive things outside of combat though. There may or may not wind up being that stuff, if the ranger, rogue, and monk get various things which help in that regard. Fighters and Barbars might just be the best at fighting, with the other martials hitting more of a balance point between fighting and not fighting.
|
Everyone gets Class Features at odd numbered levels. For spellcasters, past first level these are almost exclusively new spells, while for martial characters they are things like Evasion, Sneak Attack, increased proficiencies in weapons, and the like. Casters also seem to skip their 12th and 16th level Class Feats for increased spellcasting Proficiency, and some seem to miss out on their 1st level Class Feat as well.
So martials do indeed get some stuff. We'll see if it's sufficient to close the gap. Personally, I tend to think extra skills and maybe skill Feats will probably be necessary to close the gap, but we'll see.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martial characters interact with the new d20 engine completely differently, their higher proficiency bonus means they trigger crits more often which triggers the new specialization effects. From the way the game is looking to be designed martial characters would more or less expect to dump their 'standard action' on one of these feats that takes 2 acts to complete and get to make one single attack at their highest bonus. This attack on martial characters oughta by the mechanics trigger a crit roughly half the time, meaning martial characters will sift through weapons to decide which specialization they want to be using that fight (like spell effects combined with additional components to take up more actions).
Magical weapons now function as removable and replaceable potency runes that you can transfer over to a different weapon if you want a different specialization, to be decided in-between fights I imagine.
The math for the damage suggests that the higher increase in damage dice as you level is meant to mean that you still have a probability distribution to deal with, but martial characters count on having the range of that distribution doubled over non-martial characters, more often.
There's a lot more probability math in this edition compared to the last edition, since it comes down more to calculating damage rather than hit percentage as all weapons crit the same way. In that sense, martial characters will be doing a lot more different things depending on the player's choice of weapon, rather than having most players do similar things because most of them choose similar weapons cherry-picked to be the best statistically available. Hopefully that's how it plays out but I have my suspicions.
Everyone gets Class Features at odd numbered levels. For spellcasters, past first level these are almost exclusively new spells, while for martial characters they are things like Evasion, Sneak Attack, increased proficiencies in weapons, and the like. Casters also seem to skip their 12th and 16th level Class Feats for increased spellcasting Proficiency, and some seem to miss out on their 1st level Class Feat as well.
So martials do indeed get some stuff. We'll see if it's sufficient to close the gap. Personally, I tend to think extra skills and maybe skill Feats will probably be necessary to close the gap, but we'll see.
Ahh, I didn't know that every odd level gets a feature. Is there a set table that has been previewed. I haven't seen anything like that in the blogs. Usually just a few previews of random powers / feats. Hopefully these abilities are powerful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the big thing that helps close the C/MD is how spells don't effectively replace skills in the long run any more. Even if your limited spell slots justify expending a slot on an out of combat challenge, it's not going to give you appropriate training to do the thing which someone else in the party might already have.
Like the fighter who has already invested in Athletics so they can do combat maneuvers might be a master in the skill so "let the fighter climb it then drop a rope" is perhaps a better option than "cast fly on everybody".
|
|
Ahh, I didn't know that every odd level gets a feature. Is there a set table that has been previewed. I haven't seen anything like that in the blogs. Usually just a few previews of random powers / feats. Hopefully these abilities are powerful.
There's not an official table, but it's mentioned various places if you pay close attention. Check the Barbarian Blog, which mentions a bunch of the specific stuff by level for that Class specifically.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does my Fighter apply his critical specialty to solve a failed Diplomacy check or to transport the party over an unjumpable chasm
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does my Fighter apply his critical specialty to solve a failed Diplomacy check or to transport the party over an unjumpable chasm
I don't think you do any more than the wizard casts Ice Storm to impress at a fancy party or uses Magic Missile to win the dancing contest.
But a fighter who has invested in diplomacy will have some skill feats (which are not generally applicable to combat) to help, and with sufficient athletics skill, no chasm is unjumpable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt Paizo will make the spells weaker. The Pathfinder 1st Edition spells are time-tested for power. Adjusting the power level of every spell for Pathfinder 2nd Edition would be an enormous amount of work and would introduce errors in the form of overpowered and underpowered spells.
Spells have already been confirmed to be weaker. Every save or die/suck spell in 1e, now only makes you die/suck on critically fail. On a normal fail you just suck a little bit. And I really hope you aren't trying to insinuate that all 1e spells are balanced. Because that is far from the truth
I do admit, the blogs are selling points. High on hype, low on detail. Hence my concerns about casters. Bards even got bumped to full casters and have the second most skills. Why is the bard being boosted? It seems hard for a Fighter to compete with that. Sure he may kill better but I bet the Bard can still contribute in combat. What can the fighter do outside combat?
I do think there are hints that spells have been nerfed. I wouldn't be surprised there is some anti-buff mechanic like always using an action to maintain a buff. Others have mentioned needed to critically fail for SoD spells. Maybe only a few spells have been previewed because they are worried about the outrage?
How does my Fighter apply his critical specialty to solve a failed Diplomacy check or to transport the party over an unjumpable chasmI don't think you do any more than the wizard casts Ice Storm to impress at a fancy party or uses Magic Missile to win the dancing contest.
But a fighter who has invested in diplomacy will have some skill feats (which are not generally applicable to combat) to help, and with sufficient athletics skill, no chasm is unjumpable.
I am not sure how the INT effects skill access, but in PF1 a wizard had a lot of skill points due to INT. The fighter had few, and I think he still does have few. IN your example, the wizard would be more likely to have diplomacy or perform than the fighter. In all honesty, they probably both wouldn't as the mage would take lore skills and the fighter, well, he doesn't have any skills with his 8INT.
I do like the idea of skill feats, but all classes get them. Perhaps casters should get less and non casters get more?
Spells have already been confirmed to be weaker. Every save or die/suck spell in 1e, now only makes you die/suck on critically fail.Maybe I'm not doing the math right in my head, but Critical Failure on damage spells seems to be far worse than what happened in P1. And how much do you want to wager Paizo's going to have things that increase the odds for failures?
Damage spells kinda sucked without a dozen different crutch abilities that made a particular damage spell of your choice massively overpowered if you took all of those abilities; the real problems were the binary pass-or-die spells like Color Spray where getting just a little unlucky meant you were down for the entire encounter, or perhaps forever. Those spells have been nerfed significantly by the +10/-10 system.
Duration is another thing that seems to be scaling down massively for casters, and with limits on consumables, the days of the wizard having the right spell for every out of combat situation, all day long, seem like they are getting massively scaled back too. There will probably be some specific roles now where you will need characters with skills to reliably cover you so you don't burn magic resources on things that will mean less healing later.
I am betting:
Medicine, Athletics, Diplomacy, Deception, Thievery, And probably one of at least nature, arcana or religion are going to need to be specialized in in every party. Even a fighter with barely any skill points will probably need to cover at least one of these with more than just proficiency ranks.
|
|
I do admit, the blogs are selling points. High on hype, low on detail. Hence my concerns about casters. Bards even got bumped to full casters and have the second most skills. Why is the bard being boosted? It seems hard for a Fighter to compete with that. Sure he may kill better but I bet the Bard can still contribute in combat. What can the fighter do outside combat?
It's an interesting question. Though, really, comparing Bard to Rogue is better than comparing it to Fighter, and Rogues get significantly more skills than Bards.
I do think there are hints that spells have been nerfed. I wouldn't be surprised there is some anti-buff mechanic like always using an action to maintain a buff. Others have mentioned needed to critically fail for SoD spells. Maybe only a few spells have been previewed because they are worried about the outrage?
In particular, utility spells that replace skills have been radically altered. For example, Discern Lies, a 4th level spell with a 10 minute duration, now only adds a +4 bonus to Perception checks to determine whether someone is truthful. Spells generally no longer replace skill checks, enhancing them instead (or a choice between that and using some other skill or bonus) rather than auto-succeeding or requiring a Save.
Also, certain Skills allow ritual magic in their own right, and allow it for whoever has them, not just actual casters.
I am not sure how the INT effects skill access, but in PF1 a wizard had a lot of skill points due to INT. The fighter had few, and I think he still does have few. IN your example, the wizard would be more likely to have diplomacy or perform than the fighter. In all honesty, they probably both wouldn't as the mage would take lore skills and the fighter, well, he doesn't have any skills with his 8INT.
Int adds to skills at 1st level, but not as you rise in level. Wizards and other Int-based characters also seem to get low numbers of starting skills, while the number a Fighter gets has risen (and, for the record, you can't dump scores below 10 and at least four scores will be higher than 10).
I do like the idea of skill feats, but all classes get them. Perhaps casters should get less and non casters get more?
I'm not against this idea at all. We'll see how necessary it seems once we look at the full rules and try playing them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But you're overlooking a critical mechanic of the +10/-10 system: Probability.Just like with poison use in P1, the +10/-10 system screws PCs because eventually the PCs will critically fail. The system has an asymmetrical impact on PCs because they are subject to lots of these rolls and will be ill-equiped to handle them on a critical fail. You mention targets getting unlucky with Color Spray...well now, casters get that same benefit with every damage spell. What happens when the party gets hit with fireball and two players roll 1's? Is that offset by them later rolling 20's previously? Critical Success doesn't do me a lot of good if Critical Failure's are going to kill me at full HPs.
Again, I haven' done the math, so maybe someone can tell me if a crit fail on a fireball for a 5th level fighter by a CR appropriate wizard is going to kill the Fighter, or Bard, or Cleric?
Counter-point: Your 70-hp dude getting crit-fireballed for 100 damage won't kill him anymore, just set him to 0hp where he can be saved. It'll be a nasty hit and make the fight super tough, but I expect fewer out-of-left-field insta-deaths than 1E, especially since the 100-damage axe swing also only puts you to 0hp.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Damage spells kinda sucked without a dozen different crutch abilities that made a particular damage spell of your choice massively overpowered if you took all of those abilities; the real problems were the binary pass-or-die spells like Color Spray where getting just a little unlucky meant you were down for the entire encounter, or perhaps forever. Those spells have been nerfed significantly by the +10/-10 system.Spells have already been confirmed to be weaker. Every save or die/suck spell in 1e, now only makes you die/suck on critically fail.Maybe I'm not doing the math right in my head, but Critical Failure on damage spells seems to be far worse than what happened in P1. And how much do you want to wager Paizo's going to have things that increase the odds for failures?
But you're overlooking a critical mechanic of the +10/-10 system: Probability.
Just like with poison use in P1, the +10/-10 system screws PCs because eventually the PCs will critically fail. The system has an asymmetrical impact on PCs because they are subject to lots of these rolls and will be ill-equiped to handle them on a critical fail. You mention targets getting unlucky with Color Spray...well now, casters get that same benefit with every damage spell. What happens when the party gets hit with fireball and two players roll 1's? Is that offset by them later rolling 20's previously? Critical Success doesn't do me a lot of good if Critical Failure's are going to kill me at full HPs.
Again, I haven' done the math, so maybe someone can tell me if a crit fail on a fireball for a 5th level fighter by a CR appropriate wizard is going to kill the Fighter, or Bard, or Cleric?
Calling upon the power of lazy maths:
That's good to hear. Now I can see why they were not afraid to go with the crit fails being double damage. So that helps the party avoid getting TPK'd from high level casters.
Thanks to both and Lee and Elleth for posting.
No problem.
As an aside. For a level 5 monster we can probably expect the Redcap (55 HP) to be on the low end (thanks to fast healing), and 5/3rds of an ogre (100 HP) on the high end (though maybe we can just round it up to 120?). While the monsters seem unlike to crit fail except on a 1, it could still deal a reasonable chunk of damage to a same level monster (esp considering the whole party whaling on it), though you'd probably be better off using a single target spell there.
I do admit, the blogs are selling points. High on hype, low on detail. Hence my concerns about casters. Bards even got bumped to full casters and have the second most skills. Why is the bard being boosted? It seems hard for a Fighter to compete with that. Sure he may kill better but I bet the Bard can still contribute in combat. What can the fighter do outside combat?It's an interesting question. Though, really, comparing Bard to Rogue is better than comparing it to Fighter, and Rogues get significantly more skills than Bards.
I do think there are hints that spells have been nerfed. I wouldn't be surprised there is some anti-buff mechanic like always using an action to maintain a buff. Others have mentioned needed to critically fail for SoD spells. Maybe only a few spells have been previewed because they are worried about the outrage?In particular, utility spells that replace skills have been radically altered. For example, Discern Lies, a 4th level spell with a 10 minute duration, now only adds a +4 bonus to Perception checks to determine whether someone is truthful. Spells generally no longer replace skill checks, enhancing them instead (or a choice between that and using some other skill or bonus) rather than auto-succeeding or requiring a Save.
Also, certain Skills allow ritual magic in their own right, and allow it for whoever has them, not just actual casters.
I am not sure how the INT effects skill access, but in PF1 a wizard had a lot of skill points due to INT. The fighter had few, and I think he still does have few. IN your example, the wizard would be more likely to have diplomacy or perform than the fighter. In all honesty, they probably both wouldn't as the mage would take lore skills and the fighter, well, he doesn't have any skills with his 8INT.Int adds to skills at 1st level, but not as you rise in level. Wizards and other Int-based characters also seem to get low numbers of...
Interesting nerf with spells only adding skill bonuses, i don't remember seeing that one. I do hope they don't overshadow high level skill use.
I have heard about ritual magic and I hope it is interesting. Ritual magic was mostly a failure in 4th edition and is only something casters can already do in 5th (although I think a feat opens it up for non casters). I have found in my games that no ore really thinks to use them. I guess it depends on how this in implemented in PF. I think Mark hinted it will not even require a feat....
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rituals should be good in PF2 because they're essentially the spells that were previously narrative-breaking moved to a different section of the book; rather than clerics having exclusive access to Resurrection anyone with sufficient training in Religion can perform the ritual, for example.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rituals should be good in PF2 because they're essentially the spells that were previously narrative-breaking moved to a different section of the book; rather than clerics having exclusive access to Resurrection anyone with sufficient training in Religion can perform the ritual, for example.
My favourite combo is giving Resurrection to the alchemist.
"It's alive" screams the alchemist. The fighter leans up and rubs his forehead, he's getting tired of hearing that.I am really quite happy Control Weather is a ritual though.
Rituals should be good in PF2 because they're essentially the spells that were previously narrative-breaking moved to a different section of the book; rather than clerics having exclusive access to Resurrection anyone with sufficient training in Religion can perform the ritual, for example.
Interesting if this is true. Very interesting. Is this your thoughts or has this been previewed?
Rituals should be good in PF2 because they're essentially the spells that were previously narrative-breaking moved to a different section of the book; rather than clerics having exclusive access to Resurrection anyone with sufficient training in Religion can perform the ritual, for example.Interesting if this is true. Very interesting. Is this your thoughts or has this been previewed?
I think I recall Mark or someone stating it somewhere AGES back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rituals should be good in PF2 because they're essentially the spells that were previously narrative-breaking moved to a different section of the book; rather than clerics having exclusive access to Resurrection anyone with sufficient training in Religion can perform the ritual, for example.
As long as they dont go the 4e route of making every spell that doesn't have direct combat or buff utility a specifically non-combat ritual, I'm ok with it. 4e went too far.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rituals should be good in PF2 because they're essentially the spells that were previously narrative-breaking moved to a different section of the book; rather than clerics having exclusive access to Resurrection anyone with sufficient training in Religion can perform the ritual, for example.As long as they dont go the 4e route of making every spell that doesn't have direct combat or buff utility a specifically non-combat ritual, I'm ok with it. 4e went too far.
I kind of prefer "any spell with a casting time of more than 6 seconds is a ritual" personally.
Rituals should be good in PF2 because they're essentially the spells that were previously narrative-breaking moved to a different section of the book; rather than clerics having exclusive access to Resurrection anyone with sufficient training in Religion can perform the ritual, for example.
I don't see how the spells don't become more narrative breaking if even more people can seem to cast them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rituals should be good in PF2 because they're essentially the spells that were previously narrative-breaking moved to a different section of the book; rather than clerics having exclusive access to Resurrection anyone with sufficient training in Religion can perform the ritual, for example.I don't see how the spells don't become more narrative breaking if even more people can seem to cast them.
I mean part of the trade off is moved from using spell slots as part of the cost.
Now rituals use skill checks, and, I believe it was mentioned that messing them up has horrific results on a crit fail.
Like planar binding crit failing means it breaks loose and is miffed.
Personally I really want to see how messing up Resurrection goes.
Rituals should be good in PF2 because they're essentially the spells that were previously narrative-breaking moved to a different section of the book; rather than clerics having exclusive access to Resurrection anyone with sufficient training in Religion can perform the ritual, for example.I don't see how the spells don't become more narrative breaking if even more people can seem to cast them.I mean part of the trade off is moved from using spell slots as part of the cost.
Now rituals use skill checks, and, I believe it was mentioned that messing them up has horrific results on a crit fail.
Like planar binding crit failing means it breaks loose and is miffed.Personally I really want to see how messing up Resurrection goes.
You speak as if players aren't going to find a way to nullify that crit fail chance as much as possible.
Crit fail is, last I checked or understood it - 10 lower than the DC or nat 1. Pretty sure players are going to do everything in their power to keep it to Nat 1. That's what... 5% chance? I'm fairly certain most players are willing to spam something on that failure chance after a certain points.
Mind you, this is without full knowledge of how easily it is to buff those rolls.
I kind of prefer "any spell with a casting time of more than 6 seconds is a ritual" personally.Rituals should be good in PF2 because they're essentially the spells that were previously narrative-breaking moved to a different section of the book; rather than clerics having exclusive access to Resurrection anyone with sufficient training in Religion can perform the ritual, for example.As long as they dont go the 4e route of making every spell that doesn't have direct combat or buff utility a specifically non-combat ritual, I'm ok with it. 4e went too far.
I might be ok with that too.
I have more of an issue with things like Affect Normal Fire, Animate Rope, Animal Messenger, Arcane Lock, or Arcane Mark being turned into rituals, and therefore not legal to be cast during an encounter because they don't do damage or have a specifically designated combat use.
And that list is just from a cursory glance at the beginning of "A"s on the 4e ritual list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rituals should be good in PF2 because they're essentially the spells that were previously narrative-breaking moved to a different section of the book; rather than clerics having exclusive access to Resurrection anyone with sufficient training in Religion can perform the ritual, for example.I don't see how the spells don't become more narrative breaking if even more people can seem to cast them.I mean part of the trade off is moved from using spell slots as part of the cost.
Now rituals use skill checks, and, I believe it was mentioned that messing them up has horrific results on a crit fail.
Like planar binding crit failing means it breaks loose and is miffed.Personally I really want to see how messing up Resurrection goes.
You speak as if players aren't going to find a way to nullify that crit fail chance as much as possible.
Crit fail is, last I checked or understood it - 10 lower than the DC or nat 1. Pretty sure players are going to do everything in their power to keep it to Nat 1. That's what... 5% chance? I'm fairly certain most players are willing to spam something on that failure chance after a certain points.
Mind you, this is without full knowledge of how easily it is to buff those rolls.
Sure. The best way to nullify it seems to be to be high enough level, by which point I think it's fair for higher power to be available.
And yes, you got the crit fail stuff right.
As an asides. I care less about narrative breaking when the whole party can do it, but NPCs can't so easily. Makes it easier to run the world sensibly.
As an asides, I wonder if ritual skill checks if they are indeed a thing are "usually a hard DC as appropriate to the spell level". E.g. for a level 7 Control Weather the DC might be 13+17, so 30.
EDIT: I meant +14. So 27
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as they dont go the 4e route of making every spell that doesn't have direct combat or buff utility a specifically non-combat ritual, I'm ok with it. 4e went too far.
It certainly doesn't look like that's what they're doing. Raise Dead, for example, is still a spell (though Resurrection is a Ritual).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am hoping fighters get some thing like a flexible skill feat that can be switched out every morning.
Rituals alone, if done as expected, will counter a lot of perception that wizards alone have the maximum utility. I can easily see rangers casting more spells a day (as rituals), at earlier levels, than they ever had access to in PF1. Granted I am guessing rituals probably have levels too, but I doubt that a wizard or cleric get earlier access to level appropriate rituals than non-casters.
Caveat: Rituals are the one aspect of the game that still feel like a complete unknown so they are a total mystery to me. It might be the case that low level characters wont even be able to consider casting them, after all, none of the revealed pregens seemed to have any indication of possessing ritual books or being prepared to cast rituals.
I am hoping fighters get some thing like a flexible skill feat that can be switched out every morning.They get this for Class Feats. I'm skeptical of it for Skill Feats.
Wait wait wait, they can swap out class feats?