Aadgarvven's page

48 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Madame Endor wrote:
Aadgarvven wrote:

Well, I want to play Unforgiven,

so forget renaissance and Jessie James, just give me

badass Clint Eastwood

A Pathfinder Boot Hill would be great. If we're going not make the core classes for the game from classic fantasy and folklore for Pathfinder, then lets just go full Ready Player One, and make core astronaut, fighter pilot, tank commander, and atomic scientist classes. Mixing unrelated settings can be fun, but there's a place for it expansions and distant corners of campaign worlds or in separate games altogether like Starfinder giving you space and science fiction. There's too little space in a core rulebook and too much to include to get classic fantasy and folklore right without wasting space on things that aren't related to the core genre of the game.

No, I don't want a Boot Hill (I don't actually know what this is)

I only want to play alongside other medieval players but using a gunslinger similar to Unforgiven's Clint Eastwood instead of another ranged martial.

No changes to the game nor enything else


... to add to the core rulebook for release, which would it be?

Here I am copying the idea of dnoisette on his thread about classes but related to ancestries (or races).

All credit to dnoisette for opening a really good and positive thread that had everyone sharing their love for the game.

I am trying to do the same and hoping to have at least half the success so the developers now our ideas of what we would love to have in the game.

as for my part, this is clear,I would love to have a construct/golem/android/warforged.

I think they are very interesting for roleplay and also will have a totally especific feel about them.

What would be your choice of the first ancestry to return or appear for the first time in Pathfinder 2.0? :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Madame Endor wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Ah, yes, the Gunslinger, that is unlike any class in D&D/PF, it should be included, a serious iconic PF deal. I would like it unarmoured, ala the Monk. They should not target TAC.
The first firearm users are likely to be armored in the way that the soldiers of their nations are like conquistadors were. Since firearms are going to be advanced technology and expensive, firearm wielders are probably going to be better armored than the typical soldier. Simply being a firearms expert wouldn't at all make someone effective at martial arts dodges, moves, and acrobatics that make monks effective unarmored. If anything, it would teach them to find long range cover and inaccessible positions and avoid melee altogether, relying on the strengths of their weapon. Since their weapons are clunky and awkward and the loudest thing of the day, stealth is not going to be of primary concern. Their real power is distance and the force that their weapons hit with. Ranged attacks are going to be their biggest worry after they find a position. Armor is going to be their friend, especially while they reload. The conquistador, not Jessie James, is the best prototype for medieval or renaissance firearms wielder.

Well, I want to play Unforgiven,

so forget renaissance and Jessie James, just give me

badass Clint Eastwood


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
Aadgarvven wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
nobody wants to play a videogame that is released both incomplete and that you have to pay full purchase price multiple times to actually play.

I don't like that either, but I have bad news for you.

this is exactly the way videogames are sold right now.

Main game, then patches, then DLC (that makes more money to the company than the initial Vanilla game.

i know, and it's the most shameful thing. but i'm referring to the egregious examples:

xcom 2 and DB xenoverse 2 forcing people to pay for basic bugfixes (by baking them into DLC content rather than as a free patch alongside)
crusader kings on a half-off sale still costing $165 in total.
with every book for an average TTRPG being 30+ dollars easy, things NEED to work as intended from the outset. people need a reason to actually be willing to buy those secondary DLC/books.

I've already spoken several times on how wary i am of paizo in this case in particular, and seeing paizo slip from "accidentally backhanded marketing practices" to outright predatory would be a loss for us all.

+1000

especially crusader kings:

paying for having more character portraits!!!

And yes, yes, yes, I don't know what else to say


Igor Horvat wrote:

It rewards spreading your stats around to be allround character.

you can have specialized:

22,20,20,18,12,10.

or balanced:

20,18,18,18,18,16.

That is only if magic items for abilites don't fall from sky :D

Even more:

19/18/18/18/18/18


Aadgarvven wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

It is to balance out races who can't get to an 18 at level 1.

It also helps to encourage more diverse builds. In PF2 there is no stat that you can do "without" you need all of them to function.

Strength - Even if a Dex-to-Damage Rogue or Wizard will help carry things. The Bag of Holding alone won't cut it.

Dexterity - Everyone needs AC and Reflex Save

Constitution - More HP and higher Fort Save

Intelligence - More Skill Bonuses, More Skills.

Wisdom - Will save, Perception, and mostly Initiative.

Charisma - Resonance and Charisma based skills.

-----

Example Paladin:

01: 18/12/10/10/12/16
05: 19/14/12/10/12/18
10: 20/16/14/10/14/18
15: 21/16/16/10/16/19
20: 22/16/18/12/18/20

Example Wizard:

01: 10/16/12/18/12/10
05: 10/18/14/19/14/10
10: 10/19/16/20/16/10
15: 12/20/18/21/16/10
20: 14/20/18/22/18/12

Example Rogue:

01: 10/18/12/10/16/12
05: 10/19/14/10/18/14
10: 12/20/16/10/19/14
15: 12/21/18/10/20/16
20: 14/22/18/12/20/18

etc etc

Well, first please don't take me as I being rude because it's not my intention, but...

Your examples don't proof your statements
The rules don't proof your statements.

I explain: you have said that this encourages diverse builds.
Then you show some examples in which the soft cap don't deter people in buying points above 18.
If soft cap works, it means that you are not buying above 18 because it is suboptimal (indeed I wouldn't buy above 18 especially because as a usual-wizard player, INT is a stupid stat, and I wouldn't increase it above 16 or even 14)

Clarify: if soft cap works it is because you don't buy 20 or 22.
If you still buy it, you are simply being penalized.

So: soft cap "completely" working means exactly that you don't buy 20, so you don't raise above 18.
A player that wants to avoid soft cap would end with 5 18's and one 16's. Making this the less divers stat builds ever in the history of RPG.

If you want to prove it you should compare a character with and a player withou...

Sorry, wrong, it is even worse:

19/18/18/18/18/18


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

It is to balance out races who can't get to an 18 at level 1.

It also helps to encourage more diverse builds. In PF2 there is no stat that you can do "without" you need all of them to function.

Strength - Even if a Dex-to-Damage Rogue or Wizard will help carry things. The Bag of Holding alone won't cut it.

Dexterity - Everyone needs AC and Reflex Save

Constitution - More HP and higher Fort Save

Intelligence - More Skill Bonuses, More Skills.

Wisdom - Will save, Perception, and mostly Initiative.

Charisma - Resonance and Charisma based skills.

-----

Example Paladin:

01: 18/12/10/10/12/16
05: 19/14/12/10/12/18
10: 20/16/14/10/14/18
15: 21/16/16/10/16/19
20: 22/16/18/12/18/20

Example Wizard:

01: 10/16/12/18/12/10
05: 10/18/14/19/14/10
10: 10/19/16/20/16/10
15: 12/20/18/21/16/10
20: 14/20/18/22/18/12

Example Rogue:

01: 10/18/12/10/16/12
05: 10/19/14/10/18/14
10: 12/20/16/10/19/14
15: 12/21/18/10/20/16
20: 14/22/18/12/20/18

etc etc

Well, first please don't take me as I being rude because it's not my intention, but...

Your examples don't proof your statements
The rules don't proof your statements.

I explain: you have said that this encourages diverse builds.
Then you show some examples in which the soft cap don't deter people in buying points above 18.
If soft cap works, it means that you are not buying above 18 because it is suboptimal (indeed I wouldn't buy above 18 especially because as a usual-wizard player, INT is a stupid stat, and I wouldn't increase it above 16 or even 14)

Clarify: if soft cap works it is because you don't buy 20 or 22.
If you still buy it, you are simply being penalized.

So: soft cap "completely" working means exactly that you don't buy 20, so you don't raise above 18.
A player that wants to avoid soft cap would end with 5 18's and one 16's. Making this the less divers stat builds ever in the history of RPG.

If you want to prove it you should compare a character with and a player withou softcap, that would be changing 22's to 26's and 20's to 22's
What is the difference between "your" characters in soft cap and no cap. Well, the difference is that the soft cap players are less powerful and less specialized (not having so high attributes)

Now, make the difference between a character without soft cap (the ones you have written but with 22 and 26), and a player who has been scared out of >18's by soft cap, this is one player that has distributed its increases in order to avoid >18s (18,18,18,18,18,16)

the comparison with both shows:
no soft cap, are specialized and diverse
soft cap not working, are the same as no soft cap, but less powerful
soft cap working, all the players are almost the same (choose your 16 obviously INT)

TL;DR: soft cap may result in two different strategies:
1- I don't care => less powerful builds
2- I care => the same build for all characters

with all the variations in the middle.
sorry you are wrong


AndIMustMask wrote:
nobody wants to play a videogame that is released both incomplete and that you have to pay full purchase price multiple times to actually play.

I don't like that either, but I have bad news for you.

this is exactly the way videogames are sold right now.

Main game, then patches, then DLC (that makes more money to the company than the initial Vanilla game.


By the way, could you do this same with Ancestries (Races)?

Please, please, please, please, please, you have been very successful with this thread.

Take my vote for construct (warforged or similar)


dnoisette wrote:

Most recent results are:

Classes that need to be revisited before launch

Alchemist - 2 votes
Paladin - 2 votes
Ranger - 1 vote
Wizard - 1 vote

Full classes - 1st choice

Gunslinger - 2 votes
Inquisitor - 1 vote
Investigator - 2 votes
Kineticist - 5 votes
Mesmerist - 1 vote
Occultist - 3 votes
Oracle - 2 votes
Shaman - 1 vote
Summoner - 7 votes
Swashbuckler - 1 vote
Witch - 9 votes

Full classes - 2nd choice

Inquisitor - 2 votes
Magus - 1 vote
Oracle - 1 vote
Rogue - 1 vote
Shaman - 1 vote
Witch - 1 vote

Archetypes

Eldritch Archer - 1 vote
Spell Sage - 1 vote

Templates

Commoner - 1 vote
Expert - 1 vote
Monsters templates (young, giant, etc.) - 1 vote

The original question was:
If you could only pick one class to add to the core rulebook for release, which would it be?

So far, top 3 answers are the following (1st choices only):

1) Witch - 9 votes
2) Summoner - 7 votes
3) Kineticist - 5 votes

sorry, in my previous post I let my disenchantment run too far.

Get me in the gunslinger, but cooler

And I think this is a great thread, thank you very much, and hope developers pay attention to this thread


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UncleG wrote:

I'v been doing this for 45 years, and I've found that if a character is a game breaker it's because the GM isn't doing his job.

Most spell casters have half, or less, the hit points and significantly lower AC than the worst non-caster in the party. Enemies tend to target the "magiky looking guy" first, result, dead caster. A GM doing his job can reign in even the most powerful character (notice I didn't say just wizard) with a few simple decisions, yet most are fine with the 4th level fighter doing 50+ points of damage per round while complaining about a 1d4+1 auto hit magic missile.

And the other way around, PC almost always targeted first the enemy spellcaster, three main reasons:

less AC & HP, thus easier to weaken the enemy
decisive spells, that could change the tide of the battle
casters as archers can reach anyone, if you kill them, you can shield your weaker characters.


dnoisette wrote:

...to add to the core rulebook for release, which would it be?

Some folk, in another thread that popped up on these forums following Dragon Con, seemed to be in strong disagreement with Paizo staff's statement that Witches should be added "sooner rather than later".

This got me curious as to which class specifically everyone might be missing the most from the core rulebook.

Which class would you like to make the cut and end up in the core rulebook or be released fast when 2.0 becomes an official thing?

For me, it would be the Summoner.

Not because it used to be overpowered, but rather because I had a blast with this class, playing it and DMing for players who rolled Summoners.

Quick backstory here to really drive home the "I don't want them to be OP" statement: I never played the original Summoner.

My DM would ban the class because he deemed it unbalanced and I, as a player, was perfectly fine with it, though I would allow it in my own games and never found them to be especially hard to deal with (not harder than any other competent martial character at low levels and not harder than any other spellcaster at higher levels).

When the Unchained rules came out, my DM took a look at them, knowing full well I was dying to play as a Summoner, and said he would be OK giving it a go.
He never went back on this because he found the class to be more balanced and I finally got to test the Summoner.
It quickly became my favorite class to play.

Here's why: I love pet builds.
I had been playing as a Druid and Sylvan Sorcerer before so I had my own animal companion but the Summoner's eidolon was something else entirely.

First, it felt like an organic part of the class and my build, not something I had in addition to my other powers and base theme.

But the real selling point, for me, was the customization options for this fantasy creature.

I could have my eidolon be a fiery elemental in the shape of a dragon, a terrifying shadow that looked like a beast of ill-omen, even a...

Wizard, it's a shame they forgot to include it. IMHO, of course


Midnightoker wrote:

I'd indeed also like some kind of tie in with skills and intelligence.

The trick is how do you give skills away without allowing INT based classes to then dominate the skill game? Because of all the classes Wizards deserve the least number of skills (Alchemist has a lot in 1E and as is so maybe they're fine)

I think one skill increase every two levels is too few and all classes should be given a base value which then can be adjusted to suit:

- wizard - 1 + INT
- fighter - 4 + INT
- Cleric - 2 + INT

In conjunction with this, you'd want to make Master and Legendary skill increases cost 2 instead of just 1. This allows breadth of skill without people becoming overly specialized.

I'd also say you can only increase a skills proficiency one step at levels these increases occur (i.e. You can't go from trained to master or untrained to expert)

It would also help with the issues skills suffer from right now anyways and might make Signature Skills (albeit still allowing you to gain unconventional SS from a feat or background needs to be added) a little more reasonable to limit INT based classes from grabbing a bunch of skills they shouldn't be good at. When skills are plentiful, role protection is going to become a little more important.

These are all just theories, but if INT gets tied to skills some things would need to be adjusted, so why not address a few other concerns people have with the skill system, as there seem to be quite a few.

We could also give wizards -2 skills


4 people marked this as a favorite.

They have nerfed casters


8 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Brain wrote:
I have only read the cantrips and 1st level spells and I generally agree with your conclusions. Only exception is that I think burning hands is one of the best AOE damage spells. It has the same damage as the 3rd level fireball but on a smaller area.

It deals 2d6 at first level and 6d6 at third level... it is literally a worse Fireball. So not sure why that makes it better for you.

Malthraz wrote:

Doing an analysis of PFe2 compared to PFe2 spells is pretty pointless.

If you actually want to make a convincing argument you need to do a comparison between the capabilities of the different classes of PFe2.

I also think your are totally wrong about blasting. But I have not had the time to do a detailed analysis.

It's basically impossible to expect that from people who come from First Edition. Seriously, tell me, if one likes casters in PF1E, what argument does anybody here who likes PF2E have to convince them to like that their favorite classes got nerfed in about every respect? "But muh balance!" is a pretty poor argument to create excitement in that situation, isn't it?

Also, mathematically blasting is 100% assuredly much worse off in PF2E than in PF1E, where you could build an excellent blaster with the core rules alone (Spell Perfection from the APG helped a bit, though). You have much worse chances to make an enemy fail its save and the damage is also mathematically much worse than in the first edition.

This is exactly my comment,

What is the appeal for someone who has played arcane spell casters in PF1?

Oh you will be doing less things and less powerful, but we have increased your skill points.
Less spells, yes but your companions will hit more, isn't it great?
I want to do this, well 50% opportunity, but: if you are a nice guy, you just buff the fighter and he will have more fun!
Isn't it great!


edduardco wrote:

When the first blogs were presented I was very exited about PF2 and still think some of the changes to the core system are very good improvements, but later blogs diminished my enthusiasm, specially the ones concerned with magic, and frankly some were quite disappointing. Now that I have been able to read the complete systems involved I must said the disappointment on how magic is being handle in PF2 has only increased.

I will list the parts which I disagree with the direction taken and propose a design I will prefer.

  • Prepared spellcasting Prepared casting can be quite unfun and is really difficult for new players.
    I think arcanist style should be used instead.

  • Spontaneous heightening Spontaneous casting already has a very hard limiting factor in spells known, the limit on heightening on spontaneous caster doubles down on it.
    Spontaneous heightening should be free, I think it will be balanced with Arcanist style for prepared caster as long as spontaneous caster gain enough spells known.

  • Spell disruption Is ridiculous easy to disrupt spells, that damage equal to level is enough to disrupt spells without offering any opportunity to the caster doesn't seem fair.
    There should be Spell Roll vs damage dealt to prevent disruption.

  • Rarity Lots of staple spells are uncommon which is quite disappointing in itself, but frankly, I think games should aim to remove GM Fiat as much as possible, not increase it.
    This needs to disappear completely.

  • Rods I don't know if Rods are just absent from the playtest or removed from the game, but I suspect the later.
    Bring Rods back, specially Metamagic Rods.

  • Staves Staves are quite taxing to use, from what I have read is the only held item that require investment, it cause that nobody else could use the Staff for a day, and depending on the level is the charges it gets.
    Remove investing and charges from Staves, Resonance should be the only cap for activations.

  • Wands level
...

choose a system where you can use magic.

I am almost decided to do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Systems Agnostic wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I like to play casters. I think that they need to be weakened from PF1.

It's not about caster players vs martial players, each side wanting to boost their own favorites and weaken the other side's. It's about wanting a better balance between them.
Some certainly disagree about the problem and where the balance should be, but I still don't see it the way you describe it.
TheJeff gets it. Aadgarven talkin' 'bout how HE is less powerful now is, apparently, playing a very different game than I am, one where he is personally wounded by better character balance, and one where his individual need to feel powerful is more important than everyone at the table feeling like they have a fair shot at contributing to the fun.

Hey personal it's funnier, isn't it?

Look at my posts, I enjoyed PF1 even though I was had the lower DPR, I cast most spells for buffing, yes buffing others so they are better.

I really enjoy helping others fight better and then step aside.

But if want to play a spell caster is because .....
I want to cast spells!!!!, surprise eh!

If the developers think that PF2 spellcasters will be more appealing, well not to me at least.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord_Malkov wrote:
...

I think you are totally correct here.

The differences are smaller, I think that was the intention, so it is that per design. Why then would I choose a class if the difference is then very small (or smaller than before).

By the way, to further agree with your points, spells have been reduced in time and power. Intelligence is not a thing anymore, and many other things.

So in fact the mid-level wizard you said with full plate, no spell failure and a 16 in strength is not only possible but playable, yes a mid fighter will have 20 STR, but that's not a lot of difference.

In the end, once again, the objective was to reduce differences between the characters, so that everyone could make the stealth checks and pass perception.

Maybe I am old school here, but I'd rather send the rogue to scout (with an invisibility from the wizard), use the cleric to keep the undead at bay, have the fighter (with haste from the wizard) to kill the monster and have the wizard to read the runes.

In the new game the probability of the full plate fighter of sneaking past, the cleric to hit the Big Bad, the rogue to read the runes, and the wizard of blocking the undead is big, even at high levels.

I like the first option, much much more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord_Malkov wrote:
Bobson wrote:
Lord_Malkov wrote:

Personally, my main gripe is that the +1/lvl very rapidly diminishes things like proficiency bonuses, ability scores etc. Just mathematically,these flat bonuses inevitably shrink in comparison to one's flat level bonus.

And since these are the things that come from character choices in class,feats, etc. the system actually diminishes the sense that a player has made meaningful choices along the way.

The level bonus makes other bonuses numerically a smaller percentage, but since everything (except static DCs) scales at the same rate, the fighter having +3 on attacks on top of his level will still be 15% better at everything than the wizard with +0.

If monsters didn't scale the same, then it'd matter. But since you get the exact same results from an equal-level encounter regardless of whether everything has +level or not, it doesn't end up mattering that the +level becomes a larger single bonus than everything else.

That is why I said that it diminishes the "sense" that meaningful choices have been made. Devoting everything you've got (ie class levels, feats etc.) to be the worlds greatest swordsman should separate you more from those who do not. Perhaps, mechanically this is enough at +3, but it doesn't feel good (to me). Its actually good, in my opinion, for players to feel that there is something their group really counts on them for, because they are really far superior at it (ie more than having an extra +1 to a check in system with a variance of 1-20 as the starting point). It offers a role to play which is supported by the mechanics. Some don't care about this, and more power to 'em.

The previous gaps between characters grew immensely over levels. Probably way too much. But now the single largest contributor to any regular (i.e. non-magical) check is a bonus that everyone gets.

And this goes for skills and martial combat and everything... exceeept spellcasting.

This is an issue for me now, where it...

I can't agree more.

I usually spellcasters and I am in a heated debate in another forum because I want more spells for the casters.

What I don't want is to have more combat statistics, let the fighters shine there! But not only because they have a +5, but because they can do some amazing deeds locked behind feats and special abilities like raging.

I would be far happier having d4 hitpoints per level, and less AC and attack.

We are making everyone in the same level similar so where is the customization and specialization.
For those that are comparing, they forget that being +1 is not being better, it is being better 5% times. So unless you get to a +5 or something, it will not make that much difference. A 20 wizard could use similar movements than the fighter, and they will need since they will get fewer spells.

I know my posts are too long, but I want to add this:

Take a note to the class with more fans and the ones with more discussions.
Having a special feature that no one else has is always cool, and it doesn't hurt anyone.
Barbarian: rage, cool! it was an instantaneous success.
Alchemist: bombs, cool! fun for everyone, they say it is inferior, but still everyone wants to try.
Druids: wildshape, it is cool and has a lot of ways to use it.

on the other hand:
fighter what does it has? more feats? feats that almost anyone can get? please give them some combat manouvers or like that, and power points to use them.
Gunslingers, seemed really cool and they have this grit, but all they do is more damage besides anyone can make a gun work.

Really, make the differences based on cool stuff - some of them specifics to class - and not in numbers.


Mergy wrote:

Something to take note of: as it is currently, a lot of level 0 creatures have very high attack scores, and summon monster I lasts a full minute now. At low levels you could stretch those few spell slots by getting something with the same attack score as a fighter (less damage of course) and keep it going for 10 rounds of concentration. At high levels you're going to have plenty of spell slots anyway.

I've also noticed that the DCs of your 1st and 5th level spells are exactly the same, so that grease spell actually always stays relevant.

Thee duration of summon monster now makes sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Aadgarvven wrote:


"Spell casters have been reduced in power from PF1 (that is a clear and explicit design goal)"
I think this should be a warning to all spellcaster players: hey some of the "martials" have lobbied and now your characters will be less powerfull. This enough to give it a thought, so part of the design is to reduce my beloved characters:
Why should I play it? Why? I just want to get back to PF1 because I was better.

It's so weird to me to think of "spellcaster players" vs "martials". I like and play both. Nearly everyone I've played with regularly over the years plays both. The idea of some conflict between types of players where the martial side has gained an advantage and weakened the caster players is just foreign to me.

Indeed it is I have never had it before I came here and I started reading all this "NERF THE CASTER" outcry.

Take a read through the posts, and look at all the posts about, hey reduce the power of the casters, reduce the number of spells, they got I lot of interesting spells to cast, give them less options.

Luckily I got my friends to play but pathfinder is becoming less an option for the diminished reward in playing a wizard. But what I can tell you is that I am not going to join a PFS or something similar because of the animosity shown in this forum towards caster characters.


HWalsh wrote:
Aadgarvven wrote:
And you hit bullseye here: some casters in PF1 wasted spells because they wanted to do something. I can tell you I was one of them, to feel I was part of something, that feeling will be gone now, that all I can ever do now in PF2 is "Ray of frost", ray of frost (I move away), ray of frost.

Hyperbole.

You have spells, maybe not as many, but you can do a lot more than just cast Ray of Frost.

You have 3 spells, counting draining your arcane focus, at first level and unlimited use of Cantrips. This includes things like Shield, Acid Splash, and Ray of Frost.

You can use weapons (a novel concept) and you get class, skill, and general feats just like everyone else. You are, by far, not unable to use magic.

By 5th level you have 3/3/2 spells per day, 4/4/3 spells per day as a specialist, and can drain your arcane focus for 1 additional spell per day (or if a Universalist you can drain it for 1 additional spell per day, per spell level, also giving you effectively 4/4/3).

Sure, you won't be ending fights in one spell anymore. You will need other players to support you. That is why you have other players.

If you think this is bad you would have died if you ever tried to play 2nd Edition AD&D.

You know how many spells we had back then?
At level 1? You had 1. You didn't get extra spell slots or anything. You have 1 spell and you had better darn sure save it for when it was needed.

By level 5? You have 3/2/1

That was it. No more, no less. AND WE WERE GRATEFUL!

*Wanders off grumbling about kids today.*

Okay: Hiperbole, well I went to the other end, but using hyperbole is hyperbolic, ironically.

This is what I said in other posts, they have reduced the spell power of the wizard (and other casters) and increased combat abilities (which is exactly what I/and many like me don't want) I play casters (when I do) to cast spells. If I want to mix it with combat, I would choose other specialities.
Cantrip is the solution they found so that you don't run out of spells and I find it quite unappealing.

Playing AD&D2, yes I did quite a few times, and the player's options spellcasting method of fatigue was the best ever in D&D, I remember one of the DM saying, but... you may end casting less spells, and I was, yes, but it will be worthy it will be caothic and it will be manageable, perfect. I was DM for another group and the wizard guy was even happier than me.

Back in AD&D2, spells were meaningful, fewer but meaningful, I ended one fight using an enlarge on a boat, the boat became larger and the kraken couldn't get us anymore.

And about finishing spells or doing damage you are getting (at least) me completely wrong. I am totally ok with no killing anyone or just an idea, give me a wizard that has twice the level of spells but couldn't cast on combat for reasons. I would choose it every day.
0DPR and double spells, perfect.
Indeed, I did never killed a single guy on my own (apart of minions) and that includes casting a maximized (I am awful with the dice) empowered disintegrate, cast against an undead cleric (I was l21 or the like).

As I said before, half of my spells are usually used in buffing my colleagues, and utilities, not on damage, because this why there are other players that do it better than me.

We could go on and talk how D&D3 spells sucked for limiting most uses of spells, like reduce to reduce person, what is that, I can no longer kill a person by reducing the key stone of a bridge?

From 20 years till now, everytime the direction seems to be to make the game more Diablo, and less out-of-the-box, reduce the work of the DM and give the player less options, wizards are hit, but others as well.


Hargert wrote:
I am afraid that in an effort to stop the dreaded power gamer that the average caster is going to be less than fun to play. Will find out once I get a chance this weekend to play one.

100% on target


Mergy wrote:

The bards, clerics, druids, and even the sorcerers and wizards can also fall back on weapons if they want to conserve spell slots. Everyone attacks with their level + stat as bonus now, so there's nothing stopping the elf wizard with some weapon familiarity ancestry from picking up a magic weapon and hitting with it. The longbow is actually perfect for this because of its 1+ hand requirement.

At high levels, if the wizard really wants to conserve spell slots, he can use dragon form which lasts a minute and gives attack and damage regardless of how much investment he's put into strength.

That is an Idea, but, have you ever used a wizard or sorceror in melee?

I did it once I was tired of the caster and didn't enjoy the game.

He lasted one round, one round and it was level 14 or something, two hits from a martial, one of them a critical and my wizard was over.

You are right that the rules now allow this, but it is exactly what the spellcaster players don't want, I want to cast spells, spells, if I wanted to use a longbow I would have made a fighter.

The problem (I wrote a post yesterday about that) is that they are taking from wizards, sorcerors and druids what they like and giving them what they do not want.

Taking: Fewer spells, less powerful, shorter in duration, concentration issues, resonance for magic items.

Adding: +Attack, +AC, what for? Two spells for round, exactly to run out of spells in three rounds.

Nice cool things: persistent spell, I like the flavour, for me it could make the same or less damage but it makes sense
4 levels of damage, this is a good idea (still bad implemented) but it can make some spells useful, otherwise, having 8 spells per day, casting one to dominate some monster that has SR and a will save it is a waste of a slot.
Metamagic directly, yes this is good and an upgrade, maybe the only one.
Only one feat to create magic items, this was obvious, since it was pretty stupid to burn a feat to creat rings you could buy, and staff it was hands down idiotic.

this is the edition of nerf the casters and goal accomplished!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:

Um, am I missing something?

Sure, the spell casters have less spells than in PF1.

But not cripplingly so,

At, say, level 7 they have 3,3,3,2
As opposed to the (base) 4 3 2 1 in PF1
Sure, in PF1 stat boosts would make that
5 4 3 2

11 vs 14 is hardly the end of the world.

Especially when combined with better cantrips to handle the "well, this battle really isn't worth a good spell but I'm bored and want to be able to do SOMETHING" issue (I see lots of spell casters in PF1 basically wasting spells because they want to do SOMETHING even though the battle is already won)

Spell casters have been reduced in power from PF1 (that is a clear and explicit design goal) but to say that they "are now useless" is hyperbole of an extreme nature

I think you are right in almost everything. And what is hard for me is one of your last sentences:

"Spell casters have been reduced in power from PF1 (that is a clear and explicit design goal)"
I think this should be a warning to all spellcaster players: hey some of the "martials" have lobbied and now your characters will be less powerfull. This enough to give it a thought, so part of the design is to reduce my beloved characters:
Why should I play it? Why? I just want to get back to PF1 because I was better.
Additionally, they could have managed to keep options, like more spells but less powerful or something like that (like in D&D5) but now, the idea is to have fewer spells and less powerful. So fewer options and less relevant. Isn't it exciting?

One thing your wrong is when you add the bonus (I had a wizard built on high intelligence - not maximized because it also had a starting 18 in wis so no optimized) and by level 8 he had like INT 30, that gives 3/2/2/2 more spells almost as much as the current maximum.
And besides you are not taking into account the "spell tax" of buffing and utilities (not "tax" for me because I loved it) but adding endure, knock, fly, haste, detect undead and other similar spells, took me like 2spells/level. Keeping that rate (not too high) that would be half your spells just to do your job which is to find some magic, buff and protect, in PF2 we would have like half of our spells already locked.

So now you are a wizard, you have fewer spells per level (and they do less), besides some cool effects have been eliminated just for what? You choose your spells for the day even though you don't know what you will face. Then during combat you don't know whether to used it because you don't know how many encounters you will have and how long will they take.

Already in PF1 I spent most of the time idling during combats (maybe DM had a lot to do with that). But here it seems the specific intention that to please some "martials" casters should be cross-armed waiting for others to have fun because if we cast a spell then the fun is gon.

And you hit bullseye here: some casters in PF1 wasted spells because they wanted to do something. I can tell you I was one of them, to feel I was part of something, that feeling will be gone now, that all I can ever do now in PF2 is "Ray of frost", ray of frost (I move away), ray of frost.


WatersLethe wrote:

I think Fighters would be served well by expanding on their out of combat potential.

Giving them more skills will go a long way, but I'd like it if they had abilities unique to themselves.

Things like the ability to determine any creature's AC with a glance. Or to know what reactions a creature has access to. It fits the Fighter's theme of being a perceptive combat expert, and provides valuable out of combat info. "Woah, did you notice that guy is really light on his feat? I don't know if I could land a hit on him. Who is he?" or "I get the feeling we wouldn't want to try to run past that guard, he looks like the type with combat reflexes and he'll take a swing at us."

This, this, is excellent!

I always used sense motive for this, (as DM) fighters could geth the fighting prowesses of others, AC, HP, DPR, Attack Bonus, Saves.

You could as well have some feat added, but I like this, but what some martial players want is to have something to say in other areas of the game (well rogues do and they are great) but maybe more social abilities.

but what most martial players don't understand is that they are the best in combat by far, really, it is extremely difficult to play a caster (especially a wizard) in a fight.

magic items in PF1 and 3.5 helped this, I think that most martial players didn't realize the power of some magic items like hat of disguise, boots of flying, ring of invisibility, cloack of arachnida. The problem is that everyone focused on having a +5 sword and +5 armor, and you can't get everything!


Xenocrat wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

The 20th level feat that grants access to 10th level spells needs language that eliminates the need for a check, as there is only one chance ever to make that check for a spell that can be learned only at 20th level.

I don't think they have much sympathy for the character who doesn't get extra (past the two guaranteed) 10th level spells. Pobrecitas!

Pobrecitos!

;-)


UncleG wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
It's a balancing tool for Wizards (and Quick Preparation), you can't have every spell you want unless you get lucky die rolls or take the feat or wait until you're overleveled to backfill your spellbook at lower spell levels.
Balancing what? Wizards already get the lowest ht points, lowest skills, no useful armor. H*^^ they don't even get the same benefits as other spellcasters(divine). I ive the same advice to all my players, if you playu a wizard roll a 3rd level character right off, if you don't you won't last long.

Don't forget saves!

Okay, my feeling in this, is that they tried to increase the "power" of the wizard at lower levels and decrease at higher levels.
Which is exactly the opposite that I want and that all wizard players I know (not many really) want.

They increased the AC and attack of wizards, eliminated the armor spell failure, provide a level 0 for hitpoints. Some I like and some I don't, but they are taking away from spell casters the thing we wanted more: casting spells!!!!

Their idea is supposedly that you need to be on the back and cast one (1) spell and pray for it to succeed.

Give me my spells back, I would gladly go back to 4hp per level in exchange of more spells/level or at least using intelligence to get more spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Red Griffyn wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Red Griffyn wrote:
By definition they will be able to create effects equivalent to or more powerful than what a mundane application of skill can achieve.

There's no "definition" that says this is true. PF is a game. The rules are entirely contrived.

Quote:
What YOU want is a 'low-magic' game.

Incorrect. What I want is a game where casters don't dominate all aspects of it, you now...iike P1? Paizo admitted the M/C disparity was a problem. Have you admitted it?

The problem with spells is not their effectiveness, it's that casters get access to spells that cover the gamut of nearly everything you can do in the game. I'm fine with casters being powerful at what they can do. The problem is they can do it all. Martials have to pick a fighting style. They have to go two-handed, or two-weapon, or sword and board. Then they have to pick feats and are stuck with that choice. Is a wizard stuck with just blasting? With just utility? With just transfiguration? Why isn't a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian a master of all combat styles?

This version of Pathfinder has nerfed combat bonuses so now, Figters are have must marginally higher to hit bonuses. Did Fighters get spells that are just marginally worse than a Wizards? No. Did we get feats that cover all the bases of spells? No.

Look, you can deny the reality of it all you want. The question is whether the game suffers because of the lack of balance. Time will tell.

Have you read the spell section of the 2e play-test core rules book? You are wrong on what the writers think magic can achieve. ** spoiler omitted **...

While I agree with your comments, and even more with your tone, I think there is one thing you are partially wrong:

Casters have been nerfed: This is partially incorrect, due to two reasons:
First nerf is when something needs fixing, and this was not the case.
Second is that casters have their power reduce, this is true, but only on magic: Casters have received better attack, AC and Hitpoints, something that most caster players like me don't want at all!!!!

What I am really worried is the general attitude of this forum:
NERF THE CASTERS!
NERF THE CASTERS!
There is nothing appealing on the casters from 1 to 2. Less spells, everyone gets skills save wizards, some saves are improved, not wizards, spell list has been reduced. It is a nightmare!!!

And a lot of people are clapping and cheerin, sincerely I don't know if I want to play if this is the general attitude of the players.


Xenocrat wrote:

Offensive cantrips will suffer if you don't invest in Dex to hit (most of them), or Int for the save (Electric Arc).

If you're going for this build you want to fill up your slots with True Strike and use Magical Striker feat.

You seem to be always trying to help. Thank you very much.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

It is always interesting to me to see folks try to divine design intent based on output. In many ways, there are a number of valid points here that went into the decision to add level to proficiency (besides the obvious that most characters did this in 1st ed to specific parts of their stats, which helps maintain the same game feel).

While I am not going to specifically validate or invalidate any ideas posted here, I will go on to add the following..

It gives us design space on the monster side of the equation.

A ogre is a very serious, if not deadly challenge at 1st level, a common foe at 3rd/4th, and a chump minion at 7th. This is very useful to us from a narrative sense as it gives characters a better understanding of their journey in the world and as a marker of their accomplishments.

Like most of our design calls, there are mechanical reasons and narrative reasons. This one is all across the board and might serve as a good topic for one of our upcoming twitch streams.

Hope that helps shed a bit of light on the issue

Thank you for taking the time and effort to answer, we could say it is your job, but I am thankful anyway that you listen to our critics, even the less rational of them.


MerlinCross wrote:
Scythia wrote:
For me, the plus is what happens when the Fighter attacks. Because of the level bonus and degrees of success measuring 10 over as a crit, the Fighter isn't only untouchable, they're also unstoppable by the ghouls. If we place the Fighter at the town gate, the Fighter can hold back an army of ghouls and save the town. That's something I see as suitable for a lv 20 character.

Suitable, probably. But all the time? It probably depends on your characters and probably your players far more.

Some players would love to carve up an army of ghouls that can't do anything. Others would frown on the idea of being basically immune to the point of just not needing to play.

To change your example a bit, say it's ghouls attacking a dwarven village and the only way is through a door. Level 20 dwarf fighter can just sit there in the door and pass turns till the end of time.

There's no desperate last stand, no "Go I'll hold them off", not even a "I'll buy some time and fall back". The fighter doesn't need to do anything but just stand in the way.

Now in the example, we can discuss that the threat/danger/pathos of the scene/event is that the ghouls will go around the fighter a different way to get the villagers. But the fighter has no personal danger to worry about until something that is X level shows up.

That's not to say PF1 didn't have this issue either after a certain point but you could still eat a crit I believe. I suppose you can still maybe eat crits in PF2 if they are 20.

Well, I agree with you, let me explain it otherwise.

I want a 20L Fighter to stop an Orc Horde, but I don't want him/her to success whatever he/she does. I want him to earn it. To use his skills, to not just a 20+ bonus to hit and to AC.
I want him to use high level skills or feats, maybe cleave or whirlwind attack, or enemy shield (using the enemy as shields).

In 3.5 I killed a whole horde of orcs (well, half of it), I was a 24th level wizard, but I had to design an epic spell to kill'em all. It took me like 5 days IRL.
But why would a fighter do the same just throwing dice after dice. What do you do? I attack the orc - dice roll.


nightpanda2810 wrote:

Each time you gain a level, you automatically add two more arcane spells to your spellbook. These can be of any level of spell you can cast. You can also use the Arcana skill to add other spells that you find, as described on page 146.

Under Spellbook on page 137.

The learning a new spell activity is only for learning new spells outside of your free ones from leveling up.

Exactly, that's one of the reason for my advice on wizards 2e:

Forget Intelligence, raise char instead


xris wrote:

In general, with a few exceptions, no matter what class or ancestry you want, you can obtain the following Ability Scores

18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 (if the race has a Flaw) or
18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 (if the race doesn't have a Flaw, i.e. Human ancestry).

You might have to limit your choice of Background to obtain the required combination of Ability Boosts but even then, there are at least 6 of the 19 Backgrounds that will give you the right combination of fixed and free Ability Boosts, no matter what class or race you select.

The only time you can't obtain a 18 in the Ability Score you want, is when your Ancestry Flaw coincides with the Ability you want to achieve 18 in. This is assuming you want to obtain 18 in the Class's Key Ability.

It's not possible to obtain two 18 Ability Scores, the best you can do is an 18 and a 16. It's also possible to get 16, 16, 16 as an alternate to 18, 16, 14. Note: this isn't a complaint, it's just an observation.

It just seems that no matter what class or race combination you want, with very little effort or sacrifice, you end up with the same 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 score (or 18,16,12,12,10,10 for humans).

There are plenty of other combinations as well but if you want to try and concentrate to get high Ability Scores then the single 18 is the best that's possible (without relying on lucky dice throws). I would think a lot of players would try and optimize a build such they get as high a score as possible in one favoured score and so on down. It seems way too easy to obtain this.

Seems rather boring to me. Very little to decide, very little give or take. That, plus the fact that you only gain one Ancestry Feat at 1st level, it makes all the class / race combinations rather similar and dull (for want of a better word). They all seem painted from the same brush, no long term / short term trade offs.

So as long as your Dwarf doesn't want to be a Bard or Sorcerer, your Gnomes and Halflings don't want to be Barbarians of Paladins, or your Goblin doesn't...

I think this is a good post.

This is only for first level and it seems there are three possibilities. Now could you be so kind to do this with levels, because i think the +2 to four abilities will make the stats even more similar.


shroudb wrote:
Aadgarvven wrote:
shroudb wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
A big advantage of Sorc, is that atm Cha >>> Int

As I mentioned in another thread that is specifically about spontaneous heightening: Wizards can have 16 CHA if they really want to. So the sorcerer bonus can be as little as +1 at 1st level, +0 at 5th level, +1 at 10th level, +0 at 15th level and +1 at 20th level.

Also before you bring up multiclassing for extra spell slots: Wizards can do the same thing (and are in fact more rewarded for the investment).

A wizard can. But a sorc doesn't need more than 10int.

So those 6 points are going to con, wis and dex, bringing it higher than wiz that goes to 16 Cha.

I agree, but, why does a wizard need inteligence now?

Why does anyone need intelligence now?

2e is the dump intelligence nerf the wizard (and sorceror) edition

A Wizard needs int for his class dc which is his spell dc. A sorc, doesn't. And his cha provides at least a usable bonus (more casts out of a staff)

I know, I was just exaggerating, but anyway.

Intelligence now doesn't get you more spells, it adds to 3 skills (one not signature for the wizard).
Sincerely, compare un 18 INT wizard with a 10 INT wizard, and now do it again in Pathfinder 1e.

I am not joking when I say that if I ever play a wizard in 2e, INT will not be the highest attribute.


Lord_Malkov wrote:
Aadgarvven wrote:
Lord_Malkov wrote:

This seems to be the main split on the reception of this rules set.

If you think it makes characters very quickly become far more powerful than enemies that once seemed powerful, you are correct.

If you think its a treadmill, you are also correct.

Personally, my main gripe is that the +1/lvl very rapidly diminishes things like proficiency bonuses, ability scores etc. Just mathematically,these flat bonuses inevitably shrink in comparison to one's flat level bonus.

And since these are the things that come from character choices in class,feats, etc. the system actually diminishes the sense that a player has made meaningful choices along the way.

It can still work, bu they need to tune up the impact of these differentiating factors. Perhaps make Proficiency bonuses double at 5-10-15 etc. Or make them determine your per level scaling entirely, I don't know. But this is the biggest flaw in the system as I see it.

add to this that at some levels FOUR atributes are raised by 2 levels unless above 18, then 1.

Raising your 4 lower abilities is optimizing, you could build 1 over 18, but very few people will raise 2 atributes above 18.
Level 1 characters will be different, with these differences diminishing with level due to the +1/level and the atributes, besides for spellcasters, the low number of spells will make them choose the most effective ones.

My guess is that after 6 months there will be a power build for every archetype, with very few outliers and even them very similar.

I agree, this will lead to further homogenization as players learn to optimize.

There is an argument for making the gap between a character that dedicates no resources to a skill or action type versus a character that has invested as much as possible shrink. I think that it can open up space for more thematic or marginalized archetypes if you can put a hard ceiling on the benefits of min-maxing, while minimizing the cost of un-optimized choices....

agree and more, why does a 20L wizard need a +20 to attack or to defence.

I mean make the fighter the best in combat, the rogue the best in utilities and the wizard (or sorceror) the best in downtime.

The DM is the one that balances the game, not the players or the characters


shroudb wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
A big advantage of Sorc, is that atm Cha >>> Int

As I mentioned in another thread that is specifically about spontaneous heightening: Wizards can have 16 CHA if they really want to. So the sorcerer bonus can be as little as +1 at 1st level, +0 at 5th level, +1 at 10th level, +0 at 15th level and +1 at 20th level.

Also before you bring up multiclassing for extra spell slots: Wizards can do the same thing (and are in fact more rewarded for the investment).

A wizard can. But a sorc doesn't need more than 10int.

So those 6 points are going to con, wis and dex, bringing it higher than wiz that goes to 16 Cha.

I agree, but, why does a wizard need inteligence now?

Why does anyone need intelligence now?

2e is the dump intelligence nerf the wizard (and sorceror) edition


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quijenoth wrote:
Aadgarvven wrote:


add to this that at some levels FOUR atributes are raised by 2 levels unless above 18, then 1.
Raising your 4 lower abilities is optimizing, you could build 1 over 18, but very few people will raise 2 atributes above 18.
Level 1 characters will be different, with these differences diminishing with level due to the +1/level and the atributes, besides for spellcasters, the low number of spells will make them choose the most effective ones.

My guess is that after 6 months there will be a power build for every archetype, with very few outliers and even them very similar.

That's a good observation. While the idea of limiting ability raises after 18 restricts power creep it also restricts the versatility of some options. I think your right, certain builds will simply overpower others but then for some that's the enjoyment they get from a game.

Over time more rules will release which will change the top 6, then after a while we will be looking at PF3 :)

Perhaps we should only allow attributes to increase by +1 regardless how high they are, or increase it to +2. doesn't really matter which though, the result will be the same. the only difference will be the power gap created by the optimization.

well, thanks, really the one that notice was Lord_Malkov.

Mine was only a minor observation.

The general idea I get is that we all want customization, and my take is that the best way of obtaining this is through feats, powerful feats.

I'd rather have attributes (STR and so on) to have less impact on the combat, well, more impact that current INT, but less impact that in playtest.

Think of it as 4 sources of optimising:
Attributes, feats, magic and skills. Which one do you want to have more impact on the game.
I prefer feats, and well below skills, attributes and then magic.

And they may also contribute to widen the gap between level 1 and 20 (not that I want that, I prefer a smaller gap, but if the gap has to be wide then). What do you prefer?
1 - I am better than you because I am level 20 so I have a +20 in my attack (even wizards! I always play wizard, and I would gladly change that 20 for 2 more spells, I want spells!!)
2 - I am better than you because I have legendary reflexes (+5 initiative), legendary fencer (+1 action per turn), Combat intuition (can guess your attacks because of my combat experience +4 on attack or defence each turn)

I don't know but I want the game to be memorable, not to cast less spells.


Lord_Malkov wrote:

This seems to be the main split on the reception of this rules set.

If you think it makes characters very quickly become far more powerful than enemies that once seemed powerful, you are correct.

If you think its a treadmill, you are also correct.

Personally, my main gripe is that the +1/lvl very rapidly diminishes things like proficiency bonuses, ability scores etc. Just mathematically,these flat bonuses inevitably shrink in comparison to one's flat level bonus.

And since these are the things that come from character choices in class,feats, etc. the system actually diminishes the sense that a player has made meaningful choices along the way.

It can still work, bu they need to tune up the impact of these differentiating factors. Perhaps make Proficiency bonuses double at 5-10-15 etc. Or make them determine your per level scaling entirely, I don't know. But this is the biggest flaw in the system as I see it.

add to this that at some levels FOUR atributes are raised by 2 levels unless above 18, then 1.

Raising your 4 lower abilities is optimizing, you could build 1 over 18, but very few people will raise 2 atributes above 18.
Level 1 characters will be different, with these differences diminishing with level due to the +1/level and the atributes, besides for spellcasters, the low number of spells will make them choose the most effective ones.

My guess is that after 6 months there will be a power build for every archetype, with very few outliers and even them very similar.


Riley Gibbs wrote:

Suppose you're a wizard, and you find some half-plate. Is there a good reason not to put it on? Your proficiency modifier to AC goes down, but this is more than made up for by the +5 item bonus from the half-plate. At all levels, it seems that the proficiency modifier drops by -2, for a net gain of +3 to AC for taking the half-plate.

I don't see any other penalties for characters wearing armor in which they are untrained, including spellcasters. Is this by design, or am I missing something? This is not a complaint, but it's potentially a pretty big change, so I want to make sure I have it right.

I would say yes, but I will go further and challenge the full Pathfinder 2e Wizard.

Unfortunately I don't have much time to test it, but still I would like to see this:

Full armored wizard (heavy plate)
Main attribute: STR
Secondary attribute: CHA + CON
Dump Intelligence (it's worthless anyhow)

Don't buy spells (in the end you don't have that much slots to cast them)
Increase resonance points, use cantrips.

What you think?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

I'm starting to think 'more awesome' is the direction PF2 should have gone. Every new level would allow you to choose a cool new power; no more '+1 to a dice roll under some circumstances'. Allow Druids to turn into monsters that can swallow humans whole. Let Fighters unleash 30-foot cones of destruction with a wave of their swords. Let Rogues run up walls and hide in plain sight. Let Monks use living enemies as throwing weapons. Let Alchemists turn slain foes into flesh golems. Give a Ranger a riding wolf and healing magic from level 1. Give Bards the ability to make their enemies dance themselves to death. Give Barbarians the ability to smash a human-sized hole in a wall rather than waste time picking a lock. Give Paladins the power to purge all evil from foes who surrender. Let Wizards cast twenty spells a day from Level 1.

This wouldn't please everyone, but it would give me an answer next time I'm asked, "Why would I want to play this instead of D&D?"

YES, YES, YES.

I would love to play any of these classes.

Why make them suck?


Dairian wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's honestly kind of cute seeing so many people complain about the caster nerfs. These nerfs were definitely needed with how dominant 9th level casting was in PF1... but then they've been coupled with major nerfs to the martial classes as well, with powerful tools moved much further back and more restricted (I'm looking at you, Spell Sunder). The best class in the playtest is easily the Cleric, and surprise surprise the Wizard falls in line at #2.
Yeah, they were really not needed, IMO. What was needed was moving the martials up to the level of casters in many respects. But I know that it is basically religious dogma for some that casters needed to be nerfed into the ground.

There is a type of "balance" that is clearly lost on paizo.

Balance between TYPES/MOODS OF PLAYERS.

The relative simplicity of martial classes exists to allow more casual gamers ACCESS to the game. The trade off of playing a caster vs a martial class is that PLAYING a caster is more complicated, and requires keeping track of more things.

I generally prefer more complicated characters to play, but once in a while I just want to smash stuff, and not have to think about managing resources, enhancing spells, crafting items etc.

Casters SHOULD be more powerful, because they require a greater investment of time and energy to play.

At least that is how I have always viewed it.

I agree with you.

The sorceror was build for that too.
Also social characters need more effort to play and understand them.

Besides, I don't need to have a leading role in every part of the game. I can't understand why I need to be part of the combat.

I love puzzle solving, preparation
I like social gaming (though bad at it)
I don't care about combat, why can't I just let others take more responsibility in that part of the game?


MerlinCross wrote:
Fallyna wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I actually like it. I'm really over the whole magic mart setup of 3.5e and would much rather have a single feat the party can invest in and give them sufficient downtime to make their own magic items.

This is one of the biggest draws for me, as I love the idea of a party that can make, repair and upgrade their own gear as needed, rather than relying on the DM to place a 'Christmas list' of their most desired items in random treasure, or for shops to always have exactly what they need in stock.

Only other change I'd like in this area is a way to make Crafting a signature skill for classes that lack it, like Barbarians, most Clerics and Monks.

Possible down side; if the players are allowed to make any item they want, and heck can maybe even easily make custom items later..., why would they like any custom item I give them? Just sell it to make what they really wanted.

That's for later I suppose so let me return to a different argument.

How long of Down time do other GMs usually give out?

I don't know but every time I DMastered, I usually prepare one magical item (or something special) for every player, I can't recall any of my players that didn't love their special magic item.

Sincerely to me it is maybe the best part of DMing, understand the character and building on top of it.

Examples of PC's special items:
1.- White Dragon (baby) for a Viking Paladin, he had to grow the dragon, restrained him, taught him to be good.
2.- Psionic Ice and Fire Axe, he spend one point to turn it into Ice or Fire and three to turn it into Frostbrand or Firebrand
3.- Whacky Dagger (to a rogue) on 20, the Dagger triggered a random power: 1 - Healed the target 2 - Freedom the target 19 - Drain a level 20 - Destroy vs save (if passes 10d6)
4.- Symbiont (like venom) to a rogue, but made of chains: spiked chain + 10 to climb, -4 to wis, protective chain....
5.- Heart of darkness to a master spy (the class sucks): magic jar 4/day; suck memories; feed on soul.
6.- Gurthang (to an archer) evil black sword; no bonuses, if it hits it kills. The player was terribly afraid of the sword (in a crit failure he could get hurt (and killed))
You are the DM, just give them flavour, not bonuses. Bonuses are for computer games.


ENHenry wrote:

I'm more of a fan of the types of gamer as defined in "Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering."

http://www.sjgames.com/robinslaws/

Most gamers seem to have one of these traits as dominant, and one or more of these traits in a secondary capacity. Laws defines them as what gives a certain type of gamer their "emotional kick", and the more you can identify which traits your gamers most enjoy, then targeting parts of your game to satisfy these means you have gamers who are energized and ready to come back.

Power Gamers - those who most enjoy accumulating new abilities, power or influence in-game, and enjoy the chance to flex those in some fashion in-game. (Laws does not use this term in a negative connotation, to the contrary he notes it does not have to mean that the gamer exploits the game to anyone's detriment, and the rewards do not necessarily have to be mechanical ones.)

Tactician - Those who love complex problems or challenging obstacles and enjoy the chance to encounter and beat those problems using the in-game rules to engineer a solution.

Method Actor - Those who enjoy the creative expression that comes with building a character full of quirks, nuances, or internal or external conflicts to force interaction with the other players of NPCs of the world. They enjoy every chance to interact in-character or evolve their character personalities.

Butt-kicker - Those who want to, quoting Duke Nukem, "kick ass and chew bubble gum." They enjoy every chance to flex their abilities and make indelible changes to the world, most often with their fists.

Specialist - Those who make one type of character consistently, one "build" or archetype no matter the setting. Ninja, great-weapon warrior, Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock, etc. They enjoy it most when that archetype's abilities play to perfection.

Storyteller - Those who enjoy most the story itself, its arcs, its conflicts, for the good or ill of their character, as long as it makes a fantastic story. They enjoy it most when the narrative is gripping...

Well, I am a tactician, specialist. But rather out of game solutions.

And I love playing with storytellers and method actors. Well and with butt-kickers if they restrain themselves to 30 minutes.

Well what I love is to use spells to create something "out of the box".

Return of the temple of elemental evil. we were attacked by a kraken while in a raft, I enlarged the raft and we stayed in the middle of the raft. Problem solved.

I hate what happened to the wizard in 2e less spells, spells full of numbers instead of descriptions, powerless spells and spells focused on combat.

Shame!


I am an occasional player (D&D and PF1 especially) for the last 20 years, and in short time I will be playing again.
While I played several characters I have a special fondness for Wizards (Universalists to be specific).

I have had a read-through the Core Rules Book and seen the Wizard, some spells and checked the forums. Though I have an opinion I would first want to hear someone to understand the feel of it.

Compared to PF1: What's better and worse, what's awesome and what's s$*+.

Thank you to all.

EDIT: sorry, could this be moved to classes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shady Stranger wrote:
Aadgarvven wrote:
O. N. wrote:
Shady Stranger wrote:

I really like the Class Dedication feats. They open up a LOT of options.

I wonder how a Wizard with Cleric Dedication would be like? If that's even possible?

Well it should be. "Sure, I like praying to my god for the spells they think I'll need, but it never hurts to try to work it out yourself, you know?"

I would love to know whether a Wizard with Wizard Dedication is possible?

Would I have some decent number of spells?

You can't pick a Dedication feat of the same Class you're playing. :\

Page 279: under MULTICLASS ARCHETYPES wrote:
...You can’t select a multiclass archetype’s dedication feat if you are a member of the class of the same name (for instance, a fighter can’t select the Fighter Dedication feat).

Oh s+$+!

I should know I wouldn't find a loophole in my first try.

Thanks anyway


O. N. wrote:
Shady Stranger wrote:

I really like the Class Dedication feats. They open up a LOT of options.

I wonder how a Wizard with Cleric Dedication would be like? If that's even possible?

Well it should be. "Sure, I like praying to my god for the spells they think I'll need, but it never hurts to try to work it out yourself, you know?"

I would love to know whether a Wizard with Wizard Dedication is possible?

Would I have some decent number of spells?


Warmongerer wrote:

Remember that when converting gp to pp that platinum actually weighs less than gold. By that I mean 5000 gp in platinum weighs even less than one tenth of 5000 gp in gold. You can also have an equal value of silver and it would only weigh 5 not 10 times as much ( because silver is about half the mass of gold per mole). And an equal value in copper coins would only weigh 25 not 100 times as much because copper is about a quarter the mass of gold per mole.

*there is probably not that big of a difference in platinum to gold for most cases. There is only about a one gram difference per mole between the them.

** that one three oz gold coin would weigh approximately 9.5 g which would be about .05 moles of gold.

*** the above assume equal moles of the various metals in each respective coin

wrong: platinum (21450kg/m3) is more dense than gold (19300kg/m3)

silver (10490kg/m3) and copper (8960kg/m3)