Aadgarvven's page

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

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

paying for having more character portraits!!!

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

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...

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

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:

They have nerfed casters

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,

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!

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.

...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 shit!

Thanks anyway