The system is far from being so unbalanced as the OP says. Is a very good system, with a solid math fundation. However, the OP is not alone on thinking that casters where overnerfed. Quite a good number of people thinks similar, just on a lesser scale. I hope that on the GMG could be some options to return some power to casters. I don't think they are unplayable (that seems an exageration on my experience) but while they can contribute to a team, they feel lackluster to me right now.
I agree that knowing the ST of the enemies seems too required to use spells. Of course knowing details of the enemy must be a great help, but should not be required to do anything on changeling encounters.
On the other hand, is true that Level+3 encounters should be quite less usual on PF2 than on PF1. That's a good thing, magic has too many cons on those situations.
Edit: on general, the required information to use magic is excessive. Do you think that enemy was level +1? Too bad, it is level +3, you wasted your spell with Incapacitation. You used a spell of the wrong ST? Now you need a little miracle to do anything useful. Do you like thematic casters (enchanters, one-element-focused, necromancers, etc...)? too bad, you need varied spells to be useful on hard situations.
I don't have access to the books right now to consult, but...Incapacitate makes that this 55-60% miss on the BETTER situation and using the highest slots is a critical success on the ST, not a success. That normally means no effect. That's harsh.
While I get what you mean, targeting the low save, using all possible debuffs and using the higher spell slot, and then get around 40-45%of success, seems to me like is a 55-60% of losing the higher spell slot AND 1-2 turns of preparation. That can hurt. Is clearly a gamble, but Incapacitate robs the reawrd.
And that is one of the main reasons of the change on the maths of the game, and a good thing. But with the current low chance of landing such a spell on PF2, is really necessary also Incapacitate? Seems like overkill to me.
As the rules are, there is no "work out a deal". On a deal both sides participate and have some power on the final result, here all the decision power falls on one side, the DM. I find funny all the talk about having the confidence on the DM to use rarity system well, while players that want uncommon things are presented as whiners. Where is the confidence on the player?
And currently, some characters concepts are so full of uncommon as to barely be playable, like Divination Wizard.
Edit: I find specially problematic the alignment spells case. It seems arbitrary to make some alignment spells the main route to do damage on the Divine casters (looking at Divine lance) and then made so many others uncommon. Either all should be usual spells, or all should be uncommon and take other mechanics as the damage dealing side of Divine spells. The current state made little sense to me.
My problem with rare/uncommon is that, ironically, seems way too common. I would have just used it for strange, unique spells like Blood Money, or some specific ones. Not putting an axe on the ability to get some very iconic spells like Protection. I find that the quantity of "mama, may I?" is too high.
Our sneak peek of the Pathfinder 2E Gamemastery Guide is tomorrow at 4 p.m. Pacific! Have any questions?
I would love to see on this book..
Finally, I know is not for this book, but, is there any idea when will be the non-Good champions? I would really need them for some campaigns.
There are abusive DM. There are abusive players. And there are great players, and great DM. But life is not black and white, there are all kind of grey players and grey DM. Saying "a good DM would not do that" surely is true, but...what about grey DM that is totally against houserules, and have the NO always prepared? That kind of rules would empower that grey DM, approaching it to a bad DM.
A DM has control over the setting, the NPCs, the story...there is one thing the DM can not directly control, and that is the PCs. But that kind of thing, specially for things that previously it was not needed, invades the only thing the players have some control; their characters. "You can give them easily" is still a way for the DM to have extra control over the characters.
When I am the DM (as I said before, more or less half the time)I think about the rules like they where the law physics of the setting. Of course, I have to rule things on the fly, but the less I need to do it, the better. So all this "return power to the DM" on PF2 is one of the parts I like LESS on the game (with the on my opinion overnerf on magic). The laws of reality should not include "ask that person". I find it inelegant.
On the other side, I don't want to seem like a Nayseyer of PF2, I'm liking the system on 90%, and I truly believe that is an improvement from PF1. Is just that those few things I don't like I REALLY don't like.
There may be thing I don't like on PF2 and others I need still be sold, but I think it can be said with safety that is a better game.
+1 to all this. Trust is important on both ways.Just want to make a little note; my personal problem is that some spells that where quite usual and iconic, like Protection, now suddenly are behind a wall. If this has been used for Blood-Money-kind spell, I would be the first to applaud the rule change. But change some very usual spells from "near all casters, at least PC, and many times nPC, use them" to "default, you can not have it", leaves a bad taste on my mouth.
DMs are not divided on Good DM / bad DM. There is a glorious grey scale. And while I'm quite sure I would play quite happily as Max Astro and other people defending current rarity as a DM, the "grey DM" will see the rarity system as a way to say "NO" to many request, and be totally sure the rules are with him, because that is the way they see rarity.
I don't want to be misunderstood; I'm not agaisn't rarity, just versus some of it's examples. I'm not specially happy with it, but not annoyed.
I suppose part of the problem some people have with this is that it may not be seen as a negotation between player and DM, but as a request. On a negotation both parts have some power, while on this case, the final decission on the matter is 100% on the DM side. I can see why some can be not happy with this.
For the record, I'm 50/50 player/DM.
On fact, the one shining example of why I'm not very happy with Rarity is not even a Divination spell. Is Protection. I totally get that something must have been done with that spell, but with the "+1 to Saving Throws, +3 versus control" I think the broken part of the spell is taken care of. Why suddenly one of the most ubiquitous divine spells besides Heal is uncommon?
I like rarity for items, my problems is with spells. No direct way to get them on the rules, and with the very high number of iconic spells that suddenly are rare, I see three problems.
Resume: I would have liked far more rarity if it haven't axed so many iconic spells, or at least where a good on rules way to get them.
Criticism is totally necessary. If a new edition of something you like goes on a direction you don't like, is logic to complain about it.
On general I'm liking 2Ed, but there are things I dislike, and others I have to made a decision still. But I can get why people can come and say "I don't like this change" when something they liked changed. Is NOT a totally unrelated thing to the one they liked, is on theory an evolution and improvement. And while I agree than on general there IS an improvement, I can easily see the reason to complain about some magic changes.
I find harder to understand the people that seems to believe that only positive feedback can be said. Some people have been quite rude to others that just said their opinion on quite polite manners. I even dare to say that developers appreciate to hear different opinions more than an echo chambers of praises.
I'm liking many things on the game. There are others that I don't like, but I can live with them (like the art of the Bestiary). But there is one thing that I MUST houserule from minute one.
That one thing is Goblins getting bonus to CHARISMA.
I'm not a big fan of goblins as core ancestry, there are many others I would have liked more, but the goblin as core is one of those "I can live with that" things. But bonus to Charisma is a resounding NO to me. The question then is...what other attribute to give to them? I find the more thematic to be Constitution, but that would break the rule of 1 mental bonus + 1 physical bonus. The other option could be Intelligence, as I can see the goblins being quite smart on their peculiar way.
If Pathfinder 1 classes are eventually trickled back into second edition, which do you hope return first?
I too feel a bit worried that class feats try to do too much, and the lack of weapon choices on many classes is something I don't like. I'm really a "swordsman" if I'm exactly as good with longswords as I am with axes (just an example).
I think you would like Milani. Is a shame she is not on the core 20.
Matthew Downie example is totally right, and certainly a serious problem for PF1. Saving throws is another glaring case.
That's true. But there is a great difference between "assure succes on a 2 versus same level", and "the best you can arrive is to succes on a 9 versus same level, and that with total optimization".
To be honest, that was the most important thing for me about the monk. Between that and the watered down mysticism on the monk, I'm not particularly happy.
The Barbarian one mention the lack of restriction? People reacted like there was no restriction, but I can't find any mention to alignment: any, neither on Barbarian nor Monk.
Just want to say that I do not hate the existence of Alignment itself, spells and creatures based on alignment, and all that. I'm the first that like hardcore alignment on outsiders, I loved Planescape after all.
I really dislike the paladin restriction, but I can live with it. For me, the drop of the monk restriction is the really important one. That one I hope is gone for good.
Ugh. This is very complex, disappointing and unintuitive. Sorcerer seems nerfed very hard. That is one of those things that lessen the hype spectacularly.
By my experience, Sorcerer is more intuitive than wizard. The claim that this is more intuitive while wizard use the same version of casting is hard to understand.
Oh, I'm not saying that the paladin player sees itself as superior. I am saying that the forum users that defend that position see LG as superior to all others.
I do not want a "knight on shinning armor, a guide to all" of any alignment. I just want a full-BAB class (or equivalent warrior style, now with no BAB) with some divine powers from the deity. Is that too much to ask?
Edit: Normally I say that I find that the only alignment restriction with some kind of sense is the Paladin. But anytime I see more and more "only the perfect and difficult LG has the right to have divine warriors. The rest, inferior alignment are unworthy". That, or tradition for its own sake.
I think "go and play a Warpriest" is scalling quickly as my most hated sentence on this forums. If Warpriest had 4 spell levels and the necessary full BAB, maybe. As is, Warpriest has nothing mecanically on common with paladin.
My first D&D character ever, on 2ed, was a CG elf bardess. I loved that character. On 2ed she was not legal (illegal race and alignment for bard), but neither me not the DM (newbie too) where conscious of this at the moment. When we notice, the DM let me continue to play with her. Obviously, I do not like any alignment restrictions.
+1. Warpriest is probably my least liked class on the game. Basically for how spectacularly it fails at being a "paladin for all alignment" class. For me, a true paladin for all must have Full BAB, be CHA based and be a Caster with 4 spell levels. Warpriest have none of it. I am pretty sure that the problem is mine and not of the class, but outside very punctual builds (high level summoner and funky weapons) the Warpriest just seems like a worse Inquisitor. The only thing I really like of the class is Fervor, and you don't have it so many times a day. To play Paladin-lite for all alignment, I would play before a Cavalier with Order of the Star and Divine Obedience and later Sentinel prestige class.
I hate all alignment restrictions, specially Druid and monk (some of my favorite characters has been NN monk and CG Druid). In fact, my very first D&D character on 2e was an elf CG bard, something that seemed so appropriated that neither me nor the DM saw until much later that was illegal back then.
With the lasts blogs, it seems clear that Starfinder will be basically a Space Opera game. I have no problem with that, I love Space Opera. But some home-made settings my group play have been a long time on pause waiting for Starfinder, and those settings are basically CyberPunk. How viable is Starfinder for settings like that? Is possible some kinf of "Cyberpunk Adventures" like "Horror Adventures" for Pathfinder on the future? The setting seems interesting, but I will use nearly always homemade ones. How much I lose of the Core if I don't use the setting or use very little the space part?
richard develyn wrote:
Don't worry; I am not so confident on my English either.Just to help: In spanish sound better "veo lo mismo" que "veo la misma cosa". And on Spain at least, we use more "aqui" that "aca". "Aca" is more for latin-american spanish.