Arakasius's page

164 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I think what they did with living monolith in lost omens is a reasonable way to give a class more focus points for a specific type of ability. Basically players are locked at 3 but the monoliths abilities aren’t tied to focus points (even though they are just casting spells like enlarge person, stonetell, etc) but actually tied to number of class feats taken in the archetype. So a living monolith can cast them up to 7/day.

I’d consider for Paladins as a house rule for lay on hands to have every feat you take that effects lay on hands to give something similar, thus giving an alternate pool akin to clerics just to cast lay on hands. I could see doing something similar for some monk abilities.. I wouldn’t do it for anything that’s just scaling damage, but more basic stuff that’s fine.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I don’t think you’re helping your goals here. You want a game where you don’t want to interact with what your DM is presenting. You want certainty in what you do and it does seem to be a pretty common thread among dissenters, whether it be on skills, magic, power of feat choices/archetypes and so on. But I think if anything the genre over the last few years is moving much more away from a stat based approach where you can math it all out before you ever sit down at the table.

There however is one very stat based thing about PF2. And that was the playtest. If enough people had responded saying they wanted PF1 with tweaks that is likely what they’d have fallen back to. But it seems from the response new players are having to this game that never would have touched PF1 that they actually did make the game that both them and the fans wanted. Just not the game you wanted.

Those high skills however did devalue the enjoyment of other people at the table. No one cares about the discrepancy being large between the untrained and specialist, but the difference between max trained and specialist in PF1 was too big. When someone can have a reasonable stat and max their skill points in a skill but still be absolutely useless compared to the specialist that’s the real issue. So yes your man skill lore oracle skill monkey was making the play experience worse for other people.

I don’t think it’s really a high level question. High level character have access to buffs and heroism at 6 equals this. What this is is more of a low level buff for druids when that +2 status bonus is much better than anything else available. Anyway I think the ruling is fairly ambiguous and I could see a DM ruling it either way. However since the game I’m running has level 14 characters and thus have access to powerful spells (like the above heroism) I’m just going to let it apply to remove the need to use a spell to keep that hit he’s used to.

Yeah well neither of those are valid or wanted things anymore hence they removed it. I mean you can say multiclassing is for poaching class features or getting feats or you can say multiclassing is for making a fighter who can cast wizard spells, a master of multiple magic schools or a singing barbarian. PF2 is much much better for the later while being worse for the former. I think we can clearly see why paizo would want to cater to making thematic characters and not just figuring out the math of what features are best to poach. In some ways I agree it’s s bit sad to lose that mini game, but I don’t think it was fun for my table when my character was as effective as any 2-3 others combined at our table because I had system mastery (or knew where zeniths guide was).

Anyway you can poach rage or sneak attack or whatever now, but you just don’t auto-win because of it. Before there were certain classes that were highly front loaded (cough Paladin) so it never mattered if you never progressed past level 2 in it. You effectively got all the relevant class bits you wanted and thus had OP characters. With the flat math here (and the new crit rules) you can not have a system where you get full math bonus features (Aka choose any 2 of fighter proficiency, rage, flurry, monks unarmed damage, etc). If you wanted to reintroduce PF1 multiclassing into PF2 in some way (say doing some sort of gestalt rules) you’d have to kill the new crit rule system.

As for the 5e argument I don’t think they fixed it well at all. They have more disincentives to doing it than PF1 did (such as the delayed stat boost) but in the end it’s still the same issues from PF1. Bounded accuracy does make the loss of attack at low levels less noticeable, but eventually you will be behind. (Just not by as much since everything is so much flatter regarding character scaling)

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Thing is the majority of dips weren’t really cool or flavorful, they were either 1. Poaching other class features for mechanical benefit (Aka higher numbers) or 2. Gaining bonus feats/ shortcutting feat chains. Once you take out those you took out 95% or more of PF1 multiclassing. The rest was either prestige class prerequisites (which was unsatisfying since usually til you unlocked the prestige class your character sucked, see dragon disciple) or a few cases of legitimate coolness that wasn’t just math. Also a major negative of the system as has been said by others is just how user unfriendly it was and that it was so easy to nerf your character.

Anyway with PF2 having much flatter math the poaching features was removed (I mean you can poach rage now but it’s a minor boost since you don’t get the further scaling features) and removal of long huge general feat chains means the other reason is gone. Add in being user friendly and not losing your main class features and it’s pretty obvious why they removed old style multiclassing.

The problem is it both says that (in both the form spells and the wild shape feat) but in polymorph at the start of the spells section it clearly says no item bonuses cross over when polymorphed. Looking at the rules here it seems fairly likely that the item bonus doesn’t carry over. But I could see people ruling that it’s the unarmed bonus before the morphing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It doesn’t make sense to rush to errata the game unless it’s truly game breaking. And none of it is so far. It doesn’t unbalance things that wizards get one too many feats. The untrained not going to expert doesn’t even matter much unless you were being a melee sorcerer. And them mentioning that one opened up the question on mutagenists.

They need time to actually collect data and make an informed decision on changes. For example plenty have suggested that mutagenist first feature should be a +1 bonus to their mutagens when they use them and that does seem reasonable. However we have no idea what is coming in regards to the APG and the feats/features/archetypes that are in there that these changes might conflict with. They also don’t want to overreach and overbuff a class in answer to fixing a weak class. One thing I’m sure is on the table in some regards is adding an item to “increase your caster dc/attack by 1” if feedback and testing shows that casters need it I’m sure that will come back.

They’re doing a lot of work. There is the GMG that they’re working on (including releasing monster creation rules early), the next bestiary, the APG, errata, inevitable PTO that would come up after shipping a big product and you have to remember there is just 4 devs on PF2. Be a little patient on the errata there is plenty of valid reasons why it’s mot out yet.

citricking wrote:
You can also use the stats of your unarmed attacks instead, which can get an item bonus.

Yeah I’m still not sure on this. I could definitely see it going both ways. I had been ruling it that item bonus did count, but I’m not sure due to conflicting rules in the text.

SuperBidi wrote:
Arakasius wrote:

We had rolled stats back in PF1 before converting so both him and the Paladin started with 18 str.

The bonus from wild shape is there to compensate the fact that the druid can't start at 18 strength. I think it's the reason of him being too good compared to your champion, maths in PF2 are far more tight than in PF1, a +1 can be a huge bonus.

It wouldn’t be that big a difference from what I’ve seen.. A 16 and 18 starting strength have the same mod from 5-9 and 15-19. Even if you knocked 1 str mod off of him he’s still only 1 behind in to hit.

In regards to the comments said about elemental form and wizard, the spell doesn’t have the clause that gives a +2 hit. Now obviously if you have someone with heroism than that bonus doesn’t matter, but it is nice for the wild druid that he doesn’t have to care about that.

To respond to Lanathar we played PF1 with these character through level 10 or so, playtest through 13 and now PF2 at 14.

And yeah thanks for the clarification on the item bonus. It will be a bit of a bummer for him but that makes sense. (And will let the champion shine more) it’s annoying that Hero Lab gets none of these things right now and I think he’s been going off of that. That still should leave the druid quite powerful, but now he’ll be 2 to hit behind the champion.

I’m still not sure what it means by constant bonuses of items. I use things like save bonuses that aren’t in the spell form list? Do things like elemental weapon enchants also count? Not quite sure but I’ll go with a yes on that for now.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

Do Handwraps work in wild shape form? Magic items never used to so I would assume that is the same. If that the case that is -2 to hit

Paladin has scope to do the damage twice - once as a reaction. Which in certain circumstances would mean nearly double damage. Triple with divine reflexes giving an extra...

I’m fairly sure it does. I think so because Polymorph says this. “Your gear is absorbed into you; the constant abilities of your gear still functions but you can’t activate any items.” Handwraps give a bonus to unarmed attacks and that is what elementals smack you with.

I’m not sure however how the damage boost from striking runes work. The threads I’ve read here are fairly inconclusive. So far I’ve seen these.

1. They don’t give a bonus (what I’ve gone with)
2. They do give a bonus (so 7th level earth elemental would do 6d10 with a +2 weapon)
3. They allow your form bonus to go up to what your weapon caps at (so if your form did 2d10 and you could do 3dx outside your form would do 3d10. Ive rejected this because it then has a magic item that would not work consistently across options in the same form)

I have allowed the elemental ones to work when wild shaped as well since that to me also seems a “constant” ability.

The champion (technically a redeemer) doesn’t get that much of a damage boost from his reaction. The persistent good is fine and on some enemies it’s been brutal but a lot of the time it’s just 4 damage a round. The enfeebled/stupefied is pretty powerful defensively. Even if he was a Paladin it likely wouldn’t come up every round that the ally would get hit and be in range. I think part of it is the champion isn’t quite sure on what melee options that will give the most damage. I think he’s still trying to find the right balance of feats (blade of justice, power attack, etc) to use to lay the smack down. But right now the druid hits just as hard, has 15 foot reach and can shift back to normal and lay down massive air damage.

Edit: To respond to the later part of the post the forms attacks are magic and yeah in a non straight out knock down fight one is a melee combatant and the other is a full caster with a full primal list. Rather easy to see that druids are still extremely powerful in this edition. (And he’s used most of his feats for his companion)

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It’s interesting to see the difference in tone between here and outside sites (YouTube, Reddit, etc) People coming to this fresh have none of those hang ups or care about the d&d wars since they weren’t even aware of them. They’re just looking at it as a new game to play and they’re enjoying it on its own sake. People here seem a bit more attached to old ways of doing things, but it pretty much proves the point on why they made 2e. You were never going to appeal to people who liked all the issues that 1e gave and actually bring in a new audience. They had to simplify some things and they evolved stuff from 1e whole bringing in stuff from other editions as well to make 2.

From my game I’m DMing the party is at level 14 and consists of a Paladin mc’d to fighter, an imperial sorcerer, a druid mc’d to fighter for AoO and an oracle (basically an angelic sorcerer having different bloodline powers and spells)

From what I’ve seen here the druid is likely the most powerful. We had rolled stats back in PF1 before converting so both him and the Paladin started with 18 str. (This narrowing the prof gap by one between the two) Anyway between all the utility and air damage the primal spells bring along with what wild shape brings the player seems very powerful.

The key thing is how hard he hits in wild shape in comparison to the Paladin here. The wording on wild shape and getting that +2 to hit is really strong. 20 str along with 14 level, 4 prof and a +2 handwraps gives a 25 to hit. 7th level elemental earth form gets you a +27 to hit on 4d10 bludgeoning. (And we’re not applying any dice from the handwraps to elemental form. I’ve seen several different ways of doing this but none seemed balanced. Like adding two dice and making it 6d10 would be obscene. Capping it at the enchant level 3dx also seemed wrong since it would not help earth form but would help air/fire instead)

Anyway the Paladin at the same level. Has the same hit since same math but 2 higher from master in weapons cancels with the 2 from wild shape. However he’s only hitting at 3d12 and not 4d10. He does have more weapon tricks and such but the damage right now is at best a push and he can’t fall back on 7th level spells like the druid.

The sorcs are both fine but don’t have the nasty melee options the druid has. So yeah for me druid is the most powerful so far in my game.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

I think that sort of enforced parity is a poor choice (and was one of the major downsides of D&D 4e).

If we have a shallow archetype because 1 page wasn’t enough to fully realise it, and an archetype where GMs are forced to homebrew half the information required to enter the archetype because there wasn’t enough room to detail even one hellknight order, it sounds like both archetypes would have benefited from one being excluded altogether and the other archetype getting the extra page to flesh it out properly.

Hopefully this is just early edition teething issues and it doesn’t continue for the duration of the entire edition.

Why does everything have to fall back to 4e comparisons for you? Just make a 4e thread if you want so we don’t have to read edition wars again and again. On the matter of archetypes there were plenty of archetypes in PF1 that only had very small changes to the base chassis of the class. Some archetypes were huge changes to the class but some only touched one or two class abilities.

Student of Perfection isn’t a deep archetype right now but the powers you get are very strong. You get Ki Strike with the dedication and a focus point and then one more feat gives you the reroll on unarmed attacks, which has usages for plenty of other classes than monk. Going to a third feat gives you a choice of some pretty powerful focus powers and will allow you to max out your focus pool. So despite being a shallower archetype the choices given are very powerful and I wouldn’t be surprised given the power/desirability of rerolls that it will end up being the most used archetype from this book.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Arakasius wrote:
It’s not like they don’t scale. Their AC and attack do scale. AC is level + mod and to hit is your unarmed attack if it’s higher than the form.

Technically scaling and scaling in practice are different. Attack you can do okay if you're already martial and melee oriented (which makes the form less cool and usful, mind you), but AC? A 13th level Wizard has AC 33-34, while a Fighter of the same level has AC 34-35. Going to Animal Form drops that to AC 31. Losing 2-4 AC when you assume combat form is no longer a useful combat form whatsoever.

And that's only 4 levels after the scaling stops.

Well I think the issue here is just the magic item bonus.

13th level wizard has 13 from Level, 4 from prof and 5 from dex plus 10 giving it 32 before magic items, likely 34 with it. Animal form at 18 + level is basically giving it one back from max no full plate armor (8 vs 9) which seems a pretty deliberate choice. The issue is that 1-2 bonus there from the magic item. If there was a wild enchant akin to PF1 that would fix it on its own if it could just stay one behind the other prof. I agree without it it’s not viable in combat. However it’s fairly matched up well with max bonuses you can get from your class, it’s just not balanced with the magic items.

Ramanujan wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Yeah, the fact that they just stop scaling results in some really weird interactions. I'm honestly hoping for increased scaling on those spells to show up in the APG even though that would be awkward structurally. It'd just fix so many issues.


What about uncommon versions of the spells (with access granted by having the common version), that are essentially higher level versions?

Venomous Insect Form 6
Dire Animal Form 6
Ancient Dragon Form 9
Mixed Elemental Form 8*

*as in magma, mud, steam, plasma, etc...

It’s not like they don’t scale. Their AC and attack do scale. AC is level + mod and to hit is your unarmed attack if it’s higher than the form. What’s not scaling is the damage, but I could see something like the playtest druid vestments coming back to help that.

I like living monolith but some of the feats do give spells that are very specific to campaigns and RP. I find it interesting because their ritual has an unique ability I’ve not seen before. It has an alternate focus pool. You can use focus for your spells but you can also use x/day where x is number of feats. This I find could be a possibility in the future if they bring back a Hospitaler Paladin and they could have an archetype like this that gives additional usages of lay on hands.

One thing I’ve not loved with uniform focus pools is that some classes get weaker focus spells. This could help get around that issue by giving them more usage.

Vlorax wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
What classes mesh best with the Living Monolith?
Once I hit the rare 4th level feat I stopped looking at the archetype: once they explain how that works, I'll look at it again.
what part of it being rare confused you?

Not to mention that every other feat in the archetype has it as a prerequisite so it pretty much is saying if you let a player use this then you really need to give him access to the in game events/hooks to get that ritual.

Well he’s kinda right. Your statement that there was a big gap between new races being introduced doesn’t really hold. Bestiary was the most common way new races were given to the players in PF1.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Draconic is another one that's almost there for me. I really like the way you can just use claws all day long pretty much and with the way attack rolls work in PF2 building a functional dragony gish out of them is actually kinda possible.

Never getting expert in your claw attacks sucks though.

Didn’t their errata they announced last week in the stream have all unarmed attacks scale to expert? This fixing that issue?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If your DM is not telling you enough information to tell between a cat and a dog than you need a new DM. On cases where you need to make a check the fact that recall knowledge takes an action makes me much more likely to give you useful knowledge than in PF1 where battles began with every PC making a knowledge check on every odd monster.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
In the case of heightened wild shape, isn't the case that you just choose which form list to take from? If I recall, starting...

Wild shape says this. “When you transform into a form granted by a spell, you gain all the effects of the form you chose from a version of the spell heightened to wild shape’s level.” Between this and focus spells wording it seems rather clear you can’t by RAW unheighten a focus spell. And since animal form has two heightenings this means at high level you can’t use the base medium version. Anyway it’s awkward wording and i don’t quite understand why the devs did this in at least Wild Shapes case. Very few focus spells you’d want to not heighten, but there certainly are some.

I’m glad that going from the playtest to the final edition they simplified some things they previously had odd rules on. For example:

1. AoO having a penalty on attacks
2. Cone of Cold having the odd third action for a bigger range changed to just bigger range
3. Some of the wild shape stuff
4. Others I know but can’t think of off the top of my head.

However I don’t understand the weird wordings for these extra focus feats. Like say you have 3 points, but if you use 3 in a fight you’re maxed out at one the rest of the day unless you took one or two feats. Now I’m guessing this is to dissuade people from taking thirty minutes after every fight to load up and use them all each and every fight. But I think the cost for that is pretty high especially if in a dungeon. And some of these I agree are quite powerful and you likely don’t want a sorcerer having elemental blast three times every fight.

However not all focus spells are created equal and it leaves spells like Lay on Hands in a weird place. I do hope that eventually there is some mechanic to let some of these iconic abilities get used more. Like say Lay on Hands not costing a focus point if you use it on an ally who is dying.

Another thing I don’t like about focus spells is the auto heightened. Some of these you want to be able to cast at a lower level, say you want to wild shape into a smaller creature or want to knock an enemy out but not kill them. As far as I can tell if you’re a high level druid there is no way to turn yourself into a medium canine/cat, even with form control.

Anyway that’s a lot to say while I like focus points quite a bit with how they’ve simplified class resources there is a couple things about the implementation I don’t love. And since I’m running my own game and I have a Druid player I’m certainly not going to hold to the restriction of having to auto heighten.

About item bonuses there I wouldn’t be surprised if the devs were a bit cautious to start. There was an item in the playtest that buffed casters but it didn’t make it to the final game. They did however drop saves and made spells (but not 1.6 dmg spells) better. If they gather feedback that casters are lagging it’s very easy to add that item back in the APG. But if casters were still too strong it wouldn’t be possible to remove it.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also Conan the barbarian is not a barbarian in d&d terms, at least not in the 3.5+ era. Conan if you look at his exploits from the material is very much a rogue. The tribal parts of barbarian have nothing to do with Conan and neither do the berserker parts. As is said you can easily make a barbarian with shield focus but it’s never been the focus of any modern d&d system to make Conan. He just has too much rogue (the stealthiness, the thievery and the charisma) in him.

I don’t mind them doing that, as long as it takes a while. The terrain switch takes an hour. There is nothing broken with that. It was the swift action to get massive att/dmg boost against any creature on the fly that was broken. I don’t mind them getting a mechanical bonus if they’re hunting some dangerous creature in their lair.

I still think there will be some follow up feat for a circumstance bonus though, even if it’s something like what crossbow ace gives. (Not sure if it would be attack or damage focused or both)

I do wonder about the wording of enemy though. It seems not a very good worded feat for future proofing the way they have it. Originally I thought it was because they thought outsiders were too strong as a choice. But looking at the bestiary they have demon as demon and fiend which is fine. A nice way would be to have it be the most specific type in their classification, so demon and not fiend and it would have been nice if the bestiary would have classified that. (I guess they sorta do as the left most racial tag) That’s likely what I would do if a player ever took ranger and that feat. Regardless them very specifically typing it does mean things like giant slipped through the cracks which seems wrong.

I’d not be surprised if there was an eventual follow up feat choice that gave them some sort of status or circumstance bonus against that creature type on attacks. (Like in the APG) Which would be fine as long as they never print instant enemy. Which btw wtf was that writer thinking. Whomever wrote that or blood money or original snowball should have really thought things through before doing that.

If it’s a boss you’re fighting than your main attack is likely the only thing hitting it. So you can have sustain, move, attack which is fine.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who GM’d quite a bit for 1e it was impossible to make a single monster enemy hard. PF has never done lair/legendary actions like 5e so the action economy issues just kill them. AC at higher levels being a joke no matter level discrepancy and nearly all monsters having one weak save meant their defenses were never good enough to save them. The only way it works was pairing that monster with some henchmen, which is where an eldritch knight character would shine.

Anyway as said said in the reddit thread I think we got used to the 1e norm of higher level enemies being the norm for battles. I could at mid levels throw a monster 5-7 levels higher than the players at them and they really wouldn’t break a sweat. That monster in any one round could take out a single player, but the fact there were 4-5 players meant the boss was doomed unless it was a caster with powerful get out of jail free spells. But things like demons, devils, automations, constructs, golems, giants, etc were all too easy.

Now you’ll fight a +1-3 boss on their own or with maybe one other and it will be a tough back and forth battle. You won’t get regular hits in without strategy and they won’t OHKO you because they’re closer in levels. I think that’s a much funnier experience. From my playtest group a party of 4 at level 13 beat a +2 monster and it was pretty thrilling. It was different because it was less about just getting a few big hits in but about landing some persistent damage, controlling its movements, spacing out the combatants and setting up debuffs to line up with attacks.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you’re not so wedded to wizard you can go sorcerer and with crossblooded evolution you can take heroism as an off tradition spell.

Edit: also like some have said you can do other stuff. That master level martial is not able to help out with something else and is only 45%. So to me it seems your concern is that the to hit against bosses is too low. (I think you made a similar Reddit post) That to me is a feature. Higher level monsters should be tough to hit. PF1 often has the issue that even higher level monsters were easy because of the action economy. Sure they could do nasty stuff, but they were so outnumbered they just die. That low to hit chance will give bosses a chance to live past turn 2.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don’t really think that’s a problem. If a wizard had access to that +hit then those classes get instantly devalued because they don’t have full arcane spellcasting and all the power that brings. Look if you really want heroism just get trick magic item. As long as you don’t critically fail you’ll get to be able to use that item after a few rounds (and you can likely boost up your training in that skill a lot if you’re so dependent on it)

Edit: was responding to a post that got deleted. Anyway just use trick magic item if you’re that concerned about the +hit. Even if it’s just a level 3 one to get you half the way there.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I’d agree with that it seems pretty fine. So you’re at 35% you say with no buffs against a boss. Non fighter martials are 45% and fighters are 55%. True strike can be prepared more than 3 times if you want. (You can put it in higher level slots) and at 15 you have access to true target. If anyone gets access to heroism that bumps the above numbers up by 10 each.

However as a wizard mc into fighter you do have full Spellcasting and your int was likely your second highest score after strength. You’ve got a wide array of powerful spells to help swing a combat. And if you are really concerned about your to hit then start fighter and mc into wizard. You’ll still be a strong caster and have roughly half your fighter feats to take fighter stuff after maxing our the wizard mc spell line. (You’ll have 2 spells of each level going up to max -2)

So make a choice. Do you want full to hit and good Spellcasting or best Spellcasting and less to hit? You can’t have both so choose one.

Oh yeah so not as big then. I’m curious how often in play that weapon group will be a pro vs con. The 2 bonus prof is great, but it is defined by having your best weapon be that type and it might not be always available. I guess that’s not really any different from 1e, just a specialization concern.

Yep that’s in the paragraph above the specific weapon group. So at 13 they go from basically expert in everything to master in everything and legendary at one thing. Which is pretty crazy to get a +4 boost in a single level.

I agree with the point that the difference between the different armors isn’t that much, which kind of makes the whole argument silly. But that still doesn’t mean I want the a player with a feat to have access to all the armor at their highest class defense proficiency. As the game progresses and more content is released there will undoubtedly be armors superior to others. We’re already seeing talk about this in weapons with the Gnomish Flick Mace.

Weapons/armor drop from content and are made available for purchase (although usually less powerful than ones off of encounters) An annoyance in 1e was how so many feat chains walled you into a single weapon type. You still see that with the human ancestry. This led to just not caring for drops unless it just matched the weapon type you needed. Now Runes in 2e do help with that but it’s still an issue. However I don’t want a single general feat to give access to all armor types because now if some nice piece of armor drops than everyone will want it. IMO only classes who are masters of armor should have that flexibility, mainly fighters and warpriests and champions.

But a feat that makes you scale to your max defense prof with a single armor type I’m fine with. I’d just bake it into armor proficiency and call it a day. It doesn’t even eat into the champion much because they can use 2’class feats (or an ancestry and class) to get all armor at expert while you’d need several general feats.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
SteelGuts wrote:
I know about Medicine, but you don't have that 10 minutes (or even one actio nwith the feat) avaible all the time. You were almost always full HP at the end of a fight in PF1 wit ha Wand. Now it seems to be way harder to do so. But the monsters still brings the pain.

That’s a good thing. Your health should be a valuable resource. I don’t really know what the composition of you’re party is but it sounds like they’re not playing smart to minimize damage (either by playing tactically or using CC spells or such)

Yeah I definitively don’t want a single general feat that just gives you autoscaling for all armors. I’d be fine with that for a specific armor group, but certainly not for all. If a player wants to specialize in an armor than sure I can see that. But I think a game where everyone has access to all armors is far worse than what we have here. At that point armor has no flavor and it’s just pick whatever is best.

Edit: just adding here since there was stuff I agreed with in that post, I just completely disagree with where it led to. I don’t think we want what was in PF1 where too often you were focused into specific weapon and armor types. But I certainly don’t want a system where armor becomes basically a stat stick akin to bracers of armor. And making all armor available to everyone with a single feat does that and it would be sacrificing too much for the lack of a +2 bonus.

I think the most likely things for devs to do is another feat to bring your armor/weapon to expert or to modify the current feat to give expert but at a higher level than 13. (Likely 15)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
Garretmander wrote:

So far, the only understandable complaint I'm seeing about this party is that multiple minions are a bad idea, but that's what the player wanted to do.

Hopefully that's fixed in a future supplement without bogging play down the way any summon focused character used to.

I'm just not at all understanding the complaint that fighters are better at combat than spellcasters... Isn't that how it's supposed to be? They are support and elemental or AOE damage, not zweihander armed blenders.

You're not alone in failing to pay attention. If the fighter were given the option to cast any cleric spell at will (other than Heal and Magic Weapon), the fighter would likely never cast it. Why? Because it is almost always better to do what a fighter can do than what a cleric can do twice per day.

All classes should be "best" in their style of combat. Saying fighters should be best at combat might be good in Conan the Barbarian, but it is not good at a gaming table. The combat contribution should just be different, not inferior.

And that’s what is going on now. Casters are different. For all the words you expounded on the subject you’ve not actually come up with anything that shows casters as being inferior. My year running of a home campaign with both casters and martials shows to me as a DM that they’re far more balanced than they were in PF1.

We converted our 1e game to the playtest about a year ago. Now we finally finalized them with the 2e release. They just hit level 14 and the party is. (PF1 classes in parens)

Paladin mc Fighter (originally a mc fighter/Paladin)
Druid mc Fighter (originally a feral druid)
Imperial Sorcerer (sorcerer)
Angelic Sorcerer (oracle)

Back in the day we had a fifth member. (Originally a pf1 alchemist, then a pf1 bard and lastly a PF2 monk as three players rotated through.) Now we just roll with 4.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah add me to the list of people glad this silliness from PF1 is gone. There is a reason nearly every table banned Leadership.

I don’t think 6th level caster are any hard than warpriest was in 1e. Give them the spell list, cut it at 6th level. Whether they want to do that is a different thing but I don’t think it’s a diffuser problem to solve.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well if you want to be a wizard for example with full spell progression and DCs but want all your feats to be fighter feats. I think that’s a valid build.

One thing I probably will do for champion/fighter multiclassing is that if the class already has all the weapon or armor proficiencies (say champion multiclassing into fighter) that they instead get a 1st level feat of their choice from the class.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree with that too. We absolutely want better builds than others. We want people who explore and theorycraft to find synergies that are hidden (and then of course make guides/posts/videos about it). If there wasn’t room to get superior (and by that also inferior) builds in PF2 then the game would imo be a failure. What they do need to do to succeed though is have the gap be narrower. Too often in PF1 one character would overshadow the table and make them useless. There was a hug gap between optimized and incorrectly built, but the bigger problem was the huge gap between optimized and averagely built.

In my last PF1 game I played in my inquisitor absolutely dominated the table. I did as much damage (yay sacred huntmaster) as 2-3 of the other players combined, I had great utility spells like invisibility and social spells, my skills were great and I was the party face. It was just all too much really and eventually I just suggested we convert the campaign to 5e to have more table balance. I think since then it’s been more fun for the group.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:

I always found pre-buffing to be realistic...

Name me one fantasy novel where they do this. Heck I’ve read my share of forgotten realms books (as well as the original Dragonlance) and even there they didn’t. I’m sure Raistlin would be really badass if he buffed Caramon with multiple spells before every battle. Prebuffing is a joke and I’m glad it’s been curtailed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I mean it isn't that telling. We are trying to convince like three people, one of whom seems to just hate the idea of pf2 in general. Its not like there is a vast majority of upset wizards.

Yeah, I'm sure a snapshot of two to three hours with four or five people discussing is indicative of all players, everywhere. :p

However they did do extensive surveys of the full playtest every step of the way. (They’ve likely done surveys as well with PFS too) If the player base had told them quadratic wizards are what was favored then they’d have gone with that. But it didn’t which definitely leads me to think you’re quite the minority. I’m fairly sure bringing casters and martials more in line will be as successful in PF2 as it was in 5e.

That’s the thing with Internet forums. Just because there is a few loud people going on about a pet peeve doesn’t mean the general audience feel that way. In the Paizo blogs/video where they went over feedback from the playtest some of the biggest points of contention here considered huge wins for the game.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I don’t think it’s really as bad as some people here are exaggerating about.

1. Cantrips give casters a useful baseline they didn’t have before
2. Focus spells give a reusable pool during the day to do more powerful effects
3. Spells having some effect if the enemy saves doesn’t leave your class as binary where if they save their hold person you’ve wasted your turn but if they failed you won the fight
4. Blasting is a powerful option because of good base damage for spells and critically failing doubling damage. It does however shift caster blaster damage to more of an AOE role. There really isn’t a battering blast build yet.
5. Spells DCs all heightening even if you don’t heighten the spell makes low level spells much more useful at high levels.

The effects on enemy failing is still quite good and the critically fail effects are as strong or stronger than PF1. The one big change I think that has hurt wizards is the new critics success/fail system. Basically in PF1 nearly all monsters had a poor save. Giants with their reflex, wizards with their fort and rogues with their will. This meant you could build a specialist wizard who attacked certain types of saves and just used the appropriate ones each encounter to get basically auto successes. This doesn’t exist anymore since even the big dumb giant has an okay reflex save and is capable of succeeding. Now as math has shown up thread even in those cases the enemies need like an 11-12 to succeed. Before they were hosed on all but a natural 20.

I think that fact is the main caster difference in PF2 with save or suck spells. Utility spells and buff spells have taken a nerf as well, but I doubt you’ll find many people who agree that the party spending 3-4 turns prebuffing was a fun mechanism or even realistic at all within a fantasy world. The difference in power between a prebuffed party and a buffed party was just too big so them following a similar process to 5e makes sense.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure where this comment is from martials all playoff the same. Barbarian and Fighter (as well as a bunch of other strength based martials) were all kinda the same. Did you want to power attack or cleave or vital strike? Did you want to mix things up and take the same demoralize builds that use the same feats? Yes I agree with you that each martial now has their own flavor and roll, but that is to prevent the PF1 issue of all martials basically playing the same. The only difference between PF1 martials was flavor and where they got their mechanical boost from, in combat they all played the same.

I don’t hate it, but it is one of the new rules that has felt the most weird. And this is from someone who really likes 2e.

Rysky wrote:
My apologies for leaving that out earlier, but per Mark Seifter it's only the extra damage that becomes P/N, it doesn't convert all of your damage to P/N, so expect this to be in the first round of FAQ/Errata.

And even if this is the case with weaknesses it’s still the same thing. Which tbh is kinda a bit weird. If someone has weakness 20 to fire and you do 1 fire damage to them they take 21 damage. It’s just a bit odd and one of the few new rules that does feel a bit odd. I’ve felt like capping that bonus damage to only be equal to the damage recieved but that’s likely too big a nerf. I’ve mostly dealt with this with my group’s level 13 Paladin whose retributive strike can rip through demons easily just with the auto damage every turn from his persistent good damage.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes giving 1d4 or 1d6 every caster level is better than a slightly higher number every 2 or 3 levels. It’s significantly stronger than crossbows for classes that don’t have feats to buff ranged or strong weapon proficiency.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah none of your casters are playing correctly. A martial in PF1 can do a lot of damage, but a caster (especially wizards) can end a fight with one spell or completely short circuit an entire dungeon or plot. Look we had enough of linear fighters, quadratic wizards. Maybe it’s time for something else.

1 to 50 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>