Asuet's page

Personally, I’d like to see the Rogue Dedication offer access to Finesse Striker (the rogue Dex to damage ability) rather than Surprise Attack. This small change opens up a wealth of builds (e.g., Dex-based but still melee paladins, fighters, barbarians, rangers...)

It actually doesn't open up any builds. These builds are all viable already. No one has to dump any stats in this edition.

The damage is generated mostly through runes at higher levels. The added damagebonus from ability scores only matters on lower levels and that not even a lot since you can always start out with 14 or 16 str, even if you put the highest amount of points into dex.

Finesse striker is extremely underwhelming in regard to its combat benefit. What finesse striker actually does is that it allows the rogue class to spend more ability boosts on other stats like int, cha and wisdom that are used in the majority of skills.

1) Never hit with a second attack that would have missed but for Hunt Target. Nor did I crit as a result. +1 just does not have that much of an impact;

Just because it didn't change the outcome in your session does not mean that it is useless. Your chances of hitting as a ranger on multiple attacks are just better than other classes. Your samplesize was just too small to show that.

Counterspell needs a rework. As fuzzy pointed out, you basically need 3 feats to even be able to counterspell. Counterspell, Recognize Spell and Quick Recognition. And then you can only counterspell spells you have prepared and ready at the time, which also prevents you from countering spells that are not available to you. As far as I'm concerned counterspell doesn't exist in this edition.
If this is intended, it's horrible gamedesign because it tricks players into making a heavy investment into something that is usefull maybe once in a whole campaign.

Asuet wrote:

I don't believe you.

I'm going to need you to reel in the cynicism and contemptuous language for other people's opinions.

I am an RPer and I have played a lot of paladins in a lot of different systems. It's usually the first concept I try out in a given game. I have played tanky paladins, healing paladins and smiting paladins. I've gone into a game with a paladin on many occasions knowing full well that there wasn't going to be a wealth of smite targets, because that was the character I wanted to play.

You do not get to decide what I do and do not enjoy.

What limits my ability to play a Paladin is far more likely to be the campaign's theme with regard to alignment. If the GM wants to play a morally grey game, I won't play a paladin. Paladins are also very frequently banned or discouraged because of their inflexible code ruining other people's fun.

So, yes. I do enjoy having the capability to unleash holy fury on a deserving target even if that doesn't come up every day.

Based on your comments here it is pretty obvious that for you it's about the damage and as you said yourself, you wouldn't even play a paladin in a campaign with a morally grey theme. That's not me being cynical.

For everybody who wants smite back. Ask yourself one thing. Would you be content if smite came back and did minor extra damage? Lets say 1 extra dice.
Would you still be upset or would that be enough to appease you? Or do you want to be the one on the table who deals the massive damage blow?
I can understand the people who want a cinematic effect of the divine energy channeled through the paladins weapon (which I think is already properly implemented in the game). I have no understanding for people who just want to be the big damage dealers on the table. There are enough other classes to do that.

I want to play a Paladin who can smite evil.

I don't believe you. I think you want a paladin who can smite whatever. Would you have fun playing a paladin who can't use smite because the campaign basically doesn't have evil monsters? How fun would that be?

If you want a meat shield, bring a barbarian. If you want damage and capable defenses, bring a fighter. If you want a chivalrous leader looking out for his comrades, bring a paladin. Welcome to Pathfinder 2.

If smite was the paladins meaningful reason to exist then good riddance.

Thanks commander. That's what I meant.

@AndIMustMask
I didn't fall into any traps. Being able to shield others still rounds up the protective capabilities. I can imagine many situations where blocking is more beneficial than hitting the enemy and the other way around. And it still doesn't change the fact that retributive strike is not about hitting. It's about changing the combat behaviour of the enemy.

@WatersLethe
The whole idea that paladins use ranged weapons is completely stupid and by the way wasn't possible in early eaditions. It contradicts the chivalry code on which the paladin was built in early editions and i'm glad the bow using paladin now is gimping himself deservedly by doing that.
Why are you complaining that a paladin gets shoehorned into using heavy armor and defensive skills. It's like complaining wizards get shoehorned into casting spells.

The Paladin design drastically changed from being the damage dealer to being the protector of the group. Of course this doesn't appeal to anyone.

The question also isn't if paladins should get their big smite damage back. That ship has sailed. The intended concept of the paladin in this edition is obviously that of a protector.

So the real question is if they can fill this role properly. The whole premise of this thread is that paladins are reactive and not proactive. That is a basic misconception of what retributive strike is supposed to do. It's a carrot and a stick. Don't hit my friends or I hit you. So you better hit me. It's an elegant solution to what was lacking in RPG's. It's a taunt. Sure you can reposition as an opponent. But that messes with the action economy. It's a win win situaton for the paladin with this simple retributive strike mechanic. It is not about the reaction at all. It's about how retributive strike changes the decisionmaking and actioneconomy of the opponents.
That being said, it's not his only mechanic to be the protector. Lay on hands and later on the ability to block damage with his shield for other players rounds it up. He is the best in his role. Being the protector.

Pathfinder 2 attempts to give every class it's own niche. That doesn't take away from the experience. You want to deal a lot of damage? Play fighter. That's their dedicated role.

And to this whole fluff debate: Paladins in old editions didn't have smite at all. That was added later to make that class more appealing. The big mistake was to make that way too strong and to make it the big centerpiece of the class.

It's a horrible idea because innate spells are supposed to come from within. Much like the sorcerer's powers. Having your innate spells work with something like dex is just power gaming. I think you could make an argument that divine innate powers could use wisdom for example but using the physical ability scores for that makes no sense thematically. Innate spells are not ki abilities or spirits. They are spells. If they add a feat where you can get a ki ability that's not an innate spell then I would also argue for not using charisma as the modifier.

Wrong forum. Also horrible idea.

The big misconception here is that you think retributive strike is a damage tool. It's not. It's a tanking tool. Once enemies realize that they get hit in the face when they try to hit the paladins companion they will switch their focus to the paladin. That's what it is for.

Beside that your "statistics" are highly biased and most likely your players had no clue how to play the class considering their weapon choices. Something you as a DM should bring up before a game by the way. If a player comes up to me and tells me he wants to play a wizard without spells then I would not just say: Go for it!

Also paladins of erastil are not restricted to just using bows. You need to make that absolutely clear to every player who comes up to you with such a gimped concept.

Multiclassing into a specific class will never be as powerful for all classes. Some classes always get more out of it. That's not a problem and never will be a problem.

I'm just wondering how something like "Longbow only" and "Shield only" paladins can even happen.

Listing encounters with a"Longbow only" paladin build when retributive strike is melee only is a bad joke and shows your bias.

Beside that you can't take anything from that. Maybe you only attacked the paladin. If that's the case please nerf retributive strike. It's definitely overpowered and makes the paladin the best tank in the history of roleplay.

Ancestry feats give power to the players to create the type of character they envision. It adds diversity where everything was streamlined before. I don't read much about people actually complaining about the basic concept. Usually the opinions go apart when it comes to how much you can customize from the start.

The new paladin concept as a protector is something that was missing for a long time. The way paladin plays out is refreshing and innovative. And from my personal view I think it's way more cinematic to have a paladin throwing himself in front of his comrades with his shield and striking back at the evil that threatenes his friends than using smite every single turn and just be a fighter with a divine infused sword.

Asuet wrote:

Only humans get access to half races because further down the road the other races will get feats for their subraces. Elves will get feats for aquatic elves, drow, etc. Your proposal is just another thread to plead for more feats to spend at first level. No thanks.

Which eliminates the possibility that half-races can be half of a given ancestry subrace, which seems silly: "Oh, now I'm learning how to be a half-drow..."

That makes no sense. Half-elves with human and drow parents are still mechanically half-elves. They might have different physical traits like white hair or something like that but you don't need to buy feats to have a white haircolor.

Again, paper wise, wizard is far ahead. But on our playtest, our 13 level sorc, with 3 dedicated staffs, had an amazing array of spells that he could cast at any moment.

Tldr :don't forget staffs and RP.

Well, I have to bring bad news. You can only invest in a single staff. On top of that... to cast a spell from a staff, you must have the spell on your spell list and be able to use the spellcasting actions listed in the spell’s entry.

Great. You went at least from "there is only one" to granting that at least half of the dozen feats i listed were options. I didn't boast. I just proved your argument wrong. Fact is that every melee class has these options.

Also on first glance on your "math" you already made the mistake to use d6 as damage for both attacks of the double slice damage calculations. You can actually use a d8 weapon for the first strike and a d6 agile weapon for the second. So much to "my math is solid".
You also don't take into account the many situations where you don't start the turn next to the enemy. Most of the combat feats have a deep impact on action economy. And that's what the dozen examples i listed showed. Caster are heavily restricted by the action economy. Melee classes are not. Not even close. Casters can barely move if they want to use their spells.

Furthermore I don't get why you link that. I never proposed to nerf melee classes or double slice. I was responding to the ridiculous idea that melee classes needs a buff.

If you want to talk about cost in actions then melee's are way better off than casters. 95% of all spells take 2 actions to cast. If I remember correctly the only offensive spell that can be cast with one action is magic missile and that results in wasting a spellslot to cast a horrible ineffective spell. So casters are incredibly limited in the way they can move around the battlefield. Positioning is the most deciding factor when you play a caster in this edition. Melee's don't have that problem at all. Most melee classes have ways to move twice and still make 2 hits.
I started playtesting and will have my second session tomorrow but from my experience so far there is no unbalance towards casters. Rather the opposite. Especially our rogue was outperforming a lot of the other classes.

Fireball deals an average of 15-16 damage when you assume 50% get half damage for making the saving throw. And you can do that max 3 to 4 times at lvl 5.
Guess who doesn't have spellslots? Melee classes. They just have their axe +1 on lvl 5 for 2d12 +4 per hit and can hit 3 times per turn. Every turn. For how many turns they want. Without chance to save against that.
Most casters combine magical striker at lvl 4? Did you even read the wizard feats? 90% will take quick preparation on lvl 4. The other 10% probably the familiar enhancment or the extra cantrips.

I have looked into them, and mapped the mathematical distribution spreads for different styles. What did you read that I didn't?

Well for starters I actually read the whole book and not just how you make 3 basic attacks. You need to take the class feats into account and the weapon traits and for damage you have to take the runes into account.

You realize you can get as a ranger for example easily to 0/-3/-3 on 3 hits instead of 0/-5/-10? Other classes have other options to reduce the penalties.
Weapon damage increases by one die for every rune. Also something that you seem to be compeltely unaware of.
I highly suggest going over the different options again.

If the penalty gets reduced to 4 or to 3 however, attacking twice actually becomes viable. With the chances being 75% 55% 35%(average 1.65 attacks) for 4 and 75% 60% 45%(average 1.8 attacks) if the value is 3.

This may look like a lot of maths, but the problem here is that a melee build WILL attack multiple times a turn, and without all the ways to spend a spare action that casters have you will quickly fall behind. Add in that casters have ways of ignoring the multiple action requirement of casting and melee will fall even further behind.

This is before taking into account that melee builds do not get many bonuses throughout, while a lot of their feats help with melee a lot of them have rather weak effects. Even the feat that increases your damage dice for fighter two handed ends up being weaker than a 3rd level fireball.

Please Paizo, buff melee.

If you actually looked into the options for melee classes to circumvent the multiattack penalties and increase damage you wouldn't have had to make this post. Agile weapons, class feats, the way how runes work etc.

You can take a first level class feat with any of your higher level class feats, so I don't see how the fact that natural ambition granting you a 1st level class feat is any different in regards to whether it could be swapped out.

Because natural ambition is supposed to be restricted to lvl 1 feats and by using that for an archetype feat would let you in theory take a lvl 18 feat which is just ridiculous.

I really don't get why so many people think half-races have a hard time. Especially half elves have access to a huge amount of feats and can be skilled so different to make them feel unique and distinct from elves and humans.

I don't agree with the assumtion that Ancestories need a fix in the first place. There is nothing wrong with it in my opinion. And by that I mean the general approach. There can be argued about the powerlevel of the available feats.

Something like dex based builds don't exist in this edition. If you completely dump str as a martial class then you just cripple your character on purpose. The way stat distribution works in this edition you don't have to dump anything. All characters end up later on with pretty high stats in every single stat. On top of that the damage on higher levels is generated by the magic of the weapon. The damage modifiers are a minor factor later on. When you roll 6d8 for your +4 sword it doesn't matter if you add +5 from your dex or +3 from your strength.

It's silly that a rat familiar can fly as well as a raven familiar. You basically never want to pick a bird familiar because it limits your options. Beside that I like the things you can do with familiars. They even can speak. That's pretty awesome.

I feel like the spell combination feat might actually be better than getting a single lvl 10 spell slot.