The main issue is that the system gives no meaningful indication why this happens. It doesn't require that the wizard spend a spell slot to remove said threat (of which he has many). It doesn't require the wizard to use his might on a powerful protective spell. It doesn't require the wizard to do ANYTHING but simply exist there as a high level character.
O. N. wrote:
What has changed directly:
-No longer possible to provide huge to hit buffs
As DM I could easily harass the squishy back line using relatively weak monsters and some creative thought.
But the thing is - the +1/level is not making you feel like a demigod in the slightest. It is usually the combination between class features, magic items and spell selection that does the trick.
All the leveled accuracy system says is: well this guy that has 5 levels above you is unbeatable because you do 25% damage to him and he does 175% to you (i pulled the numbers out of my ass but you get the point) and no amount of planning, buffs or preparation can change that. Go grind a few levels and come back.
The way system is built currently is that you could be utterly surrounded by low level creatures and not care at all, because their only hope is to roll a nat 20 to hit you and even if they did they would do insignificant damage because damage dice also scale with levels.
I hate that in previous D&D editions. I hate it now with PF2e. It breaks down all immersion.
The biggest reason the +1/level system is bad is because it artificially de-powers lower level creatures and empowers higher level creatures.
This forces DMs to either auto-level opponents or be forced to replace them as the party levels up. Simultaneously using a higher level opponent is unfun, because he isn't dangerous because of new and excitingly deadly abilities, but by the "whiff" effect of his superior AC.
To give a comparison - our D&D 5e campaign started as fighting an invasion of orcs & hobgoblins. We were level 4 and the campaign has progressed to level 14 now. The DM has used basically the same monsters as minion fillers for several combats through the campaign, on various PC levels. The only upgrade they got was a minor AC and Hit boost of +1, because during the story they were armed by a dragon overlord. Even at level 14 these minions pose a credible threat and have to be removed quickly via AoE.
If we had to run the same campaign in Pathfinder 2e they would either miss or crit us on a natural 20 due to the 10+ level difference between PCs and NPCs.
This wasn't a problem in PF 1e, because you could use lower level creatures and buff them via spell casting allies to hold up somewhat against higher level PCs. But with PF 2e math being so tight they are utterly unusable. At the same time getting +1 per level contributes in no meaningful way to character development. The bonus is so absurdly high that it forces DCs to go up as well, creating the famous treadmill - which in itself speaks of terrible math design.
Data Lore wrote:
One of the most iconic and hard hitting single target spells is Disintegrate. It is acquired a level 11, about the same time the fighter gets +3 greatsword and his power attack is improved.
Both require to-hit, but lets assume both have hit already.
Disintegrate does 12d10, save half at the cost of 2 character actions.
The fighter does power attack for 6d12+5 (+runes, lets say 1d6).
Yes. Every fighter swing does as much damage as the highest single target damaging spells casters have at their disposal.
In this edition you play caster for 3 reasons:
1. Healbot the fool who thought playing barbarian/monk was good idea.
The fighter is superior because of its level 12 feature, which gives him +2 attack compared to every other class in the game. Multi-classing fighter won't help in that regard.
If you go fighter you'll gimp your character if you go with anything other than d12 two-handed weapon, at least damage-wise.
If you'd rather stay rogue i can offer you an interesting ways to go crit fishing and have a viable character.
Monk MC at 2 -> get Wolf Stance at lvl4 and Ghost Strike at lvl8 via multiclass feats
The downside is that you have to be unarmored, which means abysmal AC.
Ghost strike attacks TAC, which is equivalent to +2 or +3 to attack (as good as the fighter).
You'll also need the Unarmored proficiency increase feat plus the extra health feat at later levels. The rogue feats are mostly s*** anyway.
There is also the Wolf Drag feat you can take at level 12, it is utterly abysmal and should be never taken on any character.
Pathfinder 1e big success came after D&D 4e flopped and alienated many core D&D fans. In a way Pathfinder was an almost seamless continuation of D&D 3.5 - it inherited a lot of problems, but it was a leaner, more balanced and more fun system overall.
To this end I find it baffling why the Playtest takes so many approaches that are similar to 4e. To some of you this idea might sound abhorrent, but please hear me out.
List of similarities:
1. Reduction of choice
You pick a class and you stick to it. To avoid class-hopping to cherry pick the best abilities 4e locked players into their own class, spoon fed them appropriate abilities and generally discouraged multi-classing and doing stuff outside the niche created by the developers for the class.
2. Class role homogenization
Stuff like only tank classes can hold people in place. Removal of AoO's for anyone but a fighter means only the fighter can function as a reliable tank.
3. Over-reliance on magical gear
In 4e everybody had to get their shot of magical gear at the right bumps or they would feel inferior. This is even worse in PF where a 2h Fighter, who gets his first magical sword suddenly out damages everyone else in the party by almost twice.
4. Reduction of availability, scope and power of status effects
Status effects were weakened to the point that martial and spell caster characters could inflict the same status effects interchangeably.
5. Reduction of power for utility spells
Utility spells were next to non-existent in 4e. The playtest is reducing their duration, making them highter level or removing them outright.
6. No backward compatibility
4e was so vastly different then 3.5 that people found it impossible to port their characters unless they fit perfectly into one of stereotypes envisioned for the new classes.
7. Sluggish combat
4e had monsters with overtuned lifepool. Pathfinder has monsters with overtuned defensive values.
Some of these similarities may exist only in my head, yet i just feel that PF 2e is sacrificing fun for balance and homogenization much in the way 4e tried to turn the role playing game into a tactical miniature game. Some of my most memorable moments in D&D3.5 (and PF) include:
1. Polymorphing and over buffing the barbarian into a cave troll and him killing a dragon in one pounce attack
2. Summoning a flaming monster to burn through solid rock wall at level 5
3. Casting a True Strike'd maximized Disintigrate on a vampire monk recurring villian for instant disintegration.
4. A cleric who thought he was a barbarian, after he critted a wolf with his x4 gnome hooked hammer we could never convince him otherwise.
I could never do that in 4e, nor I can imagine doing them in the current Playtest.
Can you give link to your spreadsheet. Those damage numbers you have going don't seem right. Are they divided by actions needed?