Azmodael's page

14 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The +10-to-crit really destroyed any chance to build a character with sub-optimal AC and not be a liability to the team.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Azmodael wrote:
As DM I could easily harass the squishy back line using relatively weak monsters and some creative thought.
Honestly, I consider "squishies are much less squishy" to be a major advantage PF2 has over its immediate predecessor. Since "having to run away from relatively weak monsters" is one of the reasons people I played with avoided those classes (we rarely had any 1/2 BAB d6 HD classes in any of our games.)

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
O. N. wrote:
Azmodael wrote:

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.

I haven't been playing PF1 for as long as some people here, but... is PF1 (unmodified!) actually capable of telling the story you guys speak of? Unless you stoped at like, level 4, I don't think so. In a couple levels the ole goblin guys were just irrelevant anyway. I'm not sure what has actually, directly changed that's causing all this outrage. As far as I've played and read, PF1 should already be immersion breaking for you. I mean this in a completely honest way, but I don't get it.

What has changed directly:

-No longer possible to provide huge to hit buffs
-Stacking AC actually required investment in first edition

As DM I could easily harass the squishy back line using relatively weak monsters and some creative thought.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Hm, tried to make a post here and I think the forum ate it. :(

Basic gist of it was, I think people are coming at this wanting two very different styles of story, and I see this as a major difference between Pathfinder (1 and 2) and 5e.

For example, I'm looking at running the Zeitgeist adventure path, and I've made the very conscious decision to run it in 5e, because I think that story benefits from a flatter progression where 14th level PCs still have to worry at least a little about pissing off the town guards.

On the other hand, I wouldn't run Return of the Runelord in 5e, because by the end of that the PCs should be demigods fighting demigods, and regular mortals shouldn't threaten them.

It's the main reason I support PF2e keeping +1/level, because it differentiates the system and the kinds of stories you can tell from 5e.

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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Azmodael wrote:

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.

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.

Bounded accuracy is not inherently a good thing. How much have you grown if a level 4 enemy is still a threat at level 14?

People already complain about not being able to reliably hit things on the same level as them.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't understand the excitement behind this change.

Sure, if you are a Cha based class its great... but if you are not your access to class powers is not only reduced, but also shared with your magical items.


22 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:

Sherlock:

I wonder how much of it is system design vs adventure design in making characters feel ineffective. I would ask folks to remember that this is meant to be a stress test and thus many play experiences may feel more negative than normal play. Maybe Paizo should have followed WotC's example from DnD Next and released adventure conversions so people can actually test "fun" with the playtest rules.

OP:
I like PF2 quite a bit but I do think the OP brings up some good points. I too would like to see more tactical play at the table. Currently, at early levels (first 2 parts of DD), Magic Weapon is clearly the best use of spell slots. Certainly, other spells can be quite good (Ray of Enfeeblement, Flaming Sphere, etc). But Magic Weapon is easy, long lasting and incredibly impactful.

Part of this may be dealt with when a spell pass is done (I would like to see more spells have an effect even on a save) and when additional class feats go into the final doc.

Still, magical weapons doing extra die of damage does make auto-attack a very attractive and simple strategy. Then again, at low levels, this has generally always been true. I am curious if others feel this is true at higher levels as well.

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.
This averages to 66 damage on failure, 33 damage on save - or roughly 50 damage overall since monsters are geared to save 50% of the time. Most likely you are firing this spell on a boss, so the chance to save is even better, but lets leave it at 50%.

The fighter does power attack for 6d12+5 (+runes, lets say 1d6).
This averages to 47 damage.

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.
2. Give an ally +2 AC or +2 to hit via one round duration conditional debuff spell and pray the monsters roll 1 on their save for a brief moment of nostalgia about good old times when debuff spells were awsome.
3. Utility/buff spells. Help an ally reach the enemies, or see them, or whatever.


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).
If you are already in position you can follow with a flurry - both attacks are fishing for a natural 20 here, but sneak attacks will apply on any lucky roll you get.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you want to crit go fighter.

Otherwise you'll be eternally stuck at nat 20 for crit vs same level opponents.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

Well... to sum it up PF 2e combat ends when the players collectively roll over 10-to-12 (depending on class and weapon used) on their attack die.

Magic only exist to lower that roll threshold by 2 points.


You calculated your AC correctly, but this is very low.

An average CR1 kobold hits you on 6+ and crits you on 16+. You will die a swift and messy death. Try moving your stats around to bump dex a bit.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


LuniasM wrote:
pad300 wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
I went for a d8 STR weapon because they shared similar stats - both add the user's full ability score modifier to damage, used the same base damage dice, and benefited from the class's proficiency modifier. That way, the comparison would be as close as possible. But most importantly, it turns out my calculator has no function for adding damage that applies on a crit only, which I didn't realize until I had finished running the numbers and was looking for a decent Thrown weapon to compare to (hint: Tridents have the best damage die and a 20' range). What I can tell you is that, discounting Deadly, Cantrips caught up around Level 12 and passed Longbows at Level 18 . With Deadly added, I'm not sure just yet. I will get back to that once I update my sheet.
Is this with a rune-inscribed weapon? I would not have thought that cantrips ever caught up to a level-appropriate weapon...
In the case of using a Longbow as a backup weapon for a STR-based Fighter build, counting Potency Runes, yes. This is due to two factors - Fighter's have lower Proficiency with any weapon outside their chosen weapon group, and a STR Fighter has a lower DEX score than you'd optimally have on an archer. That accounts for a -3 accuracy penalty they don't take on their primary weapon choice.

Can you give link to your spreadsheet. Those damage numbers you have going don't seem right. Are they divided by actions needed?