BinbouMiko's page

There was some debate here about the role of weapons among users of magic in 2e, and from my experience as a player in the playtest, I felt a very strong incentive for having them. Most spells are 2 actions, while we are given a (usual) budget of 3 actions. If I want to be as efficient with my turns as possible, I can't help but see a single Strike as one of the best uses for it.

Martial

There were some statements above that I don't have the same experience with, such as "-5 penalty". I don't think is a problem because there are plenty of spells that target saves and don't require an attack. So, that single Strike you make should easily be no MAP.

Another was that your attack would be useless compared to a martial, which I also disagreed with. From playing as some martials, when facing any at-level or above (i.e. any meaningful) enemies, those -8/-10 iteratives often felt like wasted actions, mitigated slightly when you get keen. Therefore, anyone who's able to get 1 no-MAP Strike a turn is already getting most of the value of any Strikes from their turn.

Compared to 1e, BAB has been replaced with proficiency, so you'll both scale at the same rate, just a couple steps behind, mainly from the class stat and proficiency. Stats slowing at 18 helps to keep them close. (However, I do think that the final version replacing STR/DEX touch with main stat spell attack does help make the case for weapons a bit weaker.)

For proficiency, I didn't feel it was a very large investment in the playtest to get at least expert by using ancestries. Specifically, Human and Elf were very helpful, such as a free 9th level fighter dedication, or Elves getting longbows. It seems the weapon proficiency story for the final version of 2e is a bit different than the playtest, so it remains to be seen if this is as convenient anymore.

Magic

The nature of magic has also generally changed. 2e has heavily reduced "I win" save-or-die spells, so other than debuffs and buffs, I feel like we'll need to rely on HP damage more than in 1e to actually end the encounter. Therefore, by being able to contribute a moderate amount of regular damage, I feel I am more aligned with the contributions of the rest of my party.

To clear what I consider a misconception, magic from slots is not a source of damage that scales in quantity as you level. What I mean is, for any current level of a Wizard character, he will only have 3-4 "at-level" damage options a day from his top slots. You can stretch that with arcane bond, swapping slots, sure. But, heightening to increase damage is an illusion in growth, you are not actually getting more total actions per day to do "at-level" damage as you level up. I don't care if Fireball can heighten and do more damage, it would be heightening into the same slots as other newer spells, doing about the same damage but usually worse in some way (range, targetting, types, etc).

I will admit spells are very efficient for multitarget damage, but single target is just not there. A lot of heightening is +1 spell level = +2d6 damage, which is very similar to 1e 1d6 damage per character level. But as a point of comparison, at least for PCs our hp is full hit dice instead of average roll now. Our late game playtest fights felt very dragged out, however it does sound like this at least will be tweaked in the final version.

Then, there are the existence of spells like Haste, which, seriously, can I not even Step with it?

Money

Every member of the party is allowed to have a similar wealth-per-level. But, as a magic user, what do I spend my money on that will help end more encounters faster? There are no metamagic rods for dmg/dc, gloves/wands also don't give dc, and staffs are very short-lived with limited selection. I feel like there is plenty of room in a magic user's budget to afford the same weapon as a the martial.

2e

Anyway, bringing this back to the original topic of how strong Magic should be in 2e, I'm actually pretty ok with what I've seen in the Playtest and other spoilers. But, given the above statements, I find it hard to feel good about making a "pure" caster that wouldn't want to use a weapon.

For that, I would really like more 1-action cantrip options. Shield does defense well, but I want something offensive or supportive. Damage looks like it's not going to happen. For support, look at 1-action combat grab for flatfooted or 1-action demoralize for frightened. Why can't Daze be like that? Or more concretely, this is what Bard does extremely well in 2e; amazing infinite, no-MAP, meaningful buffs for 1-action every turn.

Concentration spells like Flaming Sphere fit decently, but Haste is severely lacking as a self cast. (Regarding Haste specifically, even using it on other party members feels bad. Can they use any of their 1-action class features that are basically just "do a Strike, but add some other effect" with Haste?) Summoning is completely out of the picture unless the scaling was improved.

Compared to a baseline turn of:
2 action cantrip + 1 action Strike with weapon
Is there any equivalent monetary expenditure instead of that weapon that would make a spell-only turn better? What 2 ancestry feats could I pick to help? How many times can I use the new option a day?

One thing I that interests me about this is if striking takes the same slot as flaming, and if those are still constant d6. If so, then we get to make a choice like in Monster Hunter World, where big raw d12 weapons want striking, but a weak d4 dagger would be better with elemental first.

And to clear something up when i say dump stat i mean a stat that's lowered as much as possible to pump there other stats

We've all seem it the barbarian with 7 int and charisma but is still played just as smart andarctulate as the party's face

Do you prefer that the players roll stats in order, or roll 6 stats and then assign them to the attribute they want?

If you prefer the first option, then nothing really compares to that. If you prefer the second, then that's essentially like giving everyone an array, except that the array is randomized. In which case, for many of the reasons stated above, your gaming experience as a group may be harmed by all the party members not starting with equal footing, something which lasts for the duration of the campaign.

One very straightforward way of giving everyone the same chance is to give the same array for everyone to allocate. But, forcing every class into an array may not benefit all classes equally.

Therefore, if your main gripe is "minmaxing", one thing my DM has done is just not allow scores to be min/max, like lowest stat 8, or 10, and point buy as normal within that restriction. You could even limit highest stat 16 as well.