Cyouni's page

And yes, I will 100% stand by the claim that the % HP boost gained on level up changing by a factor of 7x is a unit of "objectively bad math." I take that factual 7x observation, and argue that this math is responsible for a lot of the commonly observed issues talked about all over pf2 discussions. This one math equation adds a huge amount of ambiguity as to what the difficulty of a PL +1 encounter means, as there is an inconsistent increase depending on which specific L we are talking about.

Among other negative consequences, with this math going on, Paizo cannot possibly make an accurate statement about how difficult a PL +1/2/etc is in the general case, lol. They would have to make a variable chart or give up and say: ~"it depends (a lot) on which level."

This is a very silly method of doing comparisons. Watch as I do the same with another stat:

At level 1 you have 0-2 class feats. At level 2 you gain 1, making it an increase of anywhere between 50-infinite percent increase in class feats. At level 20, you go from 9-10, 10-11, or 11-12 (I'm excluding some examples for my sanity). This is an increase of around 10%.

There is factually an increase of anywhere from 5x to infinite in your number of class feats. This is clearly objectively bad math.

Alternatively, let's take Chrono Trigger as an example. At level 1, Crono goes from 70 to 83 HP, meaning an increase of 18.5%. At level 49 to 50, he goes from 929 to 939, an increase of 1%. By the exact same logic you used, this is thus an 18x difference in health growths, and thus must be impossible to balance.

Does the beginner box send level +2 or +3 creatures at the party in 30ft rooms via railroading?

With no resources and no ability to tilt the fight in their favor?

Technically, the answer is yes, actually. That said, my party managed to get it to crit fail on a Fear spell, and well...awkward times were had by me after that. I want to say the enemy should be +2 at that point, with +3 if you go into it at level 1 (which some people have done).

If you crit fail a Chain Lightning save, a level 9 character with an 8 HP class with 16 Con goes from 100-0 on an average roll.

I don't hear you screaming about that.

Please note that I'm using this exact example because it's a +2 enemy with a crit attack - exactly the same situation as at level 1 that you keep screaming about.

Honestly, I feel like the line "you can't do tactics at level 1" is absolutely a lie. There's a level 1 fight in Blood Lords that's Level+2. My party, when going into it, took reasonable actions and ended up ending the encounter without taking any damage. (One of those, incidentally, ended up being my character dropping my weapon to keep Tripping the enemy, since it was a zombie and therefore permanently slowed 1, and also has an insanely low Ref DC.)

I also do know that this is an enemy that has been complained about, since people have mentioned that it's killed PCs.

So I will heavily push back against the suggestion that you can't use tactics at level 1 in APs.

(If it matters, the party was warpriest cleric, ranger, wizard, magus.)

When it gets into play, you'll honestly be surprised by how much less complicated it is in play than PF1 (I'm mainly comparing at higher levels). No longer will the swift/immediate/free action spam and required prebuffing get in the way of the gameplay.

sadly in an extreme encounter i think that a gunslinger would never ever find space, and that everyone would prefer a cleric or a bard over a wizard or a psychic

I played a level 6 gunslinger into a level 10 encounter in Outlaws and contributed tons, but clearly that's not possible, so I must exist in an alternate universe.

(It was even a sniper in an encounter where I basically was never allowed to find stealth spots.)

Cyouni wrote:

Simulationist design makes players happy.

Does it? More often than not it's my players who aren't interested in tracking ammo and rations or survival mechanics or realistic economics systems and so on.

I also think the whole assumption is somewhat off track because D&D has never been particularly simulationist (and the core question of whether a ritual is mythic or not has nothing to do with simulation anyways, though on the subject I've also seen more interest in rituals being made simpler and more accessible rather than the other way around).

Contextually, by this I mean less survival mechanics, economic systems, and things like that, and more "this is why they do X, and we can get that ability through doing X too". So, as previously noted, weapons dropping that are of a certain potency, accessibility to certain game mechanics, etc.

Simulationist design makes players happy.

You know who it doesn't make happy? GMs.

You know who there's always a dearth of? GMs.

I wouldn't consider a swash as tanky. A tank requires a few things, IMO.

At least 6AC, aka heavy armor.
Shield block with a high HP and high Hardness shield.
Legendary defense

Swash has none of these, even a 5 AC class with a +2 shield raise is still just ok, not good for defense. You can fortify a buckler for blocking but it's not going to be good at it. They also by default only get one reaction to use for blocking.

That puts them at slightly above standard martial for survivability, they aren't sacrificing a two handed weapon to do so though so the opportunity cost for it is far lower.

Wit gives anyone it hits with a finisher -2 to hit against them. Fencer can give them a -2 to hit through Feint. Obviously, Braggart applies Frightened.

Your definition of a "tank" is weirdly specific, because it's literally just writing "champion" and then only accepting exactly shield champion. That's like saying no one can do damage unless they have legendary weapon proficiency with a non-reload weapon, and then going "oh huh, fighter is the only one that applies to".

What I really hate is the feeling that even with the maximum Deception check I could get at level 7, I don't even have a 50/50 chance of doing the thing that I'm best at. That's incredibly demoralizing, and leaves me feeling useless. If I can't feint to get them off-guard and get a panache going, I can't use my finisher, I can't deal sneak attack damage, and I can't even hit! And, of course, I only have a +11 Athletics check, so if a +17 Deception won't work, why would I even BOTHER trying to trip or disarm my opponent? I'm 6 points down from my best skill, which is already going to fail 65% of the time. So... shooting for a nat 20? Really? That's what being a PC in this game is? No, thank you.

If this is what the math truly is, then it may be that this isn't the game for me. I don't need to be an infallible super-hero, but I do feel like numbers need to matter. And I truly don't feel like they do.

You're right....but you're not supposed to be level 7. You're supposed to be level 9, verging on 10. So your numbers are supposed to be at least +2 higher across the board.

(I should also note that the second encounter, against a 3-person party, is literally harder than an campaign-ending final boss is supposed to be. Just making that clear. It would have been an Extreme encounter even if you had four people.)

One thing to note is that you could really have just used flanking instead to get that off-guard, and also used Acrobatics via Tumble Through as well to get panache. (That second one would have been harder given Reactive Strike in this case, however.)

Enemies miss so seldomly that there's little point in trying to get your AC high- even if I had a shield, that +2 would have made absolutely ZERO impact. I still would have been hit by that club, still would have been dealt about 40% of my HP from one hit, and still would have been knocked down. I guess all my AC is doing in that case is making it so that I die in 1 1/2 turns instead of in 1, because he needs to hit me (auto success), trip me (auto success), and then MAYBE roll (which will have a decent chance because now I'm prone). Yep. Sure am glad I have that good ol' 25 AC. What's his attack? +22? Oh. Yeah. Nevermind. I'll start working on the next character to die in the first fight, I guess.....

While you're not technically incorrect (note that this enemy is level 10! Literally a module-ending boss tier with how it was presented) one thing to consider is that when you increase your AC, you significantly lower the chance of getting crit and also lower the chance of getting hit by a second attack. So going from 23 to 25 in the example you provided a) does lower hit hit chance from 95% to 90%, which isn't that valuable...but does lower hit crit chance from 60% to 50%. And that applies to all second attacks. If he attacks you while prone on that second attack, you're at 23, but he's also swinging at +17, making it so that he only has a 75% hit/25% crit instead of the 85%/35% he would have otherwise.

That said, this "boss" is kind of a bad example because it was never designed to be as hard as you ran into it at.

Now, that said, Age of Ashes is known to be rather overtuned. The AP was written when even the developers weren't fully aware of those lessons and practical differences between the two systems that I just summarized in this post.

One other thing is that it's less that it's overtuned and more that it's written for a PF1 design ethos. I think it's also overtuned in some spots as well, but the main consideration is more the structural issues.

But yes, if you're playing Age of Ashes book 3, you're supposed to be level 9. So if you're not level 9, that's immediately going to be really rough, since you're at least -2 on where the game expects you to be. I smelled something weird when the +1 resilient armour was mentioned, as that's a level 8 item, not something usually given to a new level 7 character.
Assuming the analysis was made on the encounters was right, I'm glancing at them and I'm seeing three level 8 monsters in the first encounter, and a level 10 in the second. There's absolutely no wonder that you'd struggle in these encounters. By this point, you're supposed to be close to level 10, and have gear and stats reflecting this. A single level 7 character falling into combat with three level 8 monsters has basically no chance, especially if caught off guard and in their terrain. The level 10 enemy is supposed to be far less of a module-ending boss than he would have showed up as to you, as at the proper level he would have been relatively tough but overall not that much of an issue.

Unicore wrote:

I also think it perfectly fine to have threads in the general discussion forum for people to discuss design choices and frustrations with a class, but expecting that people who disagree have to remain silent or are contributing to the conversation in bad faith is rude...

Is this not what is happening.

We are at nearly 1000 posts on this thread alone. The only person being called out for making bad-faith comments is the person who was making bad-faith comments.

This is always cited as the argument.

But it's literally always the same people making the same 1000 posts.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Why make this uncommon spell thing hard? If you don't want it, tell the player and offer alternatives. Problem solved. Player can decide if they want to stay or not after you tell them and they consider the alternatives.

It's not hard in practice, but it is another layer in which the Wizard requires special attention from the GM to function and another way in which the schools feel a little underbaked.

Reminder that uncommon means that "you can get special permission from the GM to take it, but also can get it by yourself via features you take".

> Some character choices give access to uncommon options, and the GM can choose to allow access for anyone.

There's nothing hard about it. A GM, as always, can ban whatever they so choose - synesthesia, for instance. But as set, this is exactly the use case for uncommon.

Control casters, support casters, buff & debuff casters work fine. It's the blaster casters that don't.

They absolutely work fine.

Now, if you're expecting to be able to duplicate and exceed a single-target martial with them, then well, no. Because then you have the problem that previous editions had.

I can't believe the wizard was deprived of a choice of ??? because they got Drain Bonded Item.

You're aware that taking away Shield Block from the fighter doesn't mean they gain anything as a result, right?

Yes, that would be part of Doomsday Dawn, part 5. Checking tells me the name is Heroes of Undarin.

Can you use Rapid Affixture to attach the scroll? That is what I was wondering. I can attach them rapidly with Affix a talisman and and Rapid Affixture?

That you can do, yes. Striker's Scroll notes that it uses Affix a Talisman, and Rapid Affixture reduces the time of Affix a Talisman.

You picked bad examples. AD&D isn't particularly detailed or granular for a modern TTRPG that isn't a rules light it's just from a different age and isn't very tightly writen with lots of fluff and ambiguity.

You literally insisted that skill simplification made the game objectively less interesting. Hence, anyone reading this would understand that by that logic, complexity/granularity is interesting by default.

But I specifically pulled out the weapon system for a reason. There is absolutely no fluff or ambiguity there - it is literally a table of how good each weapon type is against each AC bonus.

It is dated in exactly the same way that 3.5's skill system is.

Complexity isn't a net negative. It allows for granularity and fine-tuning which is highly desirable in a TTRPG. The constant simplification of skills and character-build options makes 5e and PF2 objectively less interesting games than PF1 and D&D3.5 even as their better balance makes them more playable.

You can have the complexity without the worst excesses if that is your goal.

Counter example 1: FATAL. (Please do not look this up if you are not already aware of it.)

Counter example 2: AD&D.

Both examples have tons of granularity which provides absolutely no improvement to the game. In AD&D's case, for instance, Haste aging the target by 1 year and having a material component of licorice root does not make it more "interesting". The weapon tables of AD&D do not allow for more "desirable fine-tuning".

And before you attempt to say something to the effect of No True Granularity, I don't think you can prove that skill simplification and weapon simplification are meaningfully different.

Cyouni wrote:

So question: how do you have enough information to comment on how "unacceptable" and "below par" the balance of multiple classes is in play if you basically don't play yourself?

Or is this yet another person armchair theorizing and feeling they know best?

It's not like I haven't played and GMed the system before and see struggle bus classes in action. I played right at launch with one of my players rolling up a pre-errata Alchemist in Fall of Plaguestone. It was not a good time and even once we applied the errata he still felt useless in that AP. I've played alongside a Gunslinger and watched them struggle against foes he couldn't easily roll crits against. I never saw a Witch because nobody I knew would touch the class pre-remaster.

I don't need to continue playing the system because I've already seen its flaws in action and they're the same flaws people keep pointing out on this forum and on Reddit.

So you've seen precisely two examples and clearly it's because of inherent flaws in the system.

I've seen a druid be unimpressive because he prepared very questionable spells and spent a lot of time with a melee weapon. But yes, clearly this is representative of all casters and I should be yelling about how casters suck and can't do things in play.

So question: how do you have enough information to comment on how "unacceptable" and "below par" the balance of multiple classes is in play if you basically don't play yourself?

Or is this yet another person armchair theorizing and feeling they know best?

Translation!

So, I'm not a native English speaker — in fact, I GM in both Spanish and Portuguese. Since these two languages are so full of cognates, though, the actual act of translating anything from English to either of these two languages can be confusing. I can't do it on the spot, not with precision. So, I'd have to sit down and actually translate these little blue room descriptors that Paizo puts in premade adventures to be read out loud. That... could take a bunch of time. Certain words don't translate easily. I remember spending a good thirty minutes trying to translate the word alcove, for example.

But today, it really is a matter of just quickly copying the text and asking ChatGPT to translate it. Running online, I can even do it on the spot! It's a breeze.

Have you considered dedicated actual language things like DeepL?

Cyouni wrote:

... there's been a massive push by companies to replace people (writers, artists, etc) by using AI to create something "good enough" to function for profit...

Why is that any worse than automation to replace assembly line workers, kiosks to replace food server order takers and cashiers, or any other of the myriad examples of advancement replacing human labor (the printing press, industrial looms, bulldozers, harvesters, ad nauseam)?

One thing to consider is the difference in fields here. Creative fields are the big difference - automation in the form of the printing press hasn't done anything to say, calligraphy, because automation can't do that. Automation is only really able to cover tasks that can be done simply, whereas there's also still a market for hand-done and custom work of all types.

Generative AI takes that and stifles creativity because you can mimic hand-done work on the cheap, thanks to it stealing and copying the work of those that had come before it. It's also self-devouring, because you can have infinite levels of standard automation without affecting anything, while AI work can't sustain itself without non-AI people feeding it. It can't create something new - taking an example from a recent show, it can't imagine stars in a sky that has never had any.

I'm a graphic designer and technical illustrator by profession, draw dozens of illustrations a week for my job, and I'm loving the new capabilities these automation tools allow.

So another big reason why, aside from the art theft mentioned above, is also that there's been a massive push by companies to replace people (writers, artists, etc) by using AI to create something "good enough" to function for profit.

Working in that field yourself, I'm sure you can see the problem there.

The concept behind generative AI-assisted tools is fine in and of itself, but the execution and general corporate response has some major problems.

You might be interested to know that undead aren't immune to nonlethal. They're immune to unconscious, which is a different thing.

Can we get guidance on which pre-remaster spells should have the [Manipulate] and/or [Concentrate] trait added? It feels important since the former is not universal to all remastered spells, and Reactive strike only triggers if the action has the [Manipulate] tag, so spells like Sure Strike no longer trigger Reactive Strike or most similar reactions.

I suspect that Manipulate is generally on things that had Somatic, and Concentrate on things with Verbal. I'd have to trace through all of them to find exceptions, though, and see if there's a pattern there.

Eh, you do have to consider that you're also shorting yourself on the benefits of conflux focus spells. It's clearly better than not using a focus point (as it should be), but you do also have to give up a level 2 and 6 feat, in addition to the opportunity cost of other archetypes and a focus point.

That said, it does get insane if you maximize its power with things like Spell Swipe.

I will also point out a few other factors:

1 - yes, the swash is going to deal less damage than a two-handed barbarian on each hit because that's how weapons work. The barbarian is paying for that extra damage by having 3 less AC, for instance. Similarly, yes the swash is going to do less damage than a top level spell, because again, that's how the numbers are designed. That's all basic design math - that the tradeoffs that are happening have costs as a result.

2 - the swash has significantly more support tools built in automatically. For instance, fencer makes its targets off-guard, which is a free helper that makes a lot of people very happy (the spell attack psychic you like to trot out, for instance, gets a big boost there). A lot of the other ones should be insanely obvious as well, with gymnast and wit being especially far up there.

3 - I've absolutely never seen a GM go "it's not worth it to target the swashbuckler", first. And if you really keep getting that, that's what AoO is for - it's really not hard to lean into that in ways that force one or the other to happen. Also, if they do that and you're *not* punishing their incredibly silly positioning as a result, that's on you.

One thing about the playtest is that it was really big. Four classes is a lot, and opinions on the investigator, witch, and even oracle were extremely polarizing and intense.

I feel like to some extent a lot of people gave the Swashbuckler a once over or a very superficial test and then moved on to the 'real' problems. It just didn't get the same level of deep analysis and criticism the other classes got.

I mean, you were part of it, you tell me. You were one of the people commentating in the swashbuckler playtest forum.

So you're saying the swashbuckler is bad due to popular vote? Wouldn't you have a process in place to ensure that you saw the data problems?

I guess I am too accustomed to video game balancing at this point. I figured the devs could run the numbers and see the problems. But maybe there is more to it than that with a tabletop RPG.

...tabletop balancing and video game balancing are completely different. You just cannot tweak tabletop numbers with near the same level of control that you can in a video game. Not to mention tabletop balance is basically like balancing for an open world game, except you're also balancing for Diablo on steroids, and with significantly more options because of how it works with action flow.

But if you want a longform discussion with specifics, here, you can listen to Mark talk about Electric Arc.

There were so many ways the Swashbuckler was short circuited. How the design team did not see this is beyond me given how obvious it was in play.

It made me wonder if they fell in love with a bad mechanic. One that was clunky and techy as I've heard them put it.

I'm not sure who "they" is, because I'll remind you again that it was insanely well rated during the playtest by everyone that participated. 80% of people picked either 4-5/5 on enjoyment in every regard.

So clearly if it was so "obvious", it's interesting that it barely came up during testing. Two things noted in the one thread where it came up as a topic (specifically against a level+4 enemy) is first, the alternate method of gaining panache where you don't interact with the boss's DCs (but very hard for your level), and second, not necessarily burning panache every round for finishers.

I personally want to see the math they ran and what their design parameters that made things work out in the end game the way they are.

They must have calculated the rate of panache generation combined with finisher damage compared to what a comparative class does to come up with the Finisher damage dice and finisher limitations, right? They must have had an idea of how that works.

I'm wondering if they expected people to focus more on regular strikes, then use panache judiciously to boost damage with finishers in fights rather than almost every round as I see it used in the game.

One thing I definitely note is that you're expected to get decent use of Riposte, and don't need to be parrying to get that use, unlike Duelist or Fighter feats. (Also, that example is 2-3 feats deep in a chain.)

Another thing that certainly comes up is that some posters basically never consider movement as a factor, see every example where people only ever consider 4 attacks standing still. I do see a quick reference to a dev-side level 5 swashbuckler doing fine with fists critting at 2d4+4+3d6.

One thing I did recall is that it's definitely come up to use the secondary damage on panache in a way where you might not necessarily burn it every turn in situations where it's not reliable to regain it.

---

That said, one thing to consider is that swashbuckler was, far and away, the most popular class in the playtest. I'd have to dig up the Twitch VOD somehow again to confirm, but I don't recall any concerns about damage coming up during the retrospective. In general, people picked 5 stars to rank it more than any other option.

So what changed since then? Retort was lost, because it came up as limiting, though this did an interesting thing in regards to Cheat Death and how often it could be used. One fascinating thing I see changed is that styles had a way to start with panache - when they rolled it for initiative - but that was cut.

What could have been missed? One thing I definitely feel slipped people by is skill increases and the limitations therein, because there wasn't really leveling/characters over time.

It's very funny that people seem to think they are the only ones with the ability to do math.

Especially when Mark was one of the core designers.

I think something that'd be nice is better scaling for Finishers, because it seems weird that they get comparatively worse as you get higher level. At level 1, it's cool to do 10.5 damage on a rapier instead of 3.5. But when we get to level 20, let's use the triple damage rune weapon as an example - a rapier is 4d6+3d6 rune+6 specialization, averaging to 30.5. With finisher, that's 13d6+6, or average of 51.5. Significantly less impressive of an increase. Even if we take out the triple damage rune, that's still 20 to 41, which is a pretty big cut. Yes, we've gotten much more reliable about it, but the corresponding result is less interesting.

(Note that an example with 16->20 Str doesn't throw this off that much, even with a d8 weapon. We go from average of 7->14.5 to 39.5->60.5, with no damage runes being 29->50.)

Easl wrote:

Corabee Cori wrote:

Yup. Just as legit as saying that my awesome feinting ability makes me feel awesome and inspired and I gain panache status even if the mindless enemy I am feinting against doesn't notice.

I honestly have no problem with that. The audience Errol Flynn cares about is mostly Errol Flynn, not the other guy.

I would think so too. But apparently that is a disengenuous reading of the rules. I haven't found a GM yet that allows this.

So question: what separates feinting against a mindless enemy versus feinting against the adjacent vase, besides the difficulty?

I'd argue it's hard to say you're succeeding if you have no effect.

Cyouni wrote:

Corabee Cori wrote:

Or the GM rules that Tumble Through and effectively go nowhere is allowed.

This is RAW. There is no ruling required - Tumble Through has absolutely no specification on where you go besides "into an enemy's square". If it did, you couldn't move past an enemy within a corner space.

So you're slipping in and out of their legs just to style on them?

Eh? Sounds legit.

I like this one in combination with Tumble Behind, because it implies that they spin trying to follow you, only to find you didn't actually go through their legs as you stab them in the back.

Out of curiosity, do you disallow Running Reload from taking a Step because then it's not a "Running" Reload?

Or the GM rules that Tumble Through and effectively go nowhere is allowed.

This is RAW. There is no ruling required - Tumble Through has absolutely no specification on where you go besides "into an enemy's square". If it did, you couldn't move past an enemy within a corner space.

Unless they've changed the actual design principles 2e started on, Dex-to-damage isn't happening.

I remember once when we were fighting against some mindless enemies and the GM was ruling that feint wouldn't give panache no matter how well I rolled at it - that I still didn't want to use Tumble Through because I was the one plugging up the hallway and preventing the enemy from getting to the downed characters and spellcasters behind me. The thing instead had to try and attack me and my high AC, Hit Points, and Dueling Parry.

But... you can just use Tumble Through and return to your previous location. You're still moving through the square, and gaining panache. Is it the most efficient way? Definitely not. But you still trigger things like Tumble Behind, which in the situation you were in is still handy for off-guard.

I mean, if you don't want that, simply Tumble Through, Finisher, Tumble Through again on your way out to end with panache at a safe distance. And that's not even counting the fact that you don't actually have to end surrounded - you can Tumble Through to a spot adjacent to only one enemy, or return to the previous square after Tumbling Through. I know this sounds heretical, but you don't have to play stupid simply because you're playing a swashbuckler.

Acrobatics is attached to the class for a reason.

(I liked Twin Parry as well on my swash.)

I know it always comes up, but auto skill increases a la Inventor is definitely wanted.

-1 Panache is a problem. Listen, Panache is a problem here. I love the idea in concept, the idea that you are styling on your enemy, and that gives you the confidence to get more done. The problem here is that it just doesn't work for a couple of reasons

--A) A lot of fights only last 2-3 rounds. So if you spend your first round getting up to someone and getting panache, not only are they going to merc you for the whole of your next round, but that's 1/3 of the fight you aren't participating in.

What are you even doing that you're taking your full first round there? If you are close enough to get your base move -5, Tumble Through gets you panache in one action.

The Raven Black wrote:

Game designers' sanity and quality of life ?

Is maintaining a table and thinking about which new spells are appropriate for each casting class really supposed to be some impossible feat? I do not buy that for a second.

You're aware that there are 1388 spells currently and 13 classes capable of casting, right?

You're aware that you're suggesting quadrupling+ the work of developers for no benefit? And then it also breaks the entire system if they introduce a new casting class, because now they have to backport all 1388 spells into that class?

I mean, the question is: is this thread adding any value or new information, or just the 30th retread of old ground?

I don't find that true at all - I've long-played with folks who take what some people consider 'traps' and forgo 'must-takes' and the experience has been completely fine and often they had more fun than they would have if they took the 'must-takes'.

You know what's a trap in forums' eyes?

A martial druid with a Savage animal companion, maxing Diplomacy with 10 Cha.

You know who was a perfectly functional character in the AP I played all the way to the end?

If 3 moderate fights a day are the expectation, they need to communicate this to AP writers.

Just looking at the start of book-1 of Outlaws of Alkenstar ** spoiler omitted **

And this AP does not have the excuse of being an early one.

And to answer the OPs question. From what I have seen, The designers seem to think those who don't enjoy the wizard or think it is too weak are playing the game wrong.

I will point out you definitely feel like you're supposed to be resting in that second area you mentioned. There's a literal campsite there. I don't know why you think you shouldn't be resting at the literal campsite surrounded by friendly characters.

Only if you build one that doesn't.

IMO is a bad idea not to build a martial that can target every save with at least something. Max out intimidation, dip Alchemist or Gunslinger for bombs, get a weapon with the trip and/or disarm trait, use snares and talismans.

Its all there.

Are you implying that a character with one archetype, a maxed skill, and a specific weapon type is equivalent to one that doesn't have all those requirements?

Not to mention that only does things related to frightened, trip, and disarm. By rank 3 spells, you can target slowed on at least two different saves, damage large AoEs, blind enemies (for a minute, which is basically the whole fight), make groups invisible, open locks, cause stronger fear, etc.

This is unquestionably a larger variety of activities that can target a wider range of defenses. Now, you can absolutely argue that it's not as good as just hitting things (which people may disagree on), but martials definitely do not reach the range of things a caster has available.

Yeah to talk about "the prepared wizard can solve anything"... no.

And see, this is why these threads always have issues - because people take things and warp them into this.

Because what was actually said was:

Since a wizard very much can have a spell for every situation that targets every possible defense, the game has to assume they do, otherwise you cannot meet the goal of balance.

This is absolutely and unequivocally true. A martial can target AC, and possibly use Athletics on Fort/Ref. This is very much more limited than the defenses a wizard can target.

I saw that the Twitter thread was posted and immediately knew the exact same people were going to be in this thread.

I really wish they would nerf Fighter in the remastered edition, my players just don't see a point in playing other martials, for example you can be a fighter with a martial artist/monk dedication instead of a monk who will never reach Legendary proficiency in unarmed strikes or grab the champion dedication and be a champion with the reaction, lay on hands and the +2 to hit from fighter.

I see your players don't understand the value of Legendary AC and movement.

Which, y'know, says something about the GM.