Deriven Firelion's page

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I don't like weaknesses set as high as they are. Makes the fights way too easy against the toughest monsters. As the others have stated, flaming rune will activate the weakness just fine doing more base damage as well.

Weaknesses are fun when they're somewhat limited in how often you can proc them. Like if an enemy is weak to X and you can proc that once per attack? That's cool.

The idea that you could proc that multiple times per attack is going to just melt enemies. We saw that when a poster here ran some Mythic fights to try the system out, someone landed Decree of Execution to give Weakness All 20 to Treerazor, and proceeded to melt him in no time flat.

You get a +3 Holy Thundering Shocking weapon and that's 80 extra damage every hit.

I don't think that kind of outcome is the direction things should be going, especially in more standard play.

This is my experience as well. My group fighting high level outsiders and such often have holy runes and just go to town ripping the thing apart buffed with heroism and true target spells. Just ends the fight in no time flat. The weaknesses are set way too high and activate too easily, much less trying to tack on activation of multiple weaknesses in a single fight. I remove weaknesses at this point on the strongest creatures. It's bad when you have two or three martials activating weaknesses hitting 1 to 3 times a round doing an additional 45 to 135 damage per round on top of their normal damage.

That's why I kind of chuckle at casters activating weaknesses using a Knowledge check when martials are activating weaknesses using property runes that provide a wide number of weakness activations on one weapon activated wit no knowledge check of expenditure of resources. The weakness system seemed cool when I first read it, but now as a DM it's far too easy to obtain weakness activating items and it's turning some of the toughest fights into cakewalks. I don't like the system any longer. Should be much more rare to have such weaknesses. The stronger a creature becomes, the lower its weakness should be. But its the reverse and it's making fights against things like balors or ancient dragons easier than many midlevel fights.

I don't like weaknesses set as high as they are. Makes the fights way too easy against the toughest monsters. As the others have stated, flaming rune will activate the weakness just fine doing more base damage as well.

I think people are overcomplicating stuff.

Having a developer who's responsible for rules/balance stuff, or even for a part of them, say to Maya and in turn they inform us here that (as an example here):

"I spoke with the developer who did the remaster of the Psychic, and they told me that their metrics showed the class as ok, hence why there weren't any buffs, and that the nerf to IW was because the framework for force damage had them lower the damage"

or "I spoke to the dev who wrote the monster mythic abilities rules, the reason Mythic Resilience is different than Mythic resistance is X".

would go a terribly long way towards alleviating a ton of the issues that frequently pop up.

Heck! we have whole threads dedicated to errata that one can peruse to get a list of questions, and then grab the relevant dev, to give us at least some answers.

---

I'm not talking about more complicated technical issues, that would require a TON of work to actually fix (instance of damage), but even simple things are left in the void.

---

Having absolutely no communication, not even aknowledging the issues that appear, is not the correct way to go forwards imo.

As a long time DM and player, I tend to disagree. Sometimes table fixes work better than anything Paizo might put out. A group that finds a problem comes up with a table fix that the group likes can often work better than an official ruling from Paizo.

I think the biggest problems I've seen in these games is when a rule is clear, but broken in some way either overpowered or underpowered with overpowered being a bigger problem is a player built his whole character to exploit the overpowered nature of something. It causes the DM headaches. Then quick errata can help because a lot of players don't enjoy a DM tired of some broken combination causing game issues. That's when an official ruling can really help avoid table conflict.

I'm of a mixed mind on social media errata or rule updates. For some real egregious stuff I'd like a quicker update. For items the community disagrees on or are unclear but don't impact the game seriously, then I don't need a fast update.

It's obvious that to power gamers the wizard is a fairly weak class, but power gamers are only one portion of the community. Wizards are fine to a lot of players less interested in optimization. They have fun with the class and are effective. So Paizo doesn't need to update the wizard to appeal to a narrow community segment like my group. I know my group and I are a sliver of the overall gaming community and Paizo is appealing to a wide audience.

I definitely don't want a game with rules decided by random developer making comment on discord or a social media outlet. That's not great at all. If errata is released, it should be official for those that want official company rules provided. That takes time to gain consensus or write a rule that solves the problem.

Tridus wrote:

shroudb wrote:

...or to two different chapters of an AP feeling completely disjointed...

That's always been a thing with AP books and I hope the move to single volumes releasing at the same time will help since they can be written at the same time instead of staggered. At least, I hope so.

While having an Adventure Path as a single book does allow us to have a single author to write the whole thing with less complication (as is the case with "Bastion of Blasphemies") at this point, we're hiring multiple authors to write them in the same way we did before. We've had authors write their sections at the same time for years. This isn't really changing. What IS changing is that we now get to develop the entire thing as a single book rather than three books. We get to edit it as a single book rather than three books. And we get to adjust the schedule a bit more flexibly to account for some adventures needing more time in the "oven" than others without worrying about the grind of the monthly schedule. Hopefully those changes will allow for Adventure Paths to feel less disjointed... but frankly, any project with multiple authors on it is going to run that risk. It's our job as developers to minimize that risk, and again... one book is easier to manage that way than three (or six for that matter).

Having a single author in theory helps, but very few authors are able to do a full Adventure Path on the schedule we need them to be written. Alternately, having author 1 write their part, then giving that to author 2 to read and write their part, and so on, would potentially help... but that pushes the writing window out even further. For that, we'd probably have to start working on Adventure Paths even further out than we already do, which would disrupt the schedule even more.

Adventure Paths are among the most complex things we publish, and we do a LOT of work to make them as good as we can make them. We learn from each one we do as well. And a big part of that learning is...

The editing advantage once all adventures are compiled I think will be a plus.

People seem to forget how many years fighters and rogues were in a terrible spot in PF1. There is always a few classes in terrible spots in every edition. In this edition, it's the wizard and psychic that are the low end classes. Maybe the alchemist too as no one plays them in my group.

All this seems like to me is the usual product bloat that occurs as an edition ages. PF2 launched in 2019. It's past the usual midpoint of an edition lifecycle. They'll probably start planning what is next in a few years.

No. I have not noticed any change in product quality. Usual hit and miss material. I use what I like, avoid what I don't. Never been any other way throughout all my years of gaming with any gaming company.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

One book? really?

Yup; as mentioned above (and announced last year) Pathfinder Adventure Paths are going to be released all at once in single hardcover volumes starting this year. They'll still cover 9 to 11 levels of content, just like the 3-part softcover ones have been doing for the past several years, but they'll come out only once per quarter instead of once per month.

This seems like it may be an improvement as it will allow a review that will make the APs more cohesive and allow better villain building. Sometimes with the different books being written by different authors at different times it made the APs seem haphazard and disconnected. Whereas a single book could allow more cohesive APs where pieces that weren't well connected are better integrated into the AP story.

As an old time gamer, I'm used to big AP type adventurers or box sets. The individual modules lines were cool too, but I also liked receiving one big book with an adventure like Temple of Elemental Evil or Spider Queen.

What happens on a critical hit for an attack roll is defined elsewhere. Absent any guidance that is the default. I see no reason to rule it otherwise. An attack roll with a spell is still an attack roll.

The bard and cleric are probably better at higher level. Past level 10 you can get some of the higher level spell buffs like lvl 6 heroism. Pick something like Dirge of Doom or a higher level cleric focus spell. Maybe grab channel smite to add more smiting power on a fighter.

Rogue is good across all levels as gang up and opportune backstab are great on any martial. Higher level skill ups are great on casters. I like to pick up Reflex save master and use the general feat for the other save to master.

I would think the higher alchemical items may make the alchemist better past level 10.

One book? really?

To throw another point in favour of Champion's Reaction, it also becomes far more powerful at higher levels than it is at lower levels, purely due to the fact that monsters often deal multiple types of damage when they Strike, so the resistance ends up applying multiple times. Not to mention that Expand Aura's "always on" mode is at character level 16 and makes you able to use it frequently even when you aren't near the front line.

I agree with the sentiment of nearly everyone in here besides Deriven when it comes to combat ranges and distance. I think in adventure paths especially, it is a common occurrence that encounter maps are less than 60 feet across from one side to the other, and more often than not there are enemies within 40 feet of your back line as soon as initiative is rolled. Plus, casters (besides Bard) don't get Master Perception until level 19, so without tricks like Fan Dancer they often don't get to dictate the distance of combats anyway, as it is common that enemies and the party frontliners will get a chance to close distances before the casters have their first turn.

It is easy to undervalue having long-range options and controlling enemy movement when the adventure by design barely gives you any opportunities to make use of such things. There is a reason that nearly everyone thinks that Slow is one of the best value spell in the game, despite it only having 30-foot range.

This is true. It's to be expected. These games are generally played by more casual people looking for a good time playing RPGs with some friends or a pick up group. I think only a small percentage enjoy the small unit warfare aspects of these types of RPGs. The base game including module design is not designed with people using highly effective tactics in a coordinated manner. It makes the GMs life much more difficult and requires an experienced DM to counter.

If people want to mess around with a group of Champion archetypes positioning to use Champion's Reaction, have at it. Could be a fun option for a more casual group built around crusaders or some other theme of champions.

I still believe the rogue is the more usable archetype by nearly every single class and thus a cut above Champion. Champion is definitely a very good archetype that I mostly use on martials to expand my reactions.

Psychic seems to be nerfed into not worth it by magus any longer. Monk is no longer as good for druids.

Doubt it. Seems the wizard and psychic are stuck as they are. Apparently enough people like the wizard that is deemed fine and I would guess the psychic is the other way where not sufficient interest to put much more time into it.

I don't bother with heavy armor with casters. It's not necessary. Distance and movement control are better defense than armor. Casters get lots of defensive options. 4th level invis becomes an almost infinite resource as you level up. Once you get to very high levels, blocking true seeing or see invis becomes very easy.

Boosting movement to make up for a loss of 10 foot movement is something I don't find a good exchange. I'd rather have the extra 10 feet of movement. I'm certainly not spending money on expensive materials to reduce a movement penalty or boosting my strength on a caster.

The Champion also doesn't provide other feats that are very worthwhile, whereas the rogue does. Taking a champion's reaction for what eventually comes a minor damage block isn't necessary or a good expenditure of resources. Movement and the ability to strike from long range is much more useful at higher levels in highly mobile combat with lots of auras and gazes and such about.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

siegfriedliner wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Rogue should be in a tier on its own. You can use rogue archetype on any class and improve the class. Whether it's a martial taking something like Mobility or Gang Up or a caster taking Mobility and using it increase their number of proficiency skill ups. It is the multiclass archetype that offers so much to any class.

This is on top of being an S tier class as a base class.

Don't get me wrong i love the rogue archytpe its the one i pick most often in free archytype (i love skills, I love mobility I love gang up) but I am not convinced its better than the champion.

Champion is good, but not nearly as good for casters. Champion is nice for monks or fighters or martials that want or need another useful reaction.

I don't play casters in range to use Champion's Reaction. It doesn't have the feat variation to appeal to casters much. Rogue is always good regardless of class. Champion is mostly useful to melee martials due to the short range on the Champion's reaction.

In typical printed dungeons the space is tight enough that you’ll often be in range involuntarily, and of course the reaction serves as protection for your backline getting rushed down (which is usually a primary goal of melee enemies). You can also pick up expand aura at 12th level to give you 30ft of range, which is the same as many spells anyways.

It’s especially strong if both backline members have it because if rushed down it doesn’t matter who the enemies target. I’ve seen 4 champion’s reaction parties and the damage mitigation is wild, if the party can stay in range the encounter is pretty much over. Even AOE’s to hit the clumped party don’t matter too much if they’re done from in reaction range and the entire party is mitigating the damage for each other. The party just doesn’t take damage and it’s not like this comes at the cost of much offensive potential.

I'll never understand why anyone would allow the dungeon map to dictate where the fights take place. It's like most groups seem to walk into a room together in some random haphazard fashion, then stand in some small room where the casters can get attacked. I don't do that and haven't done this since I was very young and first started playing D&D as a child.

We don't position where this would be a worthwhile tactic and we don't spend much time playing at a level where Champion's reaction is what we want the group reactions to be or the damage mitigation would be substantial enough.

Your idea of optimization and mine differ greatly. I can see how this might be useful to some low level group getting their Champion's Reaction at level 6, then playing to level 10 or so. I still wouldn't use this tactic. Distance is the best defense against damage and allows softening of targets and focusing resources like healing on targets that absorb damage best.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

To my group the psychic was unplayable mechanics prior to any rework. A rework that doesn't address how bad Unleashed Psyche is and Psyche abilities continues to make it unplayable. I had a player try and try and try to make use of Psyche abilities and they just could not pull it off with any consistency. Even when they could occasionally pull it off, the Psyche abilities themselves were not worth the effort. The entire Unleased Psyche and Psyche abilities are not well designed for normal PF2 play.

The rather boring and underpowered psychic cantrips further cement the psychic as one of those classes only those that want a rather painful experience playing a particular class fantasy will endeavor to attempt.

Unleash is quite useable with sturdy helmets (at lower levels) and paragon battle medicine (at higher levels when investment slots start mattering) to remove the stupified. And it genuinely goes pretty hard with manifold missile wands, the consistent baseline damage is nothing to sneeze at - it’s a solid justification for playing psychic over sorcerer.

Now, this isn’t to say unleash is well designed. You shouldn’t need to both pass an out of character skill check and cram battle medicine as a mandatory feature onto every psychic just to make your main damage feature not suck so bad, and less experienced players will struggle with the class. But it can be a decent feature if you know how to use it.

Unleashed Psyche is bad mechanical design. The psyche abilities designed to be used with it are not interesting or useful enough to put work into making it work. Not sure why you would spend your time on it with so many superior options.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Rogue should be in a tier on its own. You can use rogue archetype on any class and improve the class. Whether it's a martial taking something like Mobility or Gang Up or a caster taking Mobility and using it increase their number of proficiency skill ups. It is the multiclass archetype that offers so much to any class.

This is on top of being an S tier class as a base class.

Don't get me wrong i love the rogue archytpe its the one i pick most often in free archytype (i love skills, I love mobility I love gang up) but I am not convinced its better than the champion.

Champion is good, but not nearly as good for casters. Champion is nice for monks or fighters or martials that want or need another useful reaction.

I don't play casters in range to use Champion's Reaction. It doesn't have the feat variation to appeal to casters much. Rogue is always good regardless of class. Champion is mostly useful to melee martials due to the short range on the Champion's reaction.

To my group the psychic was unplayable mechanics prior to any rework. A rework that doesn't address how bad Unleashed Psyche is and Psyche abilities continues to make it unplayable. I had a player try and try and try to make use of Psyche abilities and they just could not pull it off with any consistency. Even when they could occasionally pull it off, the Psyche abilities themselves were not worth the effort. The entire Unleased Psyche and Psyche abilities are not well designed for normal PF2 play.

The rather boring and underpowered psychic cantrips further cement the psychic as one of those classes only those that want a rather painful experience playing a particular class fantasy will endeavor to attempt.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

It's unfortunate that a class with good creative design work has such poor mechanical design. I had a player try a psychic once. It played so poorly that no one ever tried it again. It is especially bad in high level play where you see how weak the class focus spells are even with amps compared to spells. Given high level casters don't really run out of spells, it made the focus spells look even worse even up to three per encounter. They fell way behind other casters and looked like they were firing short range pea shooters compared to casters unleashing massive, varied AOE effects.

Just an aside, but I actually did just about run out of spells recently. After a difficult encounter, we had another encounter that went 19 rounds and was effectively 3 fights chained together (or maybe one fight and one really difficult fight, I don't know the actual math, but it was a group of enemies, then another group of enemies immediately after, then a boss enemy shortly after the second group showed up and was very much still alive).

And that's on a 15th level Oracle, which has a LOT of spells. I have no idea how a Psychic is even supposed to function in that situation with the lack of slots and it being dangerous to use Unleash when enemies are throwing Will save effects at you in a long fight since you'll be eating the Stupefy.

This is not at all an optimized group or anything, so a strong group would have had a shorter fight. But Oracle at least has the resources to deal with something crazy like that and Psychic just... doesn't. The Psi cantrips really need to be strong to make up for that and I just don't seem the delivering in the same way that having extra 8th rank spell slots does when crap hits the fan. (Reach Moment of Renewal on the entire party swung the fight and that was the third 8th rank spell I cast.)

If you ran out of spells with far more available with no 10 minute rest, a psychic would really be feeling terrible.

Rogue should be in a tier on its own. You can use rogue archetype on any class and improve the class. Whether it's a martial taking something like Mobility or Gang Up or a caster taking Mobility and using it increase their number of proficiency skill ups. It is the multiclass archetype that offers so much to any class.

This is on top of being an S tier class as a base class.

Paizo seems to have given up on the Psychic class. It wasn't a good class with Imaginary Weapon as it was previously and is worse now. It's a very limited, not particularly interesting or powerful class that doesn't have great design work for its base abilities or feats. It needed a serious rework to even be worth a player's time to play. It's not even good as a dual class which is really saying something.

It's unfortunate that a class with good creative design work has such poor mechanical design. I had a player try a psychic once. It played so poorly that no one ever tried it again. It is especially bad in high level play where you see how weak the class focus spells are even with amps compared to spells. Given high level casters don't really run out of spells, it made the focus spells look even worse even up to three per encounter. They fell way behind other casters and looked like they were firing short range pea shooters compared to casters unleashing massive, varied AOE effects.

The psyche abilities were nigh unusable due to the action cost as during mobile PF2 combats cannot manage all three actions in a round to launch a spell or amped cantrip along with using a psyche ability.

Unleashed Psyche with stupefy causing a roughly 30 percent spell failure chance after use is far too short a duration with too extreme a negative effective. No other class has an ability that when used causes your abilities to have a 30 percent failure rate after using that ability.

Psychic sounds like it will remain in a bad place after the minor remaster modifications and it really needed a strong rework even more than the oracle or witch.

Tridus wrote:

The first fight of the tournament proper. GM might have scaled the map, but we as players are generally very happy to play on bigger maps. Started the team-v-team fight at 200ish ft distance, if I'm remembering right.

Str o Thousands has kinda been significantly damaged by us casters 3 being forced to start every bloody combat 1 or 2 Strides distance from the loud troops / monsters / etc trying to kill us. And not being able to ya know, move backward off the edge.
That GM did a side quest for us, with its own maps, and engagements actually starting out of range was like playing a completely different game. Kinda sours normal pf2 play, to be honest.

Discovering that SMN is literally not built to keep up is recent, as most of Ruby Phoenix may have been using their maps, which caused us issues.

We've got a Large Fighter with a Large bear, a Commander that rides a Large spider, and had another Large player that dropped. My PC is a med human with a med phantom, and a shoulder familiar.

Legit had party-too-big problems, because Paizo's maps are so slagging small.

Too small maps for a lot of battles against immense creatures with PCs that can transform into immense creatures is also a problem Paizo could work on.

I have to agree with Trip H on this one. Summoner at the lower levels isn't too bad. 1 to 3 is kind of rough. Tandem Movement improves things. Then it goes well for 4 to 14. Then tapers off again from 15 to 20. It has some real competitive problems at the highest levels with its capabilities. I imagine most won't notice that play mostly in the 4 to 14 range.

Tarluk wrote:

Press Strike rotations are one of the more powerful ways to build Fighter, and they still have to deal with resistances double dipping on their damage. I would think the advantage of Double Slice over that would be more accurate attacks, not necessarily piercing resistances.

I think you and WatersLethe are both correct: Double Slice helps provide more accurate attacks for dual-wielders, and also acts as one of several possible tools to deal better with resistances, even if martial classes don't strictly need those actions either. On the flipside, it also limits burst damage by preventing double-tapping resistances or double-dipping into sneak attack damage or the like, so it makes those actions more consistent both ways.

ACs are set so high that even with double slice, you're looking at a 40 to 60 percent miss rate on unbuffed CR+2 to +4. That means even with Double Slice, you're missing half the time. All this for a lower damage die and less ability to use maneuvers for an occasional advantage against resistance.

Dual Wield looks cool in the mind's eye. That's the main reason to take it.

To provide advantage for being focused on one handed weapons. Striking runes make the weapon die king for damage. Even with this bypass resistances if both attacks hit, one-handed weapons are generally inferior to a big two-handed weapon.

The lower runes are fine. Max level runes once you hit that 17 to 20 range while also obtaining an Apex item is quite pricey. So are the upper tier property runes.

What do you all think of the price for the highest level items? A +3 Major Striking weapon or +3 major resilient armor or bracers of armor +3? These items cost so much that you're barely able to afford them at max level.\

Do you make sure the PCs get them as treasure? Or do the PCs save up enough to buy them in your campaigns?

The armor you can at least buy in levels. The bracers of armor +3 are crazy priced. You almost have to hand them out for a PC to have them given the cost.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think RK has its uses but I think it shouldn't be overrated. In many cases it's kinda obvious which save you shouldn't be targeting, and you have a decent guess at which one's the weakest. Big lumbering brute? Try hitting Will. Caster? Don't try Will. They do sneak attack damage? Don't try Reflex.

The other problem with RK is that you tend to get hit with a double whammy: bosses are more likely to be uncommon/rare/unique, and they're higher level than you. So that DC can be really really high. I feel this double whammy on DCs has basically broken RK as a game mechanic.

Your last point on bosses is actually a really strong one and it reflects something players and GMs might not be doing in their games.

A unique boss is a singular threat that warrants time to learn about, forshadowing, and maybe even a research scene. Maybe this isn't available for every unique threat, but allowing it for some of the most important ones feels good in play.

Funny thing about this is that Paizo's writing doesn't tend to allow it. You're very frequently in APs going to stumble on severe encounter enemies while doing something with no real opportunity to investigate or learn anything ahead of time. You often won't even know you're going into a severe encounter until it happens, let alone what the target is.

Hell, this can happen with a random encounter in APs that use random encounter situations and there's no good way to plan for that without doing some expansive research on everything you could potentially encounter in a whole area.

Combine that with APs that love to drop the BBEG on you in the last book with no real opportunity to do much of anything about it once you do find out who/what it is.

It's a nice idea, but a common adventuring day isn't really structured to allow it nearly as often as folks would like. (And don't even think about it in a PFS

...

As long as we're making it clear to the OP that if they are coming from a game like PF1 where RK is very powerful and easy to use to a game like PF2 where RK is occasionally useful and has an action cost, then I'm good with it. That's my main point.

I don't know if the OP has ever played a PF1 wizard where they were the best at RK and RK was extremely meaningful with a vast number of spells available to exploit RK checks. If they have, they will find that in PF2 RK checks are barely necessary and other classes can do them equally well or better than a wizard.

Tridus wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think RK has its uses but I think it shouldn't be overrated. In many cases it's kinda obvious which save you shouldn't be targeting, and you have a decent guess at which one's the weakest. Big lumbering brute? Try hitting Will. Caster? Don't try Will. They do sneak attack damage? Don't try Reflex.

The other problem with RK is that you tend to get hit with a double whammy: bosses are more likely to be uncommon/rare/unique, and they're higher level than you. So that DC can be really really high. I feel this double whammy on DCs has basically broken RK as a game mechanic.

Your last point on bosses is actually a really strong one and it reflects something players and GMs might not be doing in their games.

A unique boss is a singular threat that warrants time to learn about, forshadowing, and maybe even a research scene. Maybe this isn't available for every unique threat, but allowing it for some of the most important ones feels good in play.

Funny thing about this is that Paizo's writing doesn't tend to allow it. You're very frequently in APs going to stumble on severe encounter enemies while doing something with no real opportunity to investigate or learn anything ahead of time. You often won't even know you're going into a severe encounter until it happens, let alone what the target is.

Hell, this can happen with a random encounter in APs that use random encounter situations and there's no good way to plan for that without doing some expansive research on everything you could potentially encounter in a whole area.

Combine that with APs that love to drop the BBEG on you in the last book with no real opportunity to do much of anything about it once you do find out who/what it is.

It's a nice idea, but a common adventuring day isn't really structured to allow it nearly as often as folks would like. (And don't even think about it in a PFS scenario.)

I guess that speaks to AP design shooting for a different...

If that is what you enjoy doing, have at it. Just don't make it sound like you need to do it or it vastly improves caster power.

You can show up in most APs with a cleric and three martials, never roll a combat RK check the entire campaign and never care that you didn't.

RK is not the power ability it was in PF1 that wizards were the master of. Every one of us that came from PF1 and played wizards remember being the ultimate RK class. Huge intelligence, huge bonus to the roll, multiple knowledge skills, more skill points than rogues due to the high intelligence, more skill points than any class, maxed out skills for nearly every useful knowledge skill, super high joke of a roll for every single creature, free action to use. You were thew wizard: master of magic and knowledge.

You aren't that class in PF2 at all. Yet you have this small group selling that fantasy still when it's not even close to the same as PF1 when wizards were the undisputed, absolute masters of RK and associated knowledge skills with spells to deal with every type of monster or situation that trivialized encounters.

That's all gone in PF2. At best you can get some knowledge of a weakness or a weak save that may or may not provide an advantage depending on the power of the spell you have available to use. Even then the sorc or any spontaneous caster would target that weakness best by being able to chain cast the spell on demand once it was figured out. So a wizard could RK in combat, then tell the sorc what spell to chain cast after they ran out of prepared slots.

Unicore been selling RK like he's playing PF1 for years now. I stopped using it a few years ago. Martials don't need RK. Casters don't gain much from it. Just hammer the enemy with your best spells. Martials aren't going to give you much time to do much else. They aren't waiting for perfect spells. Fighter just runs up and starts hammering it. That's my experience with RK. It's one wasted action that martials don't wait for or need or care about. When I play a caster, I'm far more interested in landing the highest damage, best spell I can than making a RK check and finding out it has a weak Fort save but no Fort spells are on par with my reflex save direct damage spells.

If the OP feels like using RK until they get a feel for how the spells work and what spells are best, have at it. Early on I used RK too playing like PF1. Then I figured out it's the best spell, not the weakest save that mattered. It's better to have a good knowledge of what the best spells are.

While Unicore is certainly right on the math, I agree with Deriven that RK plays no crucial role in this regard:

First, you're often very likely to correctly guess their weakest save, or at least what's the enemy's highest save to avoid; in fact, you're often even able to correctly guess their immunities/resistances, e.g. "it looks undead" or "it looks like a fire creature".

And second, you are still limited in what spells you have available to "do your thing", depending on tradition & preparation and what you desire to do. For if you want to deal lots of damage, you will most likely use one of the high damage Reflex spells like Chain Lightning, Frigid Flurry, or Eclipse Burst – the latter two deal ~30% more damage than other spells at that level.
[Note: I only consider AoE/multi-target spells as damage-spells in this post.]

The idea of using RK to find out high/low saves matters a bit more if you're a divine/occult caster, since you don't have the high-damage Reflex spells (until Eclipse Burst) and therefore have to decide whether you're using a Will- or Fort-save spell. Though in the end you're likely still stuck with a Fort-save spell for damage (e.g. Divine Wrath) because good Will-save damage spells are too rare (at least AoE's).

Only very late at rank 8 & 9, do we even have Fort- & Will-damage spells that finally get better targeting & damage than before (Desiccate, Phantasmagoria), but they are still slightly lacking in damage compared to their Reflex-spell counterparts.

For example, what good non-Reflex AoE damage spell options does an arcane caster with 3rd-rank spells even have?

---

At that point I'm tempted to say that the issue might be the spells themselves:

• If Reflex-damage spells deal ~25% more damage than comparable Fort- & Will-damage spells, then how much does it matter that a Reflex-damage spell is not hitting the lowest save?
  
• Are there even good Fort- & Will-damage spells (AoE's) at all, especially at lower levels?
  
• Divine Wrath is great

...

I would use RK more like I did in PF1 if silver bullet spells existed, weaknesses that mattered much, and more immunities. It would also matter if saves were as differentiated as they were in PF1 when if you had a high dex save, items, tons of stacking bonuses, was real, real high.

And also if battles were longer. I still cast slow on enemies with high Fort saves because even 1 round of slow is often enough to finish an enemy off. Battles are 3 to 5 rounds long, faster if people land a few crits.

PF2 isn't the same game as PF1. It's very focused on short, quick battles with both sides doing high damage with short-term effects that don't require much resource use. It's built to make anything that was once a combat ender to work at best a few rounds. The days when a caster makes a RK check, learns the weakest save and all their immunities and then casting a group hold person ending the fight are gone. Just hammer what's in front of you, land one good spell hit before the martials wreck the monster, move on to the next fight.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Even 20 to 30 percent on a single spell on an average 50 point damage spell is 10 to 15 points. You can do more using 1 action for something else in a short fight.

10 to 15 points per enemy adds up very quickly with AOE. Much faster than a single weapon strike is going to do. Also, it is possible to RK before a fight has begun, or when the positioning for a weapon attack is no good, or you are out of range for your one action spells. It could even be your rogue or other martial making the RK check for you. RK is a party tactic that can help everyone increase damage and not waste actions.

You have better knowledge of most monsters than most people who play PF2 and your GM doesn’t switch stuff up on creatures to create more challenging fights for you. Your playstyle fits your table’s approach to the game. It is not universal that all tables will play the same way.

Mooks don't have high saves. They just get wrecked. When you're getting to Master proficiency and above, most mooks even strong save isn't good enough to withstand you. Then add in an Apex Item and a focus spell like Ancestral Memories, you are jackhammering groups into dust with a chain lightning or Eclipse Burst.

Even if you made your RK and you learn "Weak reflex save" and it's only 1 or 2 difference, you're still better off using a higher damage spell like Eclipse Burst with a possible rider.

RK is mostly unnecessary unless you run into an immunity. Resistances just aren't that high anymore. You can pound right through them.

Deriven i think in the past you've said something to the effect that when you play a caster in your group the rest of the team is usually melee heavy (and optimized for synergy) and they rarely actually even need the caster to finish the fight.

In that environment Rk absolutely has no value but also the caster barely does either right?

The usual group is five players. Two casters and three martials or hybrids like a magus.

We like two casters. One with heal and the other can be whatever.

Casters are more powerful at high level than martials. Martials are generally better at the low to mid levels. Martials are still strong at high level, but casters have more power and versatility.

That's how we see it. Main difference is everyone builds strong characters. The martials will hit real hard and use tactics, but so will the casters. Casters have more tactics.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Unicore wrote:

The OP wanted to know about direct damage casting. That playstyle works fine generally with PF2, but really badly at a table where the GM is only using higher level monsters and removing encounters with lots of lower level ones.

What you're saying is not true. I don't even know why you are making this argument when it is so provably false.

1. Direct damage is best used against large groups of mooks. The more you hit, the more damage you do.

It is kind of funny to call someone a liar and then basically say the same thing as them.

Also, please remember that I said your style of play works just fine in PF2. All I said is that it is not the only way that the game can be played.

We said the same thing minus the need for RK. Don't need it, rarely use it.

Even 20 to 30 percent on a single spell on an average 50 point damage spell is 10 to 15 points. You can do more using 1 action for something else in a short fight.

I wish people would stop selling RK like they're playing PF1. RK was great in PF1. Free action. Wizard's were the absolutely undisputed masters of RK. Skill points meant something and don't exist in PF2. Yet this certain group of players is selling RK like they're still playing PF1. It gives a false idea that RK maintained its power across editions and it did not.

My group went from using RK every battle, multiple players rolling in PF1 just for the heck of it due to being a free action with a meaningful effect because PF1 did have very big save differences and silver bullet spells to not using RK at all. That's how big a difference RK is between PF1 and PF2. Yet you've got players still selling RK like its PF1 and wizard intelligence gives some huge advantage it no longer gives. It creates a false idea of the value of RK.

If you like to use it, great. You can get buy never, ever rolling a RK check during combat and be just fine in PF2.

What debuffs do you think the casters are going to put on something that the martials aren't ?

Think? More like what do I use.

1. Synesthesia with True Target is one of boss killer combos to set the party up. If not an occult caster, I may use Vision of Death/True Target.

2. Slow

3. Primal is more blasting.

4. Bard you would do the big song boost with a true target after landing a synesthesia.

5. Cleric may drop a blast with sicken.

Depends on the class and spell.

On bosses, once I drop the True Target with debuff combo, fight doesn't last long past that.

On groups, I usually blast groups. Don't care what their lowest saves are. Groups are mooks. All their saves are usually low compared to my class DC.

Certain ones, yes. Weapon and armor runes, movement items, save boosting items, certain skill items for athletics or stealth, carrying items, certain blasting items like wand of manifold missiles. It sort of depends.

A lot of items pretty useless. I know some swear by consumables, but past the low levels I've found consumables pretty useless. They just stack up and I never use them. Maybe healing potions are ok if you want to not waste spell power or there is a time push.

The lack of a scaling save makes items that use item saves no good. Monster saves are already set high enough to resist PCs, some non-scaling item save makes item powers using a non-scaling save absolutely worthless.

I think Unicore hit the right advice vector.

If you want to blast you need to know which save gets you the best chance at the most damage while having different blast options that can hit the path of least resistance. Its that simple and it applies to crowds and single higher level creatures.
That is exactly what RK is meant to provide a player.

Nope. You need to know what spell does the most damage or has the best potential hammer hit.

What's better? A 6th fireball with a potential for 12d6 or 42 average damage or a 6th level chain lightning for 8d12 or 52 average damage with a 6th level slot?

Is it better to synesthesia and give your party one round of debuff? Will that do more damage by allowing the party to hit more often while also having a defensive effect? If you use it with Quicken Spell and a reflex save, will the -3 clumsy make your reflex save spell hit harder?

If the monster is severely wounded, isn't it just better to do a 2 actions Force Barrage with a Power Word Kill? Finish it and be done with the fight?

Player making a good decision for spell timing and what is best for the group or final victory far, far more important than RK check to get weak save or weakness for slightly more direct damage. You want to do the best thing at the best time and that is rarely a RK check to find the weak save.

Hitting a low save instead of a high save is about a 25-30% increase in damage. Direct damage spell casting cares about save targeting.

There is a highly favored buff and debuff style of spell casting on these boards that prioritizes spells with ok results on a successful save that doesn’t see nearly as big of a difference from save targeting. Slow is a quintessential example of this. A failure result just means the caster gets to do something other than cast the spell again on a round 2, maybe a round three if the fight even goes that long. As long as the creature doesn’t critically succeed, the caster has done their job. This is Deriven’s playstyle and it is fine and can work well at many tables.

It is also not the only playstyle that can work with casters, nor the only one players want to use. The OP wanted to know about direct damage casting. That playstyle works fine generally with PF2, but really badly at a table where the GM is only using higher level monsters and removing encounters with lots of lower level ones. RK can make it work about 25 percent better, which against fights with multiple lower level enemies can massively out perform other casting styles and even damage focused martials, but against only higher level foes, 25% better is not nearly good enough without also increasing the damage out put of spells in a significant way (my suggestion was increasing the damage of direct damage spells by one rank in campaigns with only higher level enemies).

There are too many other factors in how a GM runs their game to declare whether recall knowledge is useful or not to be valuable to this thread’s purpose. If your first opportunity to recall knowledge about powerful, severe encounters is in the first round of combat, it has a very high cost of use. That isn’t the only or even the default for APs I have seen. It will happen occasionally (and more so when every encounter is set up that way), but APs love foreshadowing bosses.

What you're saying is not true. I don't even know why you are making this argument when it is so provably false.

1. Direct damage is best used against large groups of mooks. The more you hit, the more damage you do.

2. Single target direct is a waste of spellpower and used by vain casters thinking they're going to somehow do more damage than debuffing the target and letting the martials go to town on it. They won't do more damage unless thy are using their Quicken Spell for the day or some double up combo of crazy blasting like a Power Kill combined with some harsh blast spell. Those aren't very hard to figure out.

3. Even if doing all that, a single target monster is going to get wrecked by the sheer volume of attacks coming at them. Even in a 4 person party, that's up to 12 plus actions coming at them they have to withstand. That's a lot of hammer damage hitting them per round. They don't last long.

So some little RK check to try to up your damage by attacking a weak save that you happen to have a spell for that does more damage than one of your stronger spells is more often than not is a waste of time.

Then there is the fact that the very dice roll itself could decide things. I'm sure every player on this board has seen a monster with a weak save roll a 20 against a spell and it does nothing or a monster with a strong save roll a 1 and get wrecked.

When a group is attacking a stronger monster, you're going to get an opening salvo before the other party members hit it so hard it's not going to stand up many rounds. It will all come down to who got the luckiest rolls for hits or saves not the RK check some caster made that mostly ended up as a wasted action.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

If we want to use anecdotal evidence, my entire group hasn't used RK for many years now other than for campaign specific information which is often rolled as a group. They haven't had any problem beating anything.

No, casters do not struggle at high levels targeting a low save. Your save DC gets so high you're really only having problems against really powerful CR+2 to 4 enemies. So does everyone.

As I stated, spell power is not based on a failed save anymore, but on what a spell does on all four levels. So a spell that does nothing on a success is worse than a spell that still does some damage or something on a success which makes it so even a successful save hurts them.

So I'm not sure why this idea of a "low save" is discussed any longer. I have been playing PF2 casters for years now and I cast the spell that does the most on a success which means a low save has to be up to 10 higher than a spell that does very little on a success to be better. Very few if any low saves are up to 10 difference.

This is why slow and synesthesia are so good because even if the monster succeeds, they are still hammered. In PF2, all you need is one round often times.

It's why my casters at higher level often use a debuff spell combined with a spell like True Target. A boss killer combo.

Using RK to target a low save is often a low value action. As long as you get some kind of effect, your group will kill it. This isn't PF1 where some key low save spell is going to have a dramatically more powerful effect than just using bread and butter and working with a group to take it out. Those days are gone. Yet some are holding onto the idea of "Targeting a low save with a silver bullet spell." That doesn't happen very often at all. It is in fact so rare as you will barely notice the difference if you don't ever even spend any time trying to do it.

Its also a big factor with what you have said about your group that you all optimize around particular melee...

There are no caster or martial optimal tactics. There is only group play. The best way to win is to use all available options in coordination. That means martial and caster work as a team to win.

The days of the "god wizard" winning by himself with a silver bullet spell are all gone. It's all coordinated group play that is optimal. No one in PF2 stands or wins alone, not casters and not martials. So optimal is a group working in unison.

You don't need RK for optimal group play. For some reason some folks are holding onto this idea of the wizard making some RK check to figure out some secret that makes winning easy. It doesn't work like that anymore.

PF2 is a group game. You win as a group. People trying to use silver bullets or build some solo character that can win alone isn't what PF2 is built for.

If we want to use anecdotal evidence, my entire group hasn't used RK for many years now other than for campaign specific information which is often rolled as a group. They haven't had any problem beating anything.

No, casters do not struggle at high levels targeting a low save. Your save DC gets so high you're really only having problems against really powerful CR+2 to 4 enemies. So does everyone.

As I stated, spell power is not based on a failed save anymore, but on what a spell does on all four levels. So a spell that does nothing on a success is worse than a spell that still does some damage or something on a success which makes it so even a successful save hurts them.

So I'm not sure why this idea of a "low save" is discussed any longer. I have been playing PF2 casters for years now and I cast the spell that does the most on a success which means a low save has to be up to 10 higher than a spell that does very little on a success to be better. Very few if any low saves are up to 10 difference.

This is why slow and synesthesia are so good because even if the monster succeeds, they are still hammered. In PF2, all you need is one round often times.

It's why my casters at higher level often use a debuff spell combined with a spell like True Target. A boss killer combo.

Using RK to target a low save is often a low value action. As long as you get some kind of effect, your group will kill it. This isn't PF1 where some key low save spell is going to have a dramatically more powerful effect than just using bread and butter and working with a group to take it out. Those days are gone. Yet some are holding onto the idea of "Targeting a low save with a silver bullet spell." That doesn't happen very often at all. It is in fact so rare as you will barely notice the difference if you don't ever even spend any time trying to do it.

If knowledge meant much in this edition, RK would be worth talking about. But it's rarely required to achieve victory. Creatures are not immune to much anymore. Weaknesses aren't that important. You can usually not make a RK check at all to beat everything in the game.

For non-combat, someone making a lucky roll with trained can do just fine learning some campaign specific clue.

The action cost of RK isn't much worth it. RK for non-combat is often accomplished by sheer number of dice rolls during non-combat.

Another way in which intelligence has been reduced in use.

I still don't quite understand why some are hanging onto RK as a part of the wizard now when intelligence and number of skills isn't as meaningful and you don't gain extra proficiency levels from intelligence.

Nearly every single character with base number of skills plus background knows enough skills to have nearly everything. The rogue and investigator straight crush the wizard in skills.

Theaitetos wrote:

I just came across this great video explaining the issues of low-level play in Pathfinder 2e: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNaUD53ZXsM.

Absolutely worth a watch!

As an old-time wizard player, I finally got the courage to build another one after gaining plenty of 2e experience through other classes. I look forward to watching this video at home. Between that and Deriven’s breakdown by level, I should have plenty of food for thought in building my newest spellcaster.

I don't want to paint a complete bad view of the wizard. It's a very playable class. If you make it to 20, the wizard has the best level 20 caster feats. No other caster class can match the power of the level 20 wizard caster feats.

It's the getting to 20 that is rough because they have pretty weak focus spells and feats leading up to level 20. Spell Substitution is their best thesis to take advantage of wizard spell versatility. Though there are certain other tactical options with the other theses.

As a wizard loving player myself across editions, I've found the Imperial Sorcerer is closer to older edition wizards than the wizard class. Imperial sorc feels more powerful than a wizard. It still uses the arcane list. It has some ability to change spells. It ends up with 45 plus spells known you can use in far more versatile ways than a wizard in real time. It does all this while providing useful focus spells that interact well with some great feats the sorc has access to.

I would prefer Paizo at some point make a more fun wizard. But doesn't seem to be in the cards in PF2. If you want more of an old wizard feel, try the imperial sorcerer.

One other thing I like to do to make a combat meaningful against sentient enemies with speech is having them mock or deride the characters in some way. Really irritate them and anger them. Or threaten something important to them. Over the years, I've found players really get invested when someone they are going to fight is talking smack to them or threatening them getting them all riled up.

That's why I like to make sure when DMing to build meaningful relationships into the story so there is something to threaten. I like to build the PCs up as heroes so when they are getting smack talked, they have a reputation to live up to. They can't look weak to some enemy talking smack.

I tend to write smack talk or what a villain might say during encounter prep to really get under the PCs skin. I've found players get more invested in a battle when I do this. And they feel better when victory is achieved. And they come up with some fun smack talk themselves which adds to the RP.

You don't want to put the PCs in a situation where they have no chance to save their meaningful relationship. That is a big no-no unless you want to do this to start a campaign where the goal is revenge.

Both of these methods are fun to make a combat seem more meaningful. It's amusing to write up some smack talk too, get the PCs interacting with their enemies.

Combats are meaningful if they drive the story and/or provide a challenge.

1. You can have a bunch of weak combatants letting the players flex if the job is to intimidate a bunch of low challenge enemies to make the PCs look tough and send a message to the bad guys or to carve a path into enemy headquarters that eats some resources as they make their way to the BBEG.

2. Hunting down some huge monster that is a challenge, but isn't necessarily integral to the story. More of a side quest tossed in to break up the monotony.

For the challenge, I try to get a real good feel for the PCs capabilities then ramp the challenge to the point of pushing them to the brink of death. I want the PCs to feel like they could have died. If my PCs are saying things like, "I thought were going to die" or "I didn't think we would make it", but they still win then the goal is accomplished.

What I don't bother with is encounters with no meaningful reason to exist. I'm not a big fan of sandboxes. I much prefer story driven games with combats deriving from the story. Sandbox encounters I often handwave is I know they will be no real challenge and have no meaningful story addition.

I like to collapse lots of encounters in quick succession so as to strain party resources and really make them feel pressed like a real battle would. Very little downtime. Hit the enemy hard and fast or get hit hard and fast. I can't see why enemies would let a party prepare to destroy them or recover resources rather than press them.

I like to give the enemy the necessary resources to mount a challenge. If intelligent enemies, then adding caster and healing support like a PC party would have. If a huge monster, then boosts it CR or hit points to withstand concentrated attack long enough to be a threat.

You want the fight in the mind's eye to mirror a fantasy novel or game or action movie where the PCs win, but also know the stakes are high and the danger is real.

I play casters the following way in PF2.

1. I build up a ranged weapon at low level. I fire it while casting a cantrip like frostbite or electric arc. Something with a save so as not to affect MAP.

2. In the mid levels, I just direct damage spells combined with my weapon. Maybe combine it with a good focus spell for sustain.

3. At high level, I nuke the living hell out of stuff while activating magic items like a wand of manifold missiles to get a stream of extra damage going or use a sustain spell like phantom orchestra.

4. I do this while also casting slow or synesthesia. I generally open up with a blast, then layer in a debuff against stronger stuff.

PF2 tends to have rotational top damage. No single class is top all the time. It's going depend on crits which the fighter tends to do most often. But any class can have a brutal round. So top damage can change from fight to fight.

With casters you want to layer damage sources. Your individual cantrips are pretty low damage, but with a weapon they can match a martial some rounds. Given at low level you are generally the same as a martial with a weapon, it is wise to use one.

As your caster proficiency advances and spells do more damage with better focus points or magic items, you can start relying more on those.

Casters are the kings of AOE damage. Martials usually do more single target, but if you really unleash or layer on as a caster you can do a lot of damage.

Once you get quicken spell, you can have at least one big hammer fight a day.

I find my casters keep up quite well with damage while having far more utility abilities during a campaign. The main martial that has strong utility and strong combat is the rogue. No other martials top casters for utility and damage combined. Martials are mainly focused on damage and some combat control with maybe athletics or acrobatics being their most useful skill.

You have to play a caster to learn to master how they work. I definitely recommend using a weapon for the early levels combined with a save spell. That's the best way to do good damage while waiting for the stronger spells as you level up. And it is more fun to build up a weapon when the interesting magic items are scarce at low level.

I find casters to the strongest, most interesting classes in the game. I get real bored playing martials because they are very limited.

My personal favorite casters are the druid, sorc, magus (a hybrid), and oracle. I think the cleric is top notch now too that they get general blasting and much better feats.

Worst caster is the wizard. I personally don't enjoy the bard because the party expects you to buff all the time which I get real bored of, but the buffs are so good it's hard to justify not using them.

Casters are real fun as you level. They get more interesting at high level than most martials with the exception of the rogue.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

But if a fighter or other class, you can take rogue archetype, pick up Trapfinder, then get a Master perception with a Canny Acumen, and you can search for Legendary perception traps. It's one of the many reasons the rogue archetype is the best archetype in the game for its many useful purposes.

How does a character with Master Perception find legendary gated perception traps? Trap Finder lets them DISARM them, NOT find them

My bad. I guess you're screwed if you don't have a Legendary perception character with you. Paizo should probably fix that as forcing a group to have a Legendary perception character is not great given there are only three that have it and not everyone wants to play those classes every time.

I was using force fang to very high level. I did start to adjust my focus point use on my magus when I picked up imaginary weapon around level 6 to 8. Then I would split the points. I did sometimes use the weapon rune feat with a focus point if exploiting a weakness.

Magus has some good focus point options. Force Fang remains useful even to high level if you have a round where you want to recharge and do some single target damage.

Perpdepog wrote:

I can understand a trap being gated behind perception proficiency, even if I'm also not a fan. Traps are meant to be hidden; an obvious trap isn't much of a trap.

I mean isn't hiding the trap what the dc is for?

Perception gating doesn't mean it's hard to detect the trap, it means you are literally not allowed and utterly incapable of detecting the trap if you decided to play a fighter with a gun instead of a gunslinger even if you beat the dc by 10 or 20 or 50.

Diagetically you can only really describe it as some sort of divine intervention, not the trap being designed more sneakily.

I think they want to make Legendary perception mean something.

But if a fighter or other class, you can take rogue archetype, pick up Trapfinder, then get a Master perception with a Canny Acumen, and you can search for Legendary perception traps. It's one of the many reasons the rogue archetype is the best archetype in the game for its many useful purposes.

I guess the ability to use it after a spell strike and ignore MAP is an advantage I had not thought of.

I guess in that particular niche, it is better than the other conflux spells.

I thought about Force Bolt, which is comparable damage-wise, but it is also ranged, which, in most cases, Force Fang is not.

I realize that the recharging spell strike is an advantage, but that is not really fair to use that as a comparison to other focus spells, because that is such a unique thing to the magus.

It just seems weak compared to other conflux spells. Perhaps I am just not weighing the disregarding of MAP as much as I should.

I thought it was worse than other conflux spells too. I found that it is one of the better conflux spells mostly because it requires no setup. It's super easy to use. No area, no teleportation, not situational, just do some extra damage with no map and recharge your spell strike for 1 focus point. Very efficient, effective, and easy to use in nearly any situation.