If too much damage at long range is a worry then maybe it's time for a new trait that changes the damage dice at closer ranges.
Like "Focused d6: This ranged weapon is more effective at closer distances. Your attacks against targets that are within half of its first range increment changes its weapon damage die to the indicated value. This change applies to all the weapon's damage dice, such as those from striking runes."
Or the inverse if that is better, lowering damage at higher ranges instead of taking a range penalty.
My question is why does it need to be less accurate than other martials at only levels 1-4 (assuming that proficiency scaling is an error), 10-14, and level 20? What's so much weaker about its other features at 5-9 and 15-19 that it's suddenly balanced for this class to equal other martials? Is this class so OP for half of its career that it needs to take a -1 malus to hit for the other half? Is that even good design, for it to be relatively weaker at some levels so it can be stronger at others, what justifies this?
Also, what apex item is a Kineticist choosing? If you want to use your AoE save abilities and to not be at -1 to your DC compared to spellcasters, and -3(!) from level 19, then you have to choose Constitution. But if you don't choose Dex/Str then that puts you at -1 to hit compared to martials from 17-19 which goes to -2 to hit at level 20! Those are not trivial gaps.
Maybe as a compromise Kineticists should be allowed to choose any physical key ability score, but regardless their class DC still scales off of Constitution. So if you want to be Striking all day then you can pick Str or Dex, but if you want to be dropping that AoE like it's hot (or cold) then you can choose to focus on Constitution.
How I wish Monks had a feature in their chassis that gave them an action to raise their guard, which occupies a hand, giving +2 AC and a feat to enhance it and allow Shield Blocking. I despise the fact that Monks that don't use shields are leaving AC on the table that only costs 2gp to grab, and interferes with almost nothing they do except their aesthetic.
Also, as some have said above, why do they allow the core feature, and damage booster, of the Monk to be poached by the archetype? A Human can grab multi-talented at 9th and then grab Flurry of Blows at 10th.
Too late now, but this and the Champion Reaction should have been guarded a little better IMO.
It's pretty simple, are you holding more than a single one-handed weapon? If yes then no implement's empowerment for you. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is no rule that says stuff can't be two things. Just because you're treating a sword as a Regalia implement doesn't mean it stops being a one-handed weapon.
This line: "You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica" means that if you hold more than one (1) one-handed weapon you no longer qualify for implement's empowerment, no ambiguity. Yes the Regalia weapon is "other implements", but that does not stop it from being a second one-handed weapon. It doesn't get through by satisfying just one requirement, it also needs to not violate the single one-handed weapon restriction.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Probably better in a party with an Archer Fighter, especially if your GM disallows ranged Aid actions (which I've seen some do).
Also, really good in a party with an Opportune Backstab Rogue with Prep, assuming your GM allows the temporal twin of your rogue to count as an ally to the rogue. Hilarious imagery as well, get backstabbed by a clone of the Rogue you're fighting, get distracted and then get stabbed in the back again by the same damn rogue, with flanking and sneak attack!
Thaumaturge in Free Archetype with Drow Shootist 2/4/6, then Archer Dedication + Crossbow Terror at 8th to amp a simple Hand Crossbow, which is your Weapon implement. Use a Wand implement in your other hand. Reloading Strike means you can make at least one shot a round with the Hand Crossbow using only one action.
Routine with a +1 Striking Flaming Hand Crossbow looks like 2d8+1d6+8 (you get +2 additional per weapon damage die, +2 Circumstance from Crossbow Terror, and +2 additional from weapon specialization) + Exploit Weakness, followed (or preceded) by Fling Magic with a basic save for 5d6+4 and potentially flat-footed, persistent damage, or reduced speed. Then add Energized Cartridge from Talisman Esoterica and you can get some really solid DPR if you ever get the chance to target multiple weaknesses at once.
You still don't get implement's empowerment if you're wielding two weapons.
"You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit."
If you have a Sword Regalia implement and a Sword Weapon implement you are holding more than "a single one-handed weapon", and the fact that you're also holding "other implements" is irrelevant to that violation as they're still weapons.
Not really abusing the "weapon as an implement" stuff, but I'm currently planning a bomb using Thaumaturge that has Regalia in one hand and a Bladed Gauntlet as a weapon implement, with a Gunslinger dedication for Quick Draw and Munitions Crafter. Free-hand should allow me to quickdraw the Bombs while still applying implement's empowerment, and still allowing weapon reaction. It's going to be a bit pricey getting bombs in the earlier levels, but until level ~3-4ish I'll probably rely more on a Rapier or a gun or something.
I'm getting pretty sick of this strawman. People that are complaining specifically about attack roll spells just want them to be on par with save spells. If save spells do less damage than martials, then logically people who want attack roll spells to do equivalent damage to save spells want them to do less damage than martials.
The fact that they're "balanced" by clunky things like True Strike and Shadow Signet is part of the problem by the way.
You only get to free draw an implement when you're replacing an implement you're already holding, so this is still pretty rough.
Unarmed attacks still have weapon damage die, go and look at Handwraps of Mighty Blows, they refer to weapon damage dice.
"For example, +1 striking handwraps of mighty blows would give you a +1 item bonus to attack rolls with your unarmed attacks and increase the damage of your unarmed attacks from one weapon die to two"
Just that, on average, they seem on par with martials.
I really wish that average was distributed a little more evenly across level 1-20. The early game for a lot of casters can be miserable, because as you level not only do you get way more spells, but they have greater effects even against on level, and above level, enemies. And you have to deal with things like not hitting the AC cap natively until level 15 when you get 20 dex... Really wish, for example, that a spell like Mage Armour meaningfully helped with that by giving you a +2 item bonus/+3 dex cap.
Personally I just stopped playing casters from level 1-~8ish, but maybe the Psychic will change that.
Just because some reactions call out disrupting doesn't mean that this is the only way to change the effect of an action, although some seem to have made an exception for this wording when it comes to Strides. Why? Sure movement reactions are triggered per square, but why are you taking that as precedent for move related triggers when you won't for other triggers? Nimble dodge allows for a reaction triggered by being targeted by an observed Strike and can alter the course of that Strike (even making it do nothing if it causes it to miss!) without mentioning the magical "disrupt" word.
Disrupt entirely cancels and action, which is not what the suggested readied actions actually do.
For example, suppose a cowardly Archer shot a Barbarian and then readied an action to flee if they tried to cut them down. This Barbarian uses Sudden Charge to close and Strike, causing the Archer to flee. This is not a disruption of the Strike, and to show why the Barbarian will now use their own reaction: No Escape. The foe tries to avoid the attack but ends up still in reach, so the Strike continues.
The same thing happens if a foe readies a Step instead of a Stride to avoid an AoO but is targeted by a reach weapon, they were outplayed. If they had actually disrupted the triggering action then it'd be stopped regardless, instead they merely changed the situation and not enough to avoid their fate.
Another fun one is someone with 4th level Silence cast on them readying an action to Stride next to a caster that tries to cast a Spell. Obviously a lot of these tactics will be telegraphed by a character only taking 1 action on their turn, although I'll admit that against mindless enemies these tactics could be abusable. That's already the case with a lot of tactics however, and is kind of the fatal flaw of creatures like Golems and other constructs. Still, the idea of PCs straight up outmaneuvering all foes with these tactics strikes me as some white room stuff that wouldn't work in a real situation with terrain and surprises.
While some are against this for balance reasons (although the 2-action + reaction cost, + possibility of it not being triggered really allay that concern for me), I thought of a fun interaction. If you designated 'I am targeted by a Strike' as your trigger then it is entirely reasonable for a feint to trigger your reaction. Feints in general are also a good argument that the beginning of a Strike (before it lands) is a plausible observable trigger.
Forewarning, I haven't played with anyone using these tactics as a player or GM, but it sounds fun to me!
Even for Readying an action to drink Time Shield potion, if the trigger was the Strike, then I would still have the Strike be resolved before the potion takes effect, because the Strike doesn't get disrupted. If the trigger was the enemy Stride to be within range of an attack, then the potion would take effect before the enemy's action to Strike. But that also means that the action can be used for something else instead of Strike.
And if the trigger wasn't a Strike, but being targeted by a Strike (as Nimble Dodge shows is very likely an allowable trigger, being something observable), what then? We know from existing reactions that you can apply an effect DURING an action that has triggered a reaction (+2 AC in Nimble Dodge's case) and that the effect of the reaction can change the course of the triggering action WITHOUT disrupting it (and with no special wording like "immediately", as Reactive Shield Block has). So why not in the case of a readied Stride? Or a Readied Trip in response to a Stride action? It seems to me that by RAW and RAI what should be done in this situation is to apply the effects of the Readied action and see how that affects the triggering action.
Note that in these cases the creature's action wasn't any more "Disrupted" than if you shield blocked all of a Strike's damage. The attack still happened, it's just that your reaction changed the effects of it.
Nimble Roll, which builds on Nimble Dodge and lets you move away, doesn't stop the attack it just lets you move after it. I don't see why you would allow a player to have a better reaction than a level 8 feat for free at level 1.
I wouldn't call a reaction that requires two actions of setup (and forewarning) better than Nimble Dodge, certainly it would be used less in actual play! Is it balanced, then, that the power of two actions + a reaction takeable by a level 1 character is more powerful than Nimble Dodge? Yes, two regular Strikes are certainly more powerful than Nimble Dodge and they don't even cost you your reaction!
If you're Paralyzed on your turn, you can't use your actions, excepting mental only ones. Stunned is written the same way. Why is it different?
Because Stunned is explicitly mentioned in a callout box that says you don't lose your actions if you gain it during your turn: "Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions on a turn. The rules for how this works appear on page 462. In brief, these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn; thus, gaining the condition in the middle of your turn doesn’t adjust your number of actions on that turn."
Given RAW doesn't work for either interpretation, and this obviously tells you RAI, why would you not follow it?
Some of this has been brought up already, but I'm putting all the rules text together to see if it at all makes sense if you run Stunned with a value as causing you to be unable to act.
Slowed says: "You have fewer actions. Slowed always includes a value. When you regain your actions at the start of your turn, reduce the number of actions you regain by your slowed value. Because slowed has its effect at the start of your turn, you don't immediately lose actions if you become slowed during your turn."
Stunned says:"You've become senseless. You can't act while stunned. Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how many total actions you lose, possibly over multiple turns, from being stunned. Each time you regain actions (such as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain by your stunned value, then reduce your stunned value by the number of actions you lost."
It also says this about Stunned with a duration: "Stunned might also have a duration instead of a value, such as “stunned for 1 minute.” In this case, you lose all your actions for the listed duration."
CRB says: "Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions on a turn. The rules for how this works appear on page 462. In brief, these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn; thus, gaining the condition in the middle of your turn doesn’t adjust your number of actions on that turn."
Can't act: "The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can't act: this means you can't use any actions, or even speak. When you can't act, you don't regain your actions and reaction on your turn."
Putting this information together you can see that the rules are contradictory; if Stunned with a value actually means you cannot act then it will never end as you never regain actions to reduce it. The writer of the CRB also seems to assume that gaining Stunned on your turn would not restrict you from acting on that turn. This is just incoherent with the language of Stunned if "You can't act while stunned" is taken literally.
A more forgiving reading of the rules is that the Stunned condition first states you cannot act and then the rest of the condition clarifies exactly how you cannot act. For Stunned with a duration you cannot act period, for Stunned with a value you cannot act for the next X actions, but can both before and after those actions. It may also be true that Paizo wants Stunned to deny reactions between turns if rumours of that Youtube ruling are true (still haven't seen the video), if so this interpretation is also contradictory.
The RAW is nonsense for both interpretations, but I really cannot fathom that the RAI is that gaining stunned 1 during your turn is supposed to end it given the problems it causes and the way the writer of the CRB seems to think it works.
I don't have the PDF, but based on what others are saying you can't use Shadow Signet with an amped spell because it disallows metamagic unfortunately. Might still be worth it, but probably want to stick to save spells for Psychic generally (as usual without Shadow Signet).
That's the woes of trying to fix system wide problems with a clunky math fixing item I guess.
I'd see this maybe from a rune, but on a bomb, the persistent damage is part of the strike, so I'm not really sure that its so clear cut to say initial damage is the only part of that consists of the weapon's damage
I'm confused with this point, aren't the damage from runes part of the Strike in the same way as a bomb's? Mechanically they should work the same as bombs, except maybe for effects that specifically ask you to count Weapon Damage Dice (as you only use the base dice and Striking runes for that). I don't see any rules support for giving them separate rulings, if non-bomb persistent damage doesn't trigger it then bomb persistent damage also should not trigger it.
Here is the wording on Personal Antithesis btw:
"You improvise a custom weakness on a creature by forcefully presenting and empowering a piece of esoterica that repels it on an individual level; for instance, against a tyrant, you might procure a broken chain that once held a captive. This causes the target creature, and only the target creature, to gain a weakness against your unarmed and weapon Strikes equal to 2 + half your level."
I don't see anything stopping you from taking Assurance on Esoteric Lore right? If you want to dump Charisma, or just remove the chance of flat-footing yourself in an important boss fight against an already researched creature, this would basically make you guaranteed to fail the check against on level and higher enemies, but not crit fail it.
At level 7 and 8 you would actually succeed against on level foes, and you only ever crit fail versus creatures ~6+ levels above you.
Another problem Ancestry; Poppets have the construct trait, which say this: "When reduced to 0 Hit Points, a construct creature is destroyed" but unlike Automatons they do not have a rule like Automaton Core that contradicts this.
This falls under too bad to be true IMO, so I think it's safe to say that there are some mistakes in how some Ancestries are written RAW.
It seems like there ought to have been a "Living" trait which applies to most creatures that makes them need to breathe, sleep and have blood. It'd be nice if what it meant to be "Living" was explicitly described somewhere, it would be a little too onerous to add living to all those stat blocks now.
Maybe there should even be a defined baseline (you breathe, you eat, you sleep, you bleed etc.) for what PCs are that you do not deviate from no matter your traits unless you get an actual ability from your Ancestry or elsewhere that tells you to. I know that sort of thing annoys some people though.
It doesn't work with bows because:
1 - IMO they don't spend any interact actions to reload (I know this one has already been debated on the forums)
2 - Even if you could "reload" it you still need two hands on the bow when you make a Strike, requiring you to drop your off-hand implement and causing you to not benefit from Implements Empowerment regardless.
Time Oracle sure has a brutal curse. Permanent Slowed 1 at major? Actually might be the worst curse, which is saying something.
Time Skip is a great focus spell though, 1 action to give an ally within 30ft haste for 1 round and +1 heightens for additional allies. Looking forward to seeing if the other focus spells make the downsides of that curse worth it!
A cold-based Meteor Swarm is exactly as many effects as a fire-based Meteor Swarm.
What is the point of the third option of the Wish spell if you aren't able to produce any effect whose power level is in line with a 9th level or lower Arcane Spell, or a 7th level or lower non-arcane Spell? Sure, your GM has to agree that it is in line with those spells (same as anything else subjective in the game), but if they do then they should allow it by RAW.
This clause is separate and different to the "The GM might allow you to try using wish to produce greater effects than these" clause. It's effectively saying "the GM will allow you to produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects", in exactly the same way as it is saying "the GM will allow you to duplicate any arcane spell of 9th level or lower."
What does the third clause of the Wish spell allow you to do in your opinion? You are the one houseruling here (and that's fine!), not those running the spell how it is written.
RAW the Wish spell allows you to produce any effect that has a power level that is in line with a 9th level Arcane Spell.
Pointed question here, do you honestly think that a cold damage version of Meteor Swarm is generally out of line with the power level of a 9th level arcane spell? Would you say that Meteor Swarm warranted a nerf if the spell currently did cold damage instead of fire damage? If not, then can you explain how it doesn't fall under the third option of the Wish spell?
Your description of a player looking for a solution "in all the spells accessible by Wish" is only allowing for two out of four explicitly allowed effects listed in the Wish spell. One of the clearly listed options of what you can produce with the Wish spell, without GM permission, is any effect that is in line with the power of a 9th level Arcane spell. If you think that an effect that is identical in damage to an existing 9th level spell, but with sidegraded damage type, doesn't fall under that description, then what does? This clause specifically allows the effect to be outside of existing spells as long as it is not out of line power wise. What use would this be if you decided that any effect that is different than an existing spell must have inherently more power simply due to adding to the flexibility of the Wish spell, and should therefore should default to the later GM fiat clause?
If you think that Wish is too powerful go ahead and nerf it, but I don't understand the argument that disallows swapping a common damage type to another by RAW, it seems exactly what the third option in the Spell is for tbh.
"You state a wish, making your greatest desire come true. A wish spell can produce any one of the following effects.
- Duplicate any arcane spell of 9th level or lower.
The GM might allow you to try using wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so might be dangerous or the spell might have only a partial effect."
I'm pretty sure that by the wording of the Wish spell you do not need GM permission to produce an effect that is in line with the power of a 9th level arcane spell, you only need permission to exceed it. Now you can attempt to argue that a cold damage version of the meteor swarm spell exceeds it in power, but it seems very dubious to me. I can't see a reasonable argument as to why Cold damage is generally more powerful than Fire damage, can anyone explain this?
Do you believe that the Wish spell is checking how powerful the suggested effect is in the context of the current situation? Would you allow a Wizard to Wish for a Cold Meteor Swarm if they were attempting to use it on a group of White Dragons because it would be weaker than a 9th level spell in that context?
How does an effect that is identical to Meteor Swarm but produces Cold damage instead of Fire damage not have a power level that is in line with a 9th level Arcane Spell?
I think what Wish is asking when it says "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects", being a 9th level Arcane or 7th level non-Arcane Spell, is if it were a printed Spell would it be too strong? I don't think anyone would call Comet Storm, the cold version of Meteor Swarm, too strong if Paizo printed it as it is quite clearly on par with Meteor Swarm. I don't see a good argument for Cold damage being meaningfully overall stronger than Fire damage. It would be different if it was a damage type that Arcane casters usually don't get access to.
Getting to pick and choose the damage type at the time of casting isn't part of this duplicated Spell's power budget (this made up spell is ALWAYS cold after all), it's part of Wish's power budget as a 10th level Spell.
That's because the RK rules are vague, ambiguous and confusing. Could be much improved.
Recall Knowledge is extremely GM dependent as the base rules for it are rather bad.
I don't care if you want to invalidate people's opinions, I'm just suggesting that you do it based on more than 'they disagree with you' and 'some people who have opinions about things formed them uncritically'.
If you disagree with someone because they have nothing supporting their opinion then say that, don't say "I've found this study that says when people repeat an argument a lot it can cause people to agree with it uncritically. Hey people I argue with have an argument and I KNOW they're wrong, they must have accepted it uncritically!" Not saying that's your intention, but you sound like you're trying to dismiss any consensus of a class being weak when it suits you, an "I'll know it when I see it" approach.
You mentioned the "presentation of actual evidence" as something you can use to identify cases where the people who disagree with you have opinions that were formed uncritically, do you have any examples of a consensus formed around a class's balance that has fallen prey to this bias? I'd like to see the arguments that you're suggesting we ought to dismiss as uncredible (and instead recognise as simply familiar) based on this psychological phenomena.
Shouldn't that also be the case about people claiming a class is fine and needs no changes then? Or maybe we could leave the ambiguous pop psychology that completely dismisses the validity of the opinions of those we disagree with out of the discussion unless it has specific relevance?
I've seen plenty of posts, usually from the same people, about how the Alchemist is fine and needs (or needed, before it got Errata'd) no changes, but I've also seen plenty of posts from entirely new players asking for Alchemist advice because they hate it.
Playing the Wrath of the Righteous crpg really makes me miss the dozen archetypes per class world of 1e, it really let you make a specific focused idea that was quite distinct from every other character made with that class.
I love the generic (as in they can go with any class, not that they're boring) archetypes of 2e as well, just wish we had some of both.
It isn't trumped actually, because nowhere in the Horse's support ability does it say that the bonus is "based on a weapon's number of damage dice", just damage dice in general.
Here's that wording:
There is a following statement that says "If your weapon already has the jousting weapon trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead." which I think strongly implies that it should be referring to weapon damage dice, but strictly RAW it could easily refer to a spell attack's damage dice for example.
That's why it should be cleared up, it ought to say Strike instead of attack and it should say it adds a circumstance bonus to damage equal to twice the number of weapon damage dice.
That depends on whether you think the game allows actions like Strike to be modified into weird hybrid activities and still be allowed to function in things like Flurry of Blows or Spellstrike. If you don't think "Strike-but-it-includes-an-interact-that-takes-zero-actions" is the same as "Strike" for those purposes then it does sort of break the game for those weapons.
If Paizo didn't use Errata to buff the many poorly balanced things in 1e, then I'd guess they aren't going to do it much to the significantly less unbalanced 2e. The best we can hope for is an Unchained version of those classes which have disappointed a good chunk of their fans, or more class specific class archetypes if those ever manifest.
I think all three of those should see a few class archetypes before going Unchained. There are plenty of people satisfied with the chassis of them as-is, so an "Unchained" version would likely just muddy the waters.
I think when there's a big divide in satisfaction regarding classes is exactly when Unchained is most suitable. I know plenty of people thought the Chained Monk (with adequate system mastery and archetypes) was stronger than the Unchained Monk in 1e, and those people were free to keep playing Chained Monks. The Unchained versions really made it so the classes had wider appeal outside of the groups that already thought they were great, it didn't take anything away from the originals.
I do agree though, if it is possible within Paizo's framework to make these classes more widely appealing just through class archetypes then that'd be fine as well.
Wish Paizo would focus a bit more on buffing things like Witch and a bit less on nerfing stuff that is barely a problem.
Like, I get that they got it earlier than other ancestries could, but they also get terrible reach and can't even melee attack adjacent creatures while mounted unless they use a reach weapon. I doubt they were really competing with stuff like Human's multitalented Ancestry feat at the upper end of optimisation...
It'd be nice if they'd release a 5th, or even 9th, level Ancestry feat for Sprites (and future familiar riding Ancestries) that reenabled independent while mounted, and maybe gave an additional familiar ability so you can offset being forced to take Scent.
And what about the Mounted Melee Magus? They can do the exact same routine with higher damage.
Or, much scarier, the Mounted Fighter multiclassed into Magus. They can easily do the exact same thing as the Starlit Span Magus, but with +2 to hit and a bigger damage dice weapon. Keep in mind that with True Strike you're probably only doing The Big One once (maybe twice) a fight with the Starlit Span anyway.
And what about the Sixth Pillar leaping Magus (12th level, but you can get a 35ft Leap whenever you cast a spell)?
Fighter Multiclass into Monk for Monastic Archer + FoB + Ki Strike?
Oh, that's pretty decent.
The full routine is a lot more rigid to use than Ranger though, and you have to consider the recharge means you can't True Strike consistently. I think a better comparison for the Focus Point Spellstrike is to the Monastic Archer Monk with Ki Strike. It has less range, but does similar damage with more versatility on a better chassis (saves, health).
The real danger for Ranged DPR comparisons is a Fighter multiclassing into either Monk or Magus and getting these effects with their inherent +2 to hit, even if it is only for one round per combat.
So do those who think that Striking with a Bow is an activity that includes a Strike and a Reload not allow the Monastic Archer Monk to Flurry of Blows with it? Do you disallow a Hasted Archer from Striking with their bow? Both of these cases require an unmodified basic Strike rather than an Activity that includes a Strike.
I think it is pretty obvious that Paizo does not intend for a Strike with a reload 0 weapon to be simply an activity that includes a reload, it is a separate case with different rules.
Darksol I don't think you're using the Too Good To Be True guideline correctly. It is referring to too good in a holistic sense, not one facet of one rule being less affected by a niche case than a feat that does superficially similar things. If you're trying to argue that Reload 0 weapons should be held to the same standard as Quick Draw then why not make them require a feat? Or make it a defined activity that cannot be used with things like Flurry of Blows or Haste? Quick Draw and Reload 0 are entirely different things and they don't need to be, and shouldn't be, balanced by comparing each facet of them against each other any more than other aspects of the rules should be. It's absurd.
A reading of the rules is Too Good To Be True when it is actually unbalanced, not when it is simply inconsistent. The worst you could say about reload 0 weapons dodging an AoO disruption is that it is inconsistent in a simulationist sense. Dodging such a niche penalty (that is likely not even intended given it would invalidate Mobile Shot Stance) is a far cry from too good to be true.
Also, could you please stop strawmanning everyone who disagrees with you as people that are just calling your playstyle badwrongfun? Play how you want, most people here who disagree with you are arguing against your interpretation of the rules, not how you run them.
The Raven Black wrote:
Just a reminder that people tend to hate on skill uses that seem to be feat-gated. To the point that they misread feats as saying you cannot do this or that without the skill, whereas the feat merely allows a more efficient approach. This was already the case in PF1 and PF2 inherited them.
I think people want more feats that aren't really within the normal purview of a skill but enable a play style, like Bon Mot, which I haven't seen much griping about.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
My conclusion for P2 is based on recorded numbers.
? Is this white room maths or your experience? Is this a representative sample of optimal play? You seem extremely confident that you have the Objective Truth of how good Wizards are at low level, why is that? If all you're doing is accurately recording what's happened in your games then I'm sorry but all you've done is made it less likely that your personal biases are affecting your conclusions, your group's style of play and GMs are still going to prevent your data from being representative. Sorry if I've made incorrect assumptions about how you've collected your data, but unless you've been sampling different games then I don't see this as particularly useful for drawing conclusions on how balanced the game is in general. You can definitely draw meaningful conclusions about your group though.
Regardless, let's assume you're correct and martials are no more effective than casters at lower levels. We're now looking at basically two ways of playing casters at low levels effectively: supporting martials with magic weapon and similar spells, or playing a sort of gish. Many people (including myself) would strongly prefer more options than that.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Once you accept this paradigm change and build accordingly, you find the low level caster is on par with the low level martial.
That may be your experience, it hasn't been mine. I am actually already aware that they have only slightly worse to hit levels 1-5, I just came to a different conclusion than you on their effectiveness.
I mean I definitely think there is a problem with the mechanical performance of the class, it's just at low levels (1-7ish) and it affects most other casters, and a lot of people like it because it's traditional to the genre. I'd say Wizards are affected more due to having less power in their chassis vs. spells, but I may be wrong.
Some people don't have an issue with this as it is sort of tradition, but I would have preferred if martials and casters were more balanced in the early game and late game rather than martials starting stronger and then switching around for the later levels when high HP and exotic challenges makes damage less effective than control and versatility (broad strokes, I know). In the early levels you get less spells and they do less, it only makes sense that a class that relies on their spells more will be less powerful than those that rely on their abilities/chassis, like Bards/Druids.
I think if you go back to those Wizard hate threads you'll find that many of its detractors were already talking about the first half of the levelling experience, if only because that's what most people had played earlier into the game's life.
Personally, even if the early levels are actually balanced, I think bland and balanced is a much worse problem than interesting but underpowered. It is a lot easier (and quicker) to buff an interesting class than it is to add a variety of interesting but balanced feats/features.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
It is so heartening to see the posts in this thread. Having been a staunch defender during the 'wizards are terrible' threads a year or so back, it is awesome to see wizards being recognized for their strengths.
You're happy people think they're bland and weak early, but bland and balanced mid to late levels? Doesn't seem like a win for Wizards to me. Especially given we're post-Secrets of Magic, where people had hoped (and argued that) the interesting feats would come.