Search Posts
The magical cloth Magus is also weaker because you trade Spellstriking for other actions while can be less powerful of course. I have yet to see a magus not wanting to Spellstrike even if giving additional actions. The new improvised weapon Magus is considered weak because of the additional action tax of needing to draw a new weapon unless you use a very strict feat rotation. Leave the tripping and grappling to the Barbarian and Fighters and you focus on doing BIG BONKING DAMAGE!
- Rogues definitely aren't treading in Operative's shoes. Getting off-guard is still just too annoying for me to bother with the class. Thaumaturge and Operative are more enjoyable skillmonkeys for me. Excuse me but pardon? What do you mean getting Off-Guard is annoying as a rogue? If you are using any melee weapon which qualifies for sneak attacking then all you need to do is flank with your allies. Not only are you triggering Sneak Attack but giving the Monster a nice -2 to their AC state which is very, very useful for everyone involved rather that be a Rogue, Barbarian, Fighter or even a Magus. They all benefit from the penalty you provide to the enemy. Perhaps I am just confused and do not fully understand it.
What happened when I steppe away. I was asking what classes you guys thought were subjectively the worst and all I read was why the game is not realistic? This is not what I was expecting to read after 100 posts since I last read this thread. Well we are on the topic why is Fighter on this list for opinion of the worst class? From everything I ever seen Fighter is considered the objectively BEST Martial in the game out damaging all classes just because they got a slight +2 Attack Boost which is absurd when you think about it.
Where are the Investigators putting their stats? I've seen 18 int, 16 Dex all the time with ranged weapons...
Imagine when we get to see the fully released INT Martial known as the Commander. Let us see just how much it changed (If at all) from the Playtest. So trading away your action for actions of your allies, depends if any class is better then other classes. This is the question of design at this point. Since we are talking about INT Classes, would the Commander be able to be more useful then other classes? What about other INT classes? Would a Commander commanding allies be better then having a different INT Class in the party, rather it be an Inventor, Investigator or Alchemist? Then you get into the realm of would it be better to bring a none-specialized Martial (A Martial focused on striking) or a Spellcaster? This is all simple thought about INT Classes and not INT itself. As I feel a lot of the problems INT has is even removed by classes for some odd design choice. Thaumaturge which is the Lore Class is CHA based for some reason outside of INT which I do like and understand but the choice of doing so I believe undermines INT as an Attribute especially with the Level 1 Feat Diverse Lore existing which lets you use your auto scaling Lore (Which is free and uses your Key Ability Score) at a -2 as Lore (Anything) is frankly absurd. If any other class got auto scaling Lore Anything, or rather if an Archetype like Loremaster had Loremaster Lore scale to Legendary then INT would feel slightly better. That way classes like Alchemist, Inventor, Investigator and other similar INT classes could more easily gather information for the same feat investment as the Thaumaturge with Diverse Lore perhaps makes INT more useful if the Lore scaled with Esoteric Lore but didn't take a -2 to be used as Lore (Anything). But we run into the problem once more with Tome Implement which grants Expert Skills and a +1 to Lore checks while holding the Implement...Which means in essence you will be pairing it with Diverse Lore only giving you a effective -1 penalty. You could at level 8 get a Broach of Inspiration if it is allowed for the +1 Item Bonus instead I suppose which caps art +3 with the major one. While we are at this let's see how the other INT Playtest classes got altered from their Playtest versions. I.E Necromancer & Runesmith. Which for "Worst" class I can not tell you that either of those two classes I mentioned here would actually be on the lift, the only thing I would mention if Necromancer's Playtest Thrall Mechanic is both somehow Overpowered as well as Underpowered. What do I mean by this? Thralls have this weird habit to being this massive wall which with the right placing can make many encounters trivial. Sure they only got 1 hit point and is auto hit and destroyed but that in itself is a problem. Any use of the Attack Trait in an Action gives you a -5 (-4 if Agile) on your next attack. Not only does that mean that good placement can give you a greater chance of survival but if the enemy tries to Tumble Through they can only Tumble through a single Thrall per action (According to the rules). However if your GM ignores your Thralls they become a weak class feature with a weak 1 action bonus attack.
I am not sure how Paizo justified changing out the school system the Wizard had from - Classification of spells to a extremely limited spell pool...of maybe 18 spells if I recall there are 2 spells per rank. However I would say no matter what Sorcerer will always beat Wizard but since this is not a Wizard is Weak thread let's more on! I have to say even after seeing an Inventor in action the Overdrivre mechanic is weird. The fact you need to roll to gain a pseudo-rage is silly but I suppose the Thaumaturge is just the better Inventor where it feels like it works compared to these odd unstable actions which have a 25% chance of letting you do another one! Why is it not based on Focus Points!? Why do Focus Points need to be exclusively magic? Why make Alchemists and Inventors use a different resource? It seems a little odd that Paizo did this when they already made a near perfect system.
I would like to hear what you think is easily the worst class to play in any general Campaign, Adventure Path or Custom Homebrew! Which class grinds your gear when ou tried it or perhaps grinds your gear when someone else plays one? Like would you rather they played something more effective?
We run a dual-class game for a test with 2 Gunslingers. I will admit the base Gunslinger is just a fighter with less hit points and less attacks then a double shot/triple shot Fighter or a Flurry Ranger with Hunted Shot . The thing though this high-lights that guns aren't great when they need to be supplemented by other classes to be good however the fact that they are being supplemented makes them go from mediocre to high tier, as someone who is playing a Barbarian Exemplar they can routinely hit as hard as me when they use their supplement from their dual-classes. So really Guns are odd, they work well on a Thaumaturge and Investigator vs the Gunslinger. The point is high attack vs low damage is not ideal for many fights. I suppose I am jaded at this point by D4 weapons and not adding any flat damage or attacking multiple times a turn.
You might do better asking in the 2025 Fall Errata thread...
Reminds me that I never drank a mutagen yet since PF-2E came out and the only one I might is quicksilver but the hit point damage is so far dumb to me that I can't bare the thought of bringign myself closer to death/downed...
I agree with that. If it didn't work that way then it be super confusing...I would liek to think you could heighten sin spells personally from your stuff.
All that does is make those abilities fairly weak in my opinion...But then again you don't general see runes, well at least in any game I am apart of and yet we can easily smash encounters...
I apologize ElementalofCuteness I misunderstood what you meant. No problem~. With each errata I find more and more things to manually adjust (ie not implement) for my playgroup as the decision making at Paizo boogles the mind more and more. Rogues get effectively 3 masters (even if the more balanced would be to have the upgrade only against poisons which would make sense) in saves. Exemplar dedication is allowed to run because it's rare. Meanwhile the priority is taking away an extra spellslot from a rare wizard who slashed away good portion of spells they can choose from, while one of the curriculum is a sad nerfed version because Paizo couldn't figure out a way for martials to not abuse it for special strikes with a simple dedication pick. Welcome to my thought process too!
I thought I was clear let me see if I can explain more so what I mean. It was pretty awesome to see Paizo explain what they intended with Blessed Armament. I love it, that's super nice! However not once in any announcement or errata did they make a note section which just read. "Yes, we intended Rogues to Crit Succeed when they succeed at all three saves at level 17." Instead they had to note it in a private Email to someone who was gracious enough to release the information. Sorry, I am just still and most likely will be confused by why Rogues got this uber, ultra, mega buff which seem to trump even the Monk's defensive capabilities. What I mean is I just want Paizo to explain their thought process on why Rogues got a big buff. While stuff like MC Monk FoB got a 1d4 Cool-down but no other abilities similar like Spirit Warrior's Combination Strike or perhaps the Ranger's Hunted Shot/Twin Takedown. I am just puzzled a little bit at the choices made. Another point is why the Runelord exploit was allowed with double staff charges, was this not proof read before release? I shrug and regardless I will still support Paizo. Also I would assume yes going forwards with any ability that add runes don't add to the rune limit. If so then that is once again in an earlier post. "Too bad to possibly be true." but since that isn't a real rule like "Too good to be true". I would like to say that it works both ways regardless though.
It was awesome that Paizo officially noted it was a mistake! That's one small problem, well a massive class feature buffed but if only they would announce publicly the Rogue buff was intentional and nto doing it through emails and other such methods but I can see why they don't, it's "controversial" now... On one hand people will call favoritism on rogues and want either other classes buffed or the rogue brought down. On another people won't care if they main rogue.
In that case of the above just boost the sins by re-adding the double charges because there is no way to do that without re-writing the Anathemas to be less restrictive. Wraith is great because it is DPR heavy which can be useful for winning fights. When you remove defensive abilities you make it harder for Wizards to win the fight as more of their allies fall.
By that logic when the rogue gained Critical Success when rolling a Success on all 3 Saving Throws at level 17, we should have all assumed that it was "Too good to be true" and ignored it because that is silly but on the same end that also means despite not being said in any official rule. "This is too bad to be true." should also apply, making stuff like Champion's Blessed Armament work like old Blade/Shield Ally. While also making it a point to ask yourself. "Is this too good/bad?". Then you have to ask if Flurry of Blows was unfairly nerfed or why did Twin Takedown not get the same 1d4 cooldown.
We didn't have to wait for this to get to "That champion feature actually works" because we could all have just understood that the conclusion caused by reading hyper-strictly was a bad conclusion from the start. I dislike to say this but with how the Rogue gets Evasion on all 3 saves we were hoping that Paizo didn't nerf this class feature and as far as we knew there was no reason to assume either direction other then by the past Blade Ally/Shield Ally. Even right now some people are hoping are hoping Paizo comes to their senses and nerfs Rogue despite a private message confirming that this was intention. Which still seems weird they choose to do that but i do not understand how PAizo's internal company works so we don't know if this is an semi-common or a one and done type of response.
Not only that but there is a bigger fish to fry before you get to Exempla Dedication. Mythic rules in general, it makes no sense that they can be this far broken and not in the overpowered format. It feels like Paizo took some classes which when they were doing their internal playtesting and thought. Wow, this could be strong if allowed with these rules. Good thing their core mechanic doesn't allow for it. I am staring at you, Kineticist, Magus, Summoner, & Swashbuckler. With a side order of any class that has feats to user special strikes and not being able to mythic bump them. Let's be real not even Exemplar plays nice with Mythic Strikes but weirdly enough most other martials do. This should've been the biggest Errata was to simply get the Mythic Ruleset working for all classes on an equal playing field but we must wait another pass to get Kineticist out of the bottom grouping of classes.
I wish you guys would have explained how Titan's Breaker's Transcendent worked as a Exemplar Ikon, it is far more confusing then Noble Branch. It feels off as neither my DM or me can fully understand it. If it is just a single weapon die then it is pretty nearly weak...
I honestly allow Exemplar Dedication and honestly it seems strong but so far it hasn't seemed like it changes most encounters so far honestly. Maybe that is because we fight multiple enemies during out encounters and so far the dice have been disliking us hitting multiple times a round.
You got that right, it's 1d8+8 per level of the heal spell used with the 2 action version up to 30ft. So level 2 heal is 2d9+16 and a level 10 heal is 10d8+80!
Sadly this is a system which is suppose to be played both with Pathfinder 2E and be able to stand on it's own, so expect some overlap in capabilities. I mean in the final release Envoy is being made more like Bard, Operative is Ranger + Gunslinger. Technomancer is for lack of better words better Wizard. Unfortunately how I see it is some classes in Starfinder are just straight upgrades to existing classes rather or not Paizo intended for it to be. Upgraded Classes
Then you have the side-grade classes which feel like they are suppose to take roles of other classes and remixes them, like how Mystic can be seen as a remix on Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer or Witchwarper is just a different Sorcerer in the Playtest. However they feel rather samey with decent focus spells and 4/rank of magic. Honestly you can argue rather or not Mystic and Witchwarper needed the Oracle treatment. We will just need to see the final, official release.
Even then Melee will always feel better then ranged because despite everything I feel most of the time range feels lack luster but I suppose in the end that is not a real issue. Fighting enough enemies at range would quickly change that but unfortunately that would cause the opposite efect, everyone should be ranged vs melee because a party that can shoot 5-120ft away is better then any melee unless you can get up to them and sudden charge but that is putting you in range of all the other ranged enemies.
I have to agree with Blave here. It was very much ADD charges of both Staff charges together because I was assuming the Anathema was more then enough to balance the double staff charges. Guess it is really Too good to be true even knowing Remastered Wizard feels incredibly weak despite the 3+1/rank of magic. Imperial Sorcerers show the world what versatility means vs ability to cherry pick spells.
Maybe I am just hopeful for Wizards to feel good?
With the end of Spring Errata, I started a new thread for Fall but I honestly feel like we are wasting our breath here. However I feel like if we talk about these issues more and more Paizo will eventually get to them but that seems like a miracle. Let's be real Oracle needs help still...I will not give up hope however that such a thing will be fixed!
Honestly I wouldn't say single best level 2 feat, I'd say it is very close bit Psychic for Casters is on par with Exemplar only because Cantrips + a free Focus Point is huge. Then sure you need a second feat but 2 feat dip to get a Psi-Cantrip with AMP'D capabilities can turn any caster into a dangerous focus point user. Yeah, Fury sucks for Barbarian and the new Water Magus also sucks for different reasons. Almost every class has a single option which seems like it sucks or has a better option. Take Fury Instinct but it is better then the poison instinct that slowly kills you for just raging or several Oracle curses which actively hurt you. Perhaps we talk about Outwit Rangers, like really some options are not great period. Also while we are at it, Unholy Champions still have the worse time. IF anyone want to post new Errata Ideas, I made a Thread for it!
Page 82 (Mystic Feats): Add Network Connection as a 2nd level mystic feat with the same text as the ability from page 77. It has the mystic trait. Is this suppose to be Force Connection or am I reading this wrong?
Yup....Somehow it is intentional and makes Rogues insane. Yet they need to nerf Wizards.... But I am just repeating myself. It is absurd to thing Rogues get this much extra power budget, which is insane. They already hit with greatsword level damage did they need more stuff with their high skill training?
Am I going completely crazy or is Mystic just a better version of Druid with the choose of Divine, Occult or Primal Magical Tradition? I might be missing something here and I really hope I am missing something here. Can someone tell me what I am honestly missing please? Mystic - 4/Rank Slots - Spontaneous Caster - Good Focus Spells - Multiple Traditions - Good Class Features - 8 Hit points - Light Armor Druid - 3/Rank Slots - Prepared Caster - Good Focus Spells - Primal Only - Okay Class Features - 8 Hit points - Medium Armor Am I missing something here?
Honestly some Oracles are underpowered despite the 4/rank of magic. Look at Ancestor and Battle, both are horrible and one will let you see your Ancestors quickly because it makes you clumsy which lowers yoru already low AC and Reflex Saves by penalizing DEX while a different Curse like Cosmos makes you Enfeebled which lowers STR... Like when is a Oracle ever building Strength and why would you be penalized for it? Bone is easily cheesed because you are still a living creature vs effects which general target undead say they target undead. Flame is forgettable at higher level as 1-4 persistent fire damage is not even that much at higher levels. And unlike Runelords you can choose to ignore the curse mechanic where Runelord must balance it out to the Anathema...So take this as you will and I did do a look and honestly the spelsl you can use are rather weak as an Envy Runelord to defend yourself.
All it let them do is cast 1 extra top tier spell for a total of 7 max Ranks instead of just 5 which normal wizards get and that's in edition to their crazy Anathema which lets face it, Envy is terrible, no offensive spells outside of Mental damage!? Wrath and Gluttony is amazing and makes them super viable. But unable to cast entire groups of magic is killer to some builds...
Yup for some reason they just like to keep Wizards down in the mud and dirt. Anathema is not worth getting your spell choices limited for a single extra spell slot of your highest rank, yay the adventuring day is slightly longer as a Runelord! Even then you really need to know what SIN you are playing. Gluttony and Wrath are both top tier, unfortunate that the rest of them fall behind even more with the nerf to Staff and Charges. Sorry Enny, Greed and Pride you all be officially retired not even 2 months in. Gluttony, Lust and Wrath you guys got upgrade to being the only SINS with practical uses! And yet Rogues have Evasion on all 3 saving throws and Runelords get the nerf. Official or not this balancing pass is making less and less sense the longer you read them. Okay so Anathema is enough to give the Runelord...A limited Spell Subsitution, a Free Staff amd Useless Polearm proficiency? So my base Thesis is the free staff right? The other two are minor buffs for having ENTIRE groups of magic spells cut off right? Not being able to cast Fireball/Lightning Bolt/Chain Lightning as an Envy Sin Runelord is super dangerous, nor can as a Envy Runelord cast any Vampiric Spelsl because they are Void. Where is the balance here? Everyone knows if your enemy is dead they can't hurt you any more and which makes the offensive SINS powerful.
With the Spring Errata just dropping it is time to start a new Errata Thread for all the stuff they missed or didn't get to. As this stuff is very important to the community and as such we will be repeating a Errata Thread! Errata: Kineticist Class
Errata: Swashbuckler Multiclass Dedication
Errata: Beastlord Mythic Destin
Why the Runelord nerf? That is like the one single Wizard Sub-class I was looking forward to seeing as I rarely buy Starves but without them combining charges it still means i won't buy one period. Also where is the Kineticist changes to make it work with Mythic Rules? Did I miss something here...?
So what is the point of having two different Weapon Groups for Firearms/Guns/Projectile Weaponry as such I mentioned. Do from what I see if you crossed with both a Operative & a Gunslinger in the same party they be unable to be compatible because they both use entirely different Weapon Groups. Am I reading this right or have I missed a line that says Guns and Firearms are to be treated as the same weapon group? Did anyone else notice this or was it just me?
It should be 1 action, no repeat actions honestly.
I just think 1 turn is over kill for modify myself. Not many class features last just a single turn. Rage is 1 minute, Thauamturge is till you use it again, so forth.
But tell me, when does another Martial have their Class Features shut down by something as simple as 45 damage to it at level 10, it has around 76 hit points at level 10 if you max INt to +5 and BT is half so 38 with 10 Hardness, so actually any hit of 48 or more damage can put your Turret out of commission and at that point is a -2 to attacks really something you need? I'll give you that the hardness 10 might make it survive 2-3 hits of an equal level creature but what's the point of having 6 Base + 2+INT Mod of HP each level if the total is cut in half, that's the point you might as well right it like 3 hit points + 1 + Half INT MOD as Hit points. Which at level 1 is just 6 with Hardness equal to 1/2 your level ( Minimal 1) So the turret can survive a Short-sword swinging creature with 0 STR mod using purely Dec and they max roll for 1d8 of damage. It should really go to d10 or something else to buff it based on the BT being so low.
I mean really they just need some offensive focus spells and the class be fine...I think. As it stands it once more feels rip for they to Multiclass Dedication dip into Psychic for some sick focus spells.
Self-Destruct Feat looking more and more like a feat tax every passing day. I seriously don't know what Paizo's Starfinder team is doing wit these sub-classes. Mechanic is what Inventor should be but just copies what makes Inventor great with it's companion. Mines are great but suffer the Alchemist problem of running out of resources and requiring 50 mins at the highest level to get back all 9 mines. To make it worse by level 6 you can dump all of your Mines in a single turn with Instant Deploy + Double Deployment. Literal does nothign till level 10 honestly but still. Turret well....You see the Break Threshold here. Heck I was hoping for a Double Deployment for Turrets or for Turrets to use INT for Attack. 1d8+Int at 60/90ft...Why is the turret so short of a range also? Chain gun seems to be the best option till you fight a monster with an elemental weakness.
But 1d6 with a max of 4d6 is not high damage however with Double Deployment and Instant Deployment until the level you get +6/+7 Int mod which is not till level 20 with your Apex item unless you use gradual attribute boost. So really it's 4d6 at level 18 vs 18d6 with Reflex for half...So...
I just assume you can 2 action Deploy Mine with any of the Deploy Mine Feats.
Even if you do it like that, using the different stats would not change much honestly.
If that was the case then that'd flip my thought in the Turret thread entirely, which if you have not read the thread I'd go read it, it's interesting.
Can Mobile Exocortex really not move a Broken Turret? So if that is yes then it becomes just glorified cover and you should really grab Shielded Turret then and treat it as a Wall with a chance of doing some damage when the wall is first deployed with Cordinated Fire.
More I read this more I feel Paizo didn't really make Mines or Turret great and only Drone is great. Mines have limited range of 30ft and the Turret has a Break Threshol do half of it's max Hit points which is 6 + 2 + Your INT Mod per level, so at level 1 it's a BT of 6, despite having hardness, I don't think that really matters if at level 10 it has... 76 Hit points, Hardness 10 with a Break Threshold of 38...It's a glorified mobile cover.
In order to re-deploy it it needs to hit 0 Hit Points....Which, once broken the enemy has literally no reason to target it and as such you are forced to take Self-Destruct feat as feat tax if you wish to repair it and make it able to fire, this seems dumb to me after it gets pointed out, at least shileded turret keeps the cover bonus if you take 1 action, sooooo I guess there is that. However you just made the turret just cover at that point, cool....You place it down for an Action and use Cordinated Fire and next turn you do it again and take cover until it hits the Break Threshold then you use it as just literal cover till destroyed. Forcing Self-Destruct feat as a tax on you to be able to Re-Deploy it. So both Mines & Turret Mechanic seems underpowered now. I'd accept the Break Threshold if the Turret used your INT for Attacking, and bonus damage without modify and it didn't count towards your MAP, but since it does nope this needs a buff by removing it.
Honestly it is cool but if it suppose to be just Wizard but 2.0 it needs a 4th Spell-slot, it eats resources very quickly and most of the focus spells require none focus points slots to make use out of them. Which juwt makes the class feel resource hungry because you need 2 resources to make them work instead of Psychic which focus point Amp'd Cantrips which are free and unlimited...However the class looks great if it is indeed trying not to be Starfinder 2E Wizard 2.0
|
