Estrosiath's page

150 posts (214 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.



1 person marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Andarr wrote:

Meant to write wizards, not casters.

But it's quite funny isn't it? Other casters who have other mechanics beside just... Well, casting spells, are now in a better shape that the class which is all about casting spells.

Meaning you either need to somehow add mechanics or buff to wizards as a class, but that can't be about making spells more powerful, because if you do you are also buffing other casters, who are already more or less fine.

Sortof like adding a ton of familiar options to make familiars way more compelling - suddenly making the Wizard familiar thesis way more appealing by allowing wizard to both have the most top level spells alongside a familiar that is only slightly behind a Witch?

You mean the high level spells that are rarity gated, or the fabled 10th level spells that are watered down versions of old 9th level spells (and which you both get later on, and get to cast fewer of per day)?

And as for familiars. You have a whole class dedicated to familiars. I want to play a wizard, imagine that.

But hey, as I mentioned. Two categories of posters. Repeat after me 'Wizards are fine' enough times and certainly people will start believing it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Meant to write wizards, not casters.

But it's quite funny isn't it? Other casters who have other mechanics beside just... Well, casting spells, are now in a better shape that the class which is all about casting spells.

Meaning you either need to somehow add mechanics or buff to wizards as a class, but that can't be about making spells more powerful, because if you do you are also buffing other casters, who are already more or less fine.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I bashed those segments because, truth be told, they deserve bashing. I did not point any individuals out.

The premise of boards like these should be debate, and people should be open-minded, and willing to accept evidence of issues, and, if presented with enough evidence, perhaps have a honest change of heart.

Both categories I mentioned cannot, because the first category sees the current state of casters as desirable, and the second category refuses criticism on the ground that they love Paizo so much.

This is a systemic issue. You can't fix it with a new book. You would have to fix it with a massive errata, but that would mean actually accepting the fact that mistakes were made, which reading these boards does not seem to be the case.

I have accepted that PF2e will have weak casters, and that nothing will change it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

This kind of post is, sadly, pretty pointless on these forums, because of quite a few simple factors.

On these forums, you have quite a few posters (they will recognize themselves), who absolutely loathe wizards. They will pretend wizards are ok, despite it not being the case, with little or no evidence to back that statement up, while gloating with schadenfreude. That is a sad fact.

Then you have a lot of posters who unapologetically love Paizo. For them, Paizo can do no wrong and must be defended at all costs, from any possible criticism, even when that criticism is founded.

The posters who have actually played wizards firsthand... Will only have done it once, because the class itself is a dumpster fire. You need only try to hit a ray spell with your pitiful, unmodifiable roll to hit and miss it it a few times in a row, therefore wasting both your actions and your spell, before you realize that.

I could list all the nerfs wizards have gotten, but it's pointless, because the attitude of the first category of posters is just to shove their fingers in their ears and go 'LALALA I can't hear you!' . The issue here not being that wizards did not need nerfs, because they did, but much more about compound nerfs.

Since apparently PF2 is being balanced the way certain MMORPGs or MOBAs are, then at the very least the concept of balance should be understood...

If you play LoL, and you nerf first a champion, and then their main rune, then you end up nerfing that champion not 2x, but 3x because the nerfs compound themselves.

Wizars now have fewer spell slots, no way to boost their save DCs, have to expend higher spell slots to get better effects... That is an exponential nerf, not a geometric one.

But ah well, what does it matter, no one plays casters anyway. All the martials need now is a healer, they can do it all on their own, much to the delight of the majority of posters on these boards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

In Pathfinder, it would take several direct hits from a longbow to get you down, in real life one would suffice.

There goes the comparison.

Oh hey, a post where someone asks what wizards should do, the first answer is Gorbacz.

Why am I not susprised.

Keep up the "good" work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Just to be clear, we haven't seen the final version of the witch and they made clear they heard us about the whole "dead familiar no casty" thing.

I'm sorry, but this is such a gimmick, and a fun tax.

I've been playing for over 20 years now, I can count on one hand the amount of times when my DM actually did something against my familiar actively.

Most of the times, DMs forget your familiar even exists unless you try to do something with it (send him scouting, cast a spell through him...) so saying that the witch won't be able to cast if her familiar dies, I hope you are not actually counting that as a real drawback. Because factually speaking, it won't be.

Or the DM will have to keep track and try to somehow kill the witch's familiar, which seems like a fun tax for the DM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The real issue is that there is basically nothing nowadays to differentiate an evoker from say, an illusionist.

No more spell focus = DC stays the same for your school

Focus spells are... Well, pretty much a joke? Utility is exceedingly limited, and there are very few of them to boot.

The spell list is still very very small, and there are a lot of absolutely useless spells, or spells that only have a real effect on a critical failure of the save (which personally, given the fact that you now have fewer spells to use per day, I would avoid...).

The "feats" are underwhelming, and I would say that they do not offer real diversification of the wizard at all.

When building a fighter, barbarian, or rogue, there are several viable ways to go at it.

If I am building a wizard who is going to go dungeon dwelling... Not so much.

Removing all buffs except haste did not exactly help either. I get why they did it, and sure theoretically wizards are still flexible.

But that's theory only. If a DM is set on you only having common spells, and limits everything uncommon or rare... (which he can do), then all wizards are going very similar to one another.

And I was going over spell lists and now wail of the banshee and finger of death are not on the arcane spell list anymore... Well. They've only been staples for several editions now. But that's just a pet peeve of mine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

Their cantrips are now scalable by levels... or half their levels to correspond to their heighest spell levels.

They now have some sort of unlimited ammo.

They have unlimited ammo... which costs 2 actions to activate and deals less damage than an arrow shot by an archer.

Archer : 3 strikes per round, wizard: one cantrip + one strike per round (good luck hitting that one, since your primary characteristic is not dexterity).

Yeah, thank god for unlimited ammo.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

This cannot be right, can it be? As far as I can tell, there is no limitation against a 19th-level wizard using Drain Bonded Item to replenish a 10th-level slot, or using Spell Blending to gain more and more 10th-level slots.

This seems grossly overpowered by 19th. Is this intentional? High-level gameplay should not be discounted, especially when adventure paths are supposed to go to 20th.

The sorcerer has a restriction against this. The wizard does not, which makes the wizard far better at abusing 10th-level slots.

Overpowered? Come again?

You do realize that "10th level spells" are just nerfed version of ex 9th level spells, right?

And that instead of having 3 10th level slots, you only get one, and to get a second you either need to spend your 19th level feat or sacrifice 2 8th level spells with a certain arcane thesis?

Also, this whole "concern" about how "overpowered" this is is pretty funny, seeing as how 99% of campaigns will end up way before any PC makes it to 19th level.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I just houseruled that spells automatically heighten to the maximum level without having to use higher level slots (effectively giving casters automatic scaling back).

It's been working out pretty well, and no complaints from either my players playing casters OR melees.

Of course I'm sure a lot of the people in this thread will tell me that this is "unbalanced", which is a barrel of laughs considering all the nerfbats wizards took to the skull in the transition to 2nd edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Blasting used to be the suboptimal option.

It still is, but now the rest is terrible too.

Unlimited, freely scaling cantrips are just like someone sending you flowers while you are laying in a hospital bed after being kneecapped, they're nice but they don't really help.

Summoning does not exist anymore. Buffing does not exist anymore. Save or suck does not exist anymore. Just don't even pretend they kept those as options.

Hell, finger of death is now divine only. xD

In exchange of that, my 3rd level fireball now does 1d6 more than it used to do at level 5 (yay!) but you are NEVER going to use a higher level slot to actually memorize it to do more damage.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Andarr wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Andarr wrote:
And they both took the nerf bat to magic to satisfy "martial" players and for the sake of "balance". Seriously? "Balance"? Is this a MMORPG? Or is this a pen and paper RPG?
It's cooperative game you play with others to tell a story.

That has always been the case.

I fail to understand why magic being, well, magic caused people such issues.

I would much rather they had gone the way "Tome of Battle" had gone, instead of nerfing magic.

1 character completely invalidating the rest of the group commonly enough was the issue.

And if you look over the Martial classes they are leaning into a ToB approach.

I seriously wish people would stop saying things like "the caster invalidated the rest of the party".

That statement is just blatantly false, and comes from either theorycrafting or poor DM'ing. But it was taken at face value and now look at wizards.

I mean... I could have (somehow) swallowed the pill if they had made it so you could use the heightened version of a memorized spell if you used a slot containing another, higher level memorized spell for it.

But you have to memorize it xD

Imagine. I am sure you will see plenty of people memorizing a heightened fireball... Or not. Because with three slots to memorize spells, I am sure you're going to waste one for it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Andarr wrote:
And they both took the nerf bat to magic to satisfy "martial" players and for the sake of "balance". Seriously? "Balance"? Is this a MMORPG? Or is this a pen and paper RPG?
It's cooperative game you play with others to tell a story.

That has always been the case.

I fail to understand why magic being, well, magic caused people such issues.

I would much rather they had gone the way "Tome of Battle" had gone, instead of nerfing magic.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I have yet to see the point of PF2, outside of the "reset" aspect of a new edition (getting rid of bloat and the powercreep which inevitably happens as supplements accumulate over time), and to kowtow to people whining for more "balance".

Usually I am excited for a new edition because it improves things, I see 0 improvement in PF2, just a different take on things.

And for people wondering what do I mean, if you are old enough, for me an improvement was leaving thac0 behind in the 2nd edition and moving to the BAB system.

Same for the old ac system which went from AC10 to AC -15 (tarrasque I think) and moving to the AC which inched upwards.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, I took the first survey, then came to the boards, and expressed concerns.

I was shut down at every turn. Especially by the guy with a bag as his avatar (hell if I can remember his name now). Told that wizards deserved the nerf, etc, etc.

Tried fighting back with good arguments, was ignored and borderline flamed, AND the moderators thought I was being inflammatory, whereas that guy kept baiting all over the boards with full impunity.

The result is this. I bought the core rulebook pdf... And that will be it for me. I am very, very disappointed by this edition. And no, I won't keep playing the first edition, because like all older editions, it's just going to keel over and disappear.

So now I have the choice between:

5e or PF2

And they both took the nerf bat to magic to satisfy "martial" players and for the sake of "balance". Seriously? "Balance"? Is this a MMORPG? Or is this a pen and paper RPG?

I mean, I'm glad for you all, I guess it's time for an old coot like me to actually stop playing RPGs altogether, or to switch to a completely different system and actually stop playing a D&D based system, which honestly makes me want to cry.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

It's 100% legal for a GM to say any Uncommon or Rare thing is available to players.

If you're a player and you want an Uncommon or Rare thing, talk to your GM. They might just give it to you. They might make you go on a quest or something to track it down. They might not give it to you because that thing doesn't work in the game they're running.

This is a core part of the whole "Giving GMs agency and control" that 2nd edition is all about, and will help GMs keep a handle on their game to a level of complexity they are comfortable with.

Talk to your GM.

Sorry, but this sounds pretty terrible.

PF2 seems to try very hard to be like PF and 5e at the same time, and I think it fails pretty badly at both.

The concept of "rarity" as an extra label you add to equipment or spells is completely artificial, as the DM has always had the option of restricting access to spells x and y in his games, I am certain quite a few did not wait for anyone to add an "uncommon" or "rare" labels to spells.

In the end I'd rather those spells were removed than to have them in the rule but with a "nope, sorry, can't have it 'cause I say so" label.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP.

What I saw in the play test I certainly did not like. Normally I would order the premium versions without even thinking about it, but unless Paizo clarifies what or if anything changed compared to the play test, I am holding off.

And not just generic comments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
Jeff Deaner wrote:
Jester David wrote:
Andarr wrote:

Pf2 seems to me like it took more than a few pages out of the 5e.

But 5e and Pathfinder should be directed towards different audiences. It's pretty obvious the 5e is geared towards more inexperienced players, who care more about "class balance" (when did that EVER become a thing in pen and paper RPGs... Sigh) and ease of play than a more complete and simulationistic experience like most PF players do.

Comments like this always baffle me...

First, ever comment from every Paizo staffmember I have every read gives me the impression they have never read 5e, let alone played it enough to have an idea how to emulate it.

However, MacFarland and Bonner were both in the 4e design team...

Which also boggles you mind.

There’s so many comments of “they borrowed X from 5e!!” When said design elements are often from 4e or even Star Wars Saga, both of which predate Pathfinder.

How can that boggle your mind? I don't care who did it first, I discovered in in the 5e, and therefore associate it with that. I think the whole "Let's give unlimited cantrips to casters so we can nerf spells" is fine for 5e, but not for PF.

And again, PF 2e has a metric ton of other issues.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Not going to lie.

I see 0 appeal in PF2.

The point of a new edition, was, to myself, to improve upon what is good and change what is bad. Not to do away with everything and start over. Just look at how the 4th edition crashed and burned... That should have given the writers a good writing direction.

Pf2 seems to me like it took more than a few pages out of the 5e.

But 5e and Pathfinder should be directed towards different audiences. It's pretty obvious the 5e is geared towards more inexperienced players, who care more about "class balance" (when did that EVER become a thing in pen and paper RPGs... Sigh) and ease of play than a more complete and simulationistic experience like most PF players do.

I will admit it - I am a caster player, and I am VERY disappointed by the general "hit the casters with a bat until they stop moving" trend that started with the 5e, and which I'd hoped would spare the second edition of Pathfinder. Seems to me like a vocal minority is making a crusade to try and paint casters in a bad light, therefore ruining them for the silent majority.

I don't get the "revolution" concept.

Paizo is not Hasbro. If you mess up with PF 2e, you might as well start liquidating assets, because I doubt from a financial point of view Paizo can withstand the kind of losses that Hasbro took with the 4th edition.

Also, you will lost me as a player (and a a consumer...), because I entirely reject the idea of revolution for the sake of it. I hated the 4th edition, as much as I loved Pathfinder taking what was good of the 3,5 and continuing in that direction.

More than anything, if this has been internally playtested for two whole years, how could this EVER see the light of day?

It's hell of clunky, poorly formatted and to be honest does not hype me even half as much as the original Pathfinder did. I hope the public playtest actually makes a LOT of changes to things as they are, because otherwise... Well, RIP Pathfinder.

And I'm sure some people will fly to the rescue and point out what an awesome work this is, etc... Like they did for the 4th. Food for thought. Dungeons almost ended with that edition!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Not like we can keep playing the old game" Really?

Pathfinder was an IMPROVEMENT over 3,5. So far PF2 is not an improvement, just a change for the sake of change...


10 people marked this as a favorite.

If this edition goes through as is, even though I have been playing magic casters since the first edition of dungeons, I suppose I will have to stop. Might be the edition that actually has to stop me playing fantasy tabletop RPGS completely (and I have been playing for 29 years).

I am just in awe at the fact that even Paizo seems to be taking "balance" into account, as if Pathfinder had become some sort of MMORPG or Moba game where people whine that x is overpowered.

Summon monster? Gutted. Read the concentration rules. Good luck using making use of the summoned monster, and also enjoy the tasty one minute max duration.

Enchantment school? I mean... Not sure what to even say. It's gone.

Everything has a shorter duration or a lessened effect. And going with the "unlimited" cantrip as a sort of band aid is, in my opinion, a terrible imitation of the 5th edition.

I thought the objective of a new edition was to improve upon precedent work, like Pathfinder had with the sorry mess that was 3,5. Instead, they decide to radically change everything for the sake of changing. And they don't even simplify anything.

Numerous other things also flabbergast me - no more smite for paladins. Rangers looking... Well, less than useful to be polite. I suppose they will sell new books and that it will be sufficient to keep Paizo afloat for a new more years, but I am so disappoint by what I see, I honestly expected a lot more from such a great company.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you people are totally overreacting.

You honestly make it sound as if the wizard could use an action to lose the spell and gain another one instantly.

It's 10 minutes. Granted, in an investigative context it might be very strong, it will not save you from an ugly death in a combat context.

Don't see what the issue is. If anything, it's a welcome addition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, you don't get it.

As the feat is written, as it stands, nowhere is it written that the feat overcomes the "handedness". All it says is that the goblin does not take penalties for using medium firearms. Nowhere is it stated he can actually WIELD the medium firearm with two hands, where by the rules it requires three since it is a medium musket.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh god.

What year is this? Oh wait, it is 2013. And this is a dead horse you are beating on.

I wonder why some people still think that you have to make a weak PC in order to role-play and enjoy the game. That there still is a mentality of "Powergamers/Optimize want to ruin the game and don't enjoy role-playing but ROLL-playing!!!!".

Personally, I never play weak PCs. I like my PCs optimized and relevant in their roles. I am still an avid role-player. I also don't go overboard (in my group, we ONLY use Official Pathfinder material and nothing else, because THEN the really bad stuff starts). We don't use weird or exotic races with tons of powers that are on the verge of overpowered, unless it is a "funny" campaign.

And we never let anyone make a PC so blatantly powerful that it overshadows all the others, because that obviously detracts from other people's appreciation of the game.

Personally, the greatest challenge I have had is matching veterans with newbies. Even helpful veterans, willing to lend a hand in all aspects of character creation and role-playing end up frustrated when the newbies don't do their homework (and I don't mean reading all the PF books - just being prepared for a session and knowing the basic rules).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to admit I am -extremely- disappointed by Paizo's decision for its next product of the RPG line. I'm sorry but... a folio? Really? I mean, those products have always seemed to me like the "filler" in a product line, sort of what a producer publishes when they just don't have an idea of what to do next.

Like it or not, there are a lot of people who want to see rules for content past level 20, and I think they have waited long enough. I mean... Three bestiaries, books for ultimate combat/magic and advanced races... Everything has come out that could possibly be considered more important for lower level content. I certainly hope we don't see a Bestiary 4 or a Psionics book before we see an epic level handbook before we see an epic book, or I'll lose hope.

I know it's a difficult book to produce - the ELH is proof of that. That's probably one of the worst RPG books ever made. The epic level magic system was a joke, the monsters were ill-conceived and balanced. The whole system needs to be redone from the ground up, not just adapted, balanced and revised like lower level content was. I therefore understand where the difficulty lies... But still.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly? Don't. Messing with other people's characters is just going to make them hate you. If he wants to play a paladin, let him play a paladin. If one day he becomes corrupted, that's his own business.

Seriously, what's up with you wanting to ruin his fun? And don't tell me "I'm just playing my character!" - you obviously knew (since you started CN and then BECAME evil, while having a paladin in the party - something I would never do, for the sake of group coherence) what was going to happen once you became evil with him around you.

I'm just tired of players simply deciding what the other players must do. And I'm also tired of players ignoring group composition. Once I was playing a NE elf enchanter, sort of a nutcase, borderline nazi ("all other races shall be purged"), with no respect for the sanctity of the mind. And the rest of the group was either neutral, or did not know about his real tendencies (I also did not try to influence the other players with my spells, only ever used good arguments).

And then these other people join the party, having been briefed as to group composition. Guess what one makes? A Paladin of liberty (the CG variant).

I /facepalmed. Of course, the game went down the drain fast after that, wasting months of playtime and DM preparation.

Tl; dr - Don't do it.