Hbitte's page

12 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The magic balance in this game is you try, you fail but you apply a little debbuf.

The only reliable way to contribute to an important combat is debbuf and buff (weaker than buff). The rest is to play against the odds and lie to yourself.

Flaming sphere (if canonical the interpretation) is a good step in the right direction.

The game needs wall spells and field control spells.

And more than anything spells than can be use in a criative ways.

forums about creative use of ability and spells were always my favorites. In pf2 they went into extinction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know the best tactic, but it's just awful.

Forgetting any spell with incapacitation flag and spell attack are also worthless.

incapacitation flag, they only work on normal mob with high sloth, which is for anyone who understands something about any game, a bad trade.

With spell attack your accuracy is even more horrible and usually there are no conditions when it fails and remember we are always betting that you will fail because that is literally what propability says.

So always cast slow because it is the best effect when you fail to do what you want and you will fail.

pf2's magic system is actually worse than dnd 4e. That's the truth.


Unicore wrote:
Hbitte wrote:


The best condition to apply to an opponent is death, the second best is to dying. Kill fast someone is way better than any other strategy and fighters are way better to do this.

Fighters have more actions per hounds, more accuracy per action and more damage per hit. Apart from the fact that fighters are simply a better class (AC, HP, proficiency, saves, etc).

I am honestly very happy that you find the fighter to be your favorite character. Be careful thinking that accuracy and damage are the only things your party needs to be able to do well. The game makes it very difficult to take out boss monsters quickly and having the whole team rush forward to melee slam the enemy can quickly turn into a TPK against the wrong monster.

Almost dead is not a condition of any significance in PF2 and leaving a boss monster with 3 actions to what they will with your character can be brutally devastating. We all know that real wars are won by the application of overwhelming force to an unprepared enemy, but PF2 is a game designed to make that tactic very difficult to pull off.

cool, Dpr is not everything. You really want to use a solo fight boss to advocate that the fighter is not superior compared to a wizard?

Solo boss, really?

My answer was to a person who didn't seem to understand that fighter's superiority isn't just accuracy. even if it had the same accuracy it would still have better dpr, if it still had the same pdr it would still have better defense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
Samurai wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

Well, all I know is that form my GMing, casters throwing stuff at boss enemies pretty much always results in a succesful save, which sometimes still has some okay effect, but in their minds all they see is "All my spells failed, I wasted my slots."

Casters are new players to the hobby, I'm not gonna be like "It's still good because of all this math". I'd rather spells actually landed. Doesn't help that in AoA, most fights seem to be vs few or 1 big enemy.

Psychologically, I agree that it's more fun for ALL the classes players to be able to hit and have an appreciable effect. I think it would feel like a better game if the casters could actually hit or succeed at the save spells more often. Similarly, if the Fighter missed 75-80% of his attacks but still did a tiny bit of damage on a miss they too would feel something was wrong with the game's math system. Saying "Ok, you missed again this round, but you still did 2 points of damage, you are slowly whittling him down!" wouldn't help much.
If the Fighter's successful attacks were doing much more than 'slowly whittling <the enemy> down' then it'd be a lot easier to justify high success rates for casters whose best effects are considerably more significant than a little attrition.

The best condition to apply to an opponent is death, the second best is dying. Kill fast someone is way better than any other strategy and fighters are way better to do this.

Fighters have more actions per hounds(factually) more accuracy per action and more damage per hit. Apart from the fact that fighters are simply a better class (AC, HP, proficiency, saves, etc).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always find it strange how one might think that buff items for casters is bad because it's boring but for martials it's good.

still arguing that the usefulness of half of the classes relying on the same mechanics is not a bad thing. or mathematical buff / debbuf (+ 1, -1) is boring or not.

If so, it should not be the central mechanics of any class. Especially when it's anti-thematic, as it is for wizards and sorcerers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
This whole debate about a hypothetical one action electric arc that functions completely differently seems like it's kind of getting away from the point of the thread a bit.

I agree. The problem with casters is that the way to be efficient is to choose the spell that gives the best little debbuf when you fail to do what you really want to do.

Not fun!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

Of course, we are speaking in a vacuum. Situation is more important in PF2 than it was in PF1. But it's important in my opinion to sell tactical movements, especially to beginners who may think it's not the role of their character to provide buff/debuff, or who may think that a +2 to hit is negligeable.

By the way, I use your charts of average DPR to assess some moves on my characters. So thanks for having made them ;)

It is not their role.

IT SHOULD NOT BE CASTER'S ROLE TO BE BUFFER OR DEBUFFER. Unless he wants to.

If the only way the caster can be efficient is as a support, it is undoubtedly weak and without any flexibility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlorax wrote:
Hbitte wrote:


Debuff is not even something wizards should focus on, considering the gaming and literature background. Remember when Gandalf threw a debuff on someone? I do not.

Well that's a terrible argument, Gandalf casts maybe three spells, Light, Animal Messenger, Summon Eagle.

My argument was that debuff is not really a wizard thing and I gave a playful example.

You isolated the example and called it an argument.

The answer to my argument would be to show that yes debuff is central to the wizard archetype and to give a good example.

*and at least he cast shield against the balrog, produce flame and pirotecnic.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

1-wizard are weaker than most classes, perhaps alchemist being worse; 2-are boring to play.

1- it's a bad thing 2- it's a terrible thing * The obsession with not empowering the wizard that some people demonstrate seems pathological to me. As a trauma, which can be understood depending on your experiences but it is not correct that the game is based on it.

I wonder which wizard is really good. For those who want to talk about flexibility, no, not even that. Try to defend the class design and eliminate debbuf from your dictionary and you will be mute.

A class that has no option but to be a debuffer is not a flexible class.

Debuff is not even something wizards should focus on, considering the gaming and literature background. Remember when Gandalf threw a debuff on someone? I do not. It has always been something minor and now is the center point in the main part of the game. *1 And yes the game revolves around fights, is a group of adventurers carrying weapons. Not the UN ambassadors carrying flowers. *2wizards are not even really good at debuff *3 The debuff version is as boring as possible. I feel like a bad teacher giving -1 to everyone.

Utility? Most spell lasts for one minute. Good luck with ALL this utility. Reach? 30 feet most spells. But why? to be able to sell metamagic and make casters "interact" with the three action system.

Finaly.For me the desiners spent all the time thinking. "ah is the wizard no matter if he is not so good at it or that" but they forgot to do something that he is good at and good to play with.


Gorbacz wrote:

Well, a Fighter that can't do anything against a flying enemy if they aren't laser-focused bow specialists was a classic reason for 3.5/PF1 Fighters being so crap.

It's much better in PF2, between Felling Strike and the fact that you don't need a million feats to be a solid ranged combatant.

Apart from this, tiers usually ranked out-of-combat problem-solving, which again is better in PF2 across the board, because you get more skills and they no longer are limited to "peak normal human capability" which led to them being quickly taken over by magic.

Long bow 100ft range. Most magic 30ft.

If he can't do anything, nobody can then.

There are levels of competence in the game and that's enough to make a ranking system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1 fighter
2 martials
3 casters
4 wizard
5 alchemist

flexibility is not power especially if you does nothing really well. Fighting is the main mechanic of the game by a large margin.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

A person opens a thread because feel that anyone who disagrees with the majority is attacked.

Two people start making veiled accusations.

Congratulations! you guys proved his point.

observation1. On holidays, people have more time to write posts.

observation2. The world is big and not everyone knows that in the US is a holiday.