something can be overpower, average, balance or underpower. The fact that you don't doubt that something isn't overpower probably means it's below average. the detail is known whether a lot or slightly.
I think it's a little bit if you play in the style that the game wants and a lot if you play in the style that would be more fun.
Combat as war is win cowardly and smart.
In a war you want to atack the enemy without any chance of counter.
In a war like fight, if you know that the boss is in the room. You barred the door and kill hin without a touch. Dont let him eat, drink, sleep or breath.
Pf2 do everything so you cant use strategy to have a easy fight. PCs dont have a lot o methods to make set a trap, and if they make, boss gonna just step on make the save and crit atacks.
Pf2 is not combat as sport because thats not also a even field.
Pf2 is a game that GM dont need to think too much to make a dificult fight.
To me, it's like reading about driving a car. You might know all the theory, but you have absolutely no idea what it feels like to drive in New York vs the UK vs Boston, let alone how it feels to drive different cars, or in different weather conditions.
an aventador is faster than a jetta, whether the person has driven or not.
There is a lot of desire to close discussions, as even said by a post praising reddit and another literally asking that this thread be closed.
PF2 suffers from a small church culture where any criticism of the system is taken as personal criticism.
Dragon claws are functional for a sorcerer. They won’t keep up with your highest level spell slots, and become secondary attack options relatively quickly. But they still work and are useful for sorcerers in the mid game at least. Sorcerer focus powers and witch abilities don’t need to be every combat, every action activities to be functional.
All Focus Power of all classes are literally and exactly to be useful in all combats
And when this is not achieved it is a failure
I think people disregard how having a good defense influences the game. Spending a slot and spending action to consume action by the boss, has exactly the same effect of existing with a better defense and better health does the same thing, consumes boss action, without spending action or resource.
The same people think that magic runes that give simple buffs are boring, have the courage to say that casting Magic weapon or another buff or debuff with an effect similar to these runes should be fun. Any interaction of a character that can be replaced by an object is horrible, imagine for a part of an object that is already boring.
Most buffs are debuff in this game are boring. Read the conditions pages in that game. This is the result of the vast majority of spells in that game. Because of the 4 steps of success, you lose a lot of flexibility in spells and transform everything into four steps of effects as opposed to a real intervention in the game universe.
You don't create a hole that works like a hole, you have 4 effects, 3 of them falling, 1 of them of Tiny height. If you disagree, show me show me discussions about creative use of magic here.
The game made a clear choice to transform weak creatures in number visibly as a lesser threat, this is not subjective, it is the philosophy of the game, weak enemies in number matter less by definition and this is your niche, being good at killing enemies in number.
In the main battles your job is to help others. You are a helper, if you think it's good, ok. If not, not ok.
you are escaping from the argument.
The argument is to spend two actions for and slots to cast slow and possibly consuming a third action from a boss is not very strong.
it is very likely that a second tank will consume more actions from a boss without even spending resources.
a tank, standing without taking actions has a good chance of consuming more actions from a boss, just by having more AC, any third wasted attack has exactly the same effect and having more HP to consume damage. Doing nothing, standing still and raising shield.
AOE weaklyBuff party
Aways take the save options because you gonna fail and get a participation prize.
This is not to need to know how to play, it is to force a strict style, in a class it is not really good at anything but it was supposed to be flexible.
It is not that some spells are better than others, some groups of spells are much better than others, eliminating game styles.
Watery Soup wrote:
and the guy died without air, because he had pneumonia.
Zapp, I am very interested to find out when your attitude about incapacitation effects changed from hating them enough to label abilities and spells that had the tag enough to label them completely useless
Probably in the fact that it uses finite resources and two actions. you are comparing it to a spell but, in fact, you should compare it against raising the shield, demoralizing the opponent or walking.
YES is a legendary skill, but unlike others you can use all rounds, multiple times, like walking, different from spells.
legendary in arcana or the skill that makes sense for class and intelligence is a much worse attribute in the game.
I honestly think that no 1 (zero cost) action should have the same o better result of a 2 ( resorce paid action).
legendary in arcana or the skill that makes sense for class and intelligence is a much worse attribute in the game.
I think no 1 free action should have the same result of a 2 paid action.
color spray is very far from autowin even in critical fail and have incapacitation tag
Yes and even thematically zombie being mechanically a good summon is adequate.
The person literally said that the "Given you think having double the top-level slots" wizard has is different from may have. Things here are so ridiculous that people do the math for what the wizard might have with multiclass and other class feats.
Hum, wizard can change spell in 10 min
Hum, wizard have spell bleding
What? last a minute, but to use once. +2 in 1 save is not that strong, not at all.
Yes, but I still think it shows the difference between having 3/4 lvl slot. how would you calculate?
There is no such thing as lesser spell casting, nobody calls a ranger or champion of lesser martial and these ARE less proficiencies.
a fight against the boss has 4 turns (let's assume) as almost all spells spend two actions, it doesn't matter much if I have 4 or 300 slots. I will launch 4 spells.
would be, 3 spell max and a 1 max-1. or in the case of the wizard, sorcerer and cleric. 4 slot max.
that one more slot becomes a discrepancy in a turn a 1lvl higher spell. not everything is a boss fight, but it is certainly the most important moment and in other moments who said that there is a lack of slot for more slot to make any difference.
this is what I see people saying that pays off and I don't see how. worse chassis, worse feats, worse focus power.
i would get druid over witch anyday, for mechanics and flavor, and i hate hug trees.
This is similar to Fighters, who are easy to multiclass out of as you will always be the most accurate class regardless of class feats. The class feats are nice, but not necessary, letting you easily go into another dedication.
the only difference is that one has the best Ac, hp, proficiencies and the other has the worst, but apart from having the best and the worst is the same.
the warrior has the disadvantage of having to give up good feats in the low level.
Scholar background receive Assurance, so you won't hear a lot of complaints about it since it's the most common background anyway
Wizard should be the only one able to produce and read scrolls, use staff, do arcane ritual but basically now almost everyone can do that.
it is ridiculous that anyone can read a scroll because 100 years ago the guy's grandmother had sex with a dragon.( sorcerer)
For sure being good at a lot and being the best at something has a superior flavor than being the worst at a lot and the best at nothing.
By lore and mechanics warriors are the best with weapons.
By lore and mechanics wizard has the worst class chassis. Without best spellcasting.
removing things like buff and debbufs to which privilege some more than others and the level to which the comparison is made, then possible errors and everything.
You still expect 100% efficiency in correctly guessing and having prepared a spell for the weak save in a high slot.
And 100% accuracy is to be expected as basic efficiency, in guessing, they can end up with high or low saves since it is useless.
To be quite true, I never thought that any system was really good at giving flavor and really differentiating wizard specializations, the best is 5e, due to lack of competition.
In the current magic system everything that is not buff or give a condition will suffer, not that it is a design goal that I agree with, but it is something that I think will not change.
For me this is the design goal of all specializations, less evocation that aims to have good area damage against moks.
It would be plausible to say that the proficiency of the casters is delayed because of the four levels of success, obviously it does not make sense knowing the spells that have an attack have the same delay. But it would make sense with most spells.
So what exactly is the design goal behind these decisions? Please elucidate me.
Do you think that when people see what they believe to be inconsistencies in a system they should question whether that system has been finely calibrated?
Your answer. It does not add any possibility of the reason, it only makes an attack on a possible ignorance of the person who raised the possible issue.
I agree with the premise that extremes are the most engaged, but a 5-star score is usually a measure of dissatisfaction with the standard of 5 and everything below that is a bad grade.
yes, some people did what you said and assumed to put a 10 note even though they knew it was not deserve and, yes, he probably did it to validate what he thinks.
I think choosing between 22 conditions that give -1 to something, extremely boring.
ps. I didn't count.
difficulty to have more to do with module and GM than the system. multiclass is not even vanilla.
Cantrip are not broken. If you consider eldrich blaster broken than fighter in pf2 is extremely broken.
Pathfinder 2e "subclass" is 1 slot/lvl and 1/2 focus power.
5e, wizard ritual casting alone make wizard great.
4 degress of sucess turned many spell into debuff
PF2 like dnd 4e makes creative uses of spells very difficult.
if make a vanilla wizard villain without special magic items, he is gonna die in 1 round.
If is not vanilla is not a PC.
if situations are necessary for you to perform like others, that means that you will normally perform below others.
So, which wizard builds work without star alignments or without a party focusing on a poorly performing character?
A only know one, buff and debuffer.
Ps. The situations the privilege martials are far more common.
I deleted to rewrite. but I had written same level mob. what exactly is what it is.
globinslayer is a great anime but it is not the character that most people want to play.
Most people want to be a dragonslayer.
Yes, if you want to be an efficient support with competence to kill weak enemies, you will be very happy playing as a wizard.
Yes, this is the version that level counts more, is correct. This also means that low level enemies never mattered less.
Ps.Usually people who want to play caster and support play bard or cleric.
So people are unhappy.
when the greatest probability is the failure you will aim for the failure
making META for the wizard simply choose spells that give the wizard the best consolation prize when you fail.
Nobody looks at critical effect. no effect in the game is worth 40 actions and 20 spells.
nobody even cares about incapacitation spells because spending a max sloth on a normal mob seems like a bad idea right off the bat.
Just as they made mistakes with the alchemist they made mistakes in other areas of the game.
The magic in this game is far from the best attempt at anything. The level of satisfaction of casters is regularly low.
wizard simply doesn't have enough sloths to do all of this preparation. Better to just play socerer and take the money left over for scroll and wands. I'm sure that more glitterdust will be cast by scroll that someone will bother to learn and then prepare a spell like that.
Let's define one thing.
the greater the risk, the greater the expected return must be.
So with the same investment, an ability with a 50% chance, could have 50 damage on hit. With expected damage of 25.
in the case of an ability with a 40% chance of success, there would have to be damage in case of success by 80, with expected damage of 32.
Nobody will bet for more risk and with the same percentage return.
Ps.this is an example, I am not stipulating that this would be the proportion, but that with greater risk, greater return. And greater expected damage from ability.
1 Casters have 4 top spells, if u need 5. You dont have.
2 Set a average, under is weak, over strong.
Dont say to me that something is strong when most caracter can do better.
Most caracter can do better than 32 in 5 rounds even without use resources.
The true is as wizard you should keep debuffing most rounds. That way you are not that weak. Any other style of wizard are weak at combat.
So, only casters scored 1 and 2. The class that everyone says is the worst was the worst. And wizard was the second worst with a low degree of enjoyment.
very surprising results.
considering that these spells only had an high impact on the highest slot, on your average 5 to 1 hit. No, there is literally no room for the hailmary to work.
32 damage in 5 rounds using 5 limited resources is very bad damage.
The fact that you are telling this as a success story makes me understand how you think the wizard is not so bad.
If you want to remove results 1 and 2 from a class and want to compare them with the others, it is minimal to remove them from the others as well.
If the sample were larger, it would be better to remove the 5% of highest and lowest grades. but manipulating a group and still wanting to compare with others is wrong.