Search Posts
I'm really happy that I can finally play the monstrous "Mr Hyde" builds that I loved in 1E because Bestial Mutagen got a very nice buff in PC2. Very happy indeed.
The issue with the AC penalty is that it's so much more punitive in 2E than it was in 1E. In 1E, having a lower AC didn't make you get crit more often, it just meant you took more normal hits. In 2E, you also get crit more often, which is something I don't think the developers intended with the Barbarian. Alchemist apparently got a similar buff with Bestial Mutagen, which no longer gives you an AC penalty either from what I heard.
I for one am extremely happy with these changes. Barbarian was the first character I played in 2E but I found the class too fragile for my taste and it really didn't fit my ideal of a Barbarian. Now, Barbarian is in a good place. I'll be really pissed if a month from now Paizo issues an errata saying the AC penalty for Rage is back and they never meant to remove it.
Hmm. With Guardian being melee primarily, having a big pool of HP, and getting delayed weapon proficiency... it might actually mesh well post-release. Assuming the Guardian's delayed weapon proficiency stays unchanged, you may be right: Guardian might be the perfect class for this archetype.
Swarmkeeper is a bad archetype mechanically, like most archetypes are. There's no getting around that. It can be situationally useful but it really can't be a character's "main thing". The best case scenario is combining Swarmkeeper with a Flurry Ranger or Monk (or other class with action compression) and fighting enemies that stand there and trade blows with you. If enemies are mobile, they'll usually be able to outrun the swarm. In other words, usually it will suck.
It's pathetic imo that 2E is so inflexible and restrictive that it can't support as common and popular a concept as "shapeshifter". I mean, almost every genre of fiction, not to mention RPGs, has shapeshifters. Everything from fantasy to superheroes to sci-fi has shapeshifters. I'm not entirely sure why you would say no edition of D&D has ever had a shapeshifter when 1E had the Shifter, as well as Wild Shape options for several other classes, not to mention Strength-based Druids who actually benefitted from Wild Shape, unlike 2E Druids who can't use Strength. And Wild Shape in 1E was really flexible and actually worth using, unlike the 2E Battle Forms which are underpowered, restrictive and limiting. Thing is, I can understand why they'd make battle forms so bad, since they're being used by full casters with many other abilities. What I don't understand is why there isn't a viable non-caster shapeshifter class option when so many people have been asking for one for years. Instead they're developing the Guardian, which almost nobody asked for and most people hate *sigh*.
2e has shapeshifter. Untamed druids and any caster with a polymorph spell does that. You don't like them, and most people don't, but that's far from "PF2e is so inflexible and restrictive that it can have a shapeshifter". Those are just spells that most casters have access to. That's not the same as a character whose main ability is shapeshifting, in the same way that a character doesn't have the ability to "control fire" just cause they know the Fireball spell.
The Doppelganger was never part of the 1E Shifter's skill set, so I have no idea why that would need to be included in a Shifter class. The first two options you mentioned are more than feasible in one class, they would just be considered subclasses. That said, it really doesn't matter cuz we're never getting an actual shapeshifter class. It's pathetic imo that 2E is so inflexible and restrictive that it can't support as common and popular a concept as "shapeshifter". I mean, almost every genre of fiction, not to mention RPGs, has shapeshifters. Everything from fantasy to superheroes to sci-fi has shapeshifters. It's sad that 2E limits that concept to those awful battle form spells.
That wouldn't work. The Synthesist Summoner merges with his/her Eidolon to become one being. That has nothing to do with shapeshifting. Entirely different concepts.
As much as I'd love to see a Shifter class in 2E, I've given up on ever getting that. If Paizo didn't introduce it in Howl of the Wild, then we're never getting it. Too bad, because I think Kineticist provides the perfect template for a Shifter class. Obviously they'd have to replace the elemental powers with body morphing type abilities, but it's very feasible. Since Shifter obviously ain't gonna happen, the other thing I'd love to see is a Synthesist Summoner. I'm more optimistic we'll get this one than the Shifter.
Every time someone says "I want this class" and someone else replies "That should just be an archetype" I laugh. It's like "What about the current archetypes gives you hope that future ones won't suck?". I mean, they're mostly terrible. Not sidegrades, but straight downgrades for the most part. Not all, there are a few good ones, but those are few and far between. Every time I get excited about an upcoming archetype I always end up disappointed by the final product. It's inevitable. The latest archetype to break my heart is Swarmkeeper. What a waste of space. Why even bother creating that thing when the only purpose it seems to have is making your character worse? No, I'll continue asking for full classes, thank you. They're mostly far better than archetypes with a few exceptions (Alchemist, Oracle).
The only issue I see with Rangers is Hunt Prey burns up so many actions in fights against multiple enemies. That said, if you're a Flurry Ranger with Twin Takedown, you can make up those actions. Precision is good too, especially with an Animal Companion. Poor Outwit is really weak tho. I dunno what OP is talking about with the Focus spells are weak comment. Imo, Rangers have some of the best Focus spells of any martial (Gravity Weapon, Animal Feature, Soothing Mist).
Shifter! I want a martial class with shapeshifting that's much more flexible and impactful than those underpowered, restrictive polymorph spells. I get why current battle forms are so weak; because they're balanced for use by a full caster. Well I don't want spellcasting, I just want to turn into a bear or shark or giant spider or whatever and be awesome in that form. Also, I want forms to last longer. Unfortunately I doubt this will ever happen. There seems to be a real hesitation to create a martial class that can do something besides hit things with a sharp stick. I hope I'm wrong tho.
You gave me some new ideas for threat techniques. These ideas make taunt more worth wile and create some interaction between guardian abilities but don't address the accuracy issues with the class. Guardian is a martial weapon and heavy armor wearing martial class, with no magic. No way should it be stuck with the same weapon proficiency advancement as an Alchemist.
I'm loving this errata cycle news!!
I'm with ya, it should be called "Challenge" or something like that.
I play both games but I enjoy 1E more. 2E definitely has better, cleaner, more streamlined rules, no doubt. But for me it's not alot of fun, mostly because the classes are very one-dimensional and really "samey". Martial classes have a template they mostly follow, and Casters have a template they mostly follow. I just don't see much difference between classes. Customization wise, there's not much I feel I can do with a 2E character either. Once Ancestry, Background and Class have been selected, the character is basically on rails. Class feats are mostly underwhelming, Skill Feats are easily the worst thing about the system, and archetypes in general are very weak and in many cases make your character worse, not better. It's really too bad, because the 2E rules set is vastly superior, but the actual fun of the game took a big step back imo.
The reason the Guardian keeps going down so fast is because the class mechanics make you give up that high AC and HP. Taunt wipes out that high AC and makes you very vulnerable to a competent enemy. Intercept Strike gives up your HP because your taking a hit for someone else. Guardian isn't really a tank so much as a "Designated Loser", designed to go down instead of another (more capable and important) party member.
Another issue I have with Untamed Form specifically is this business with using your own unarmed attack modifier and getting +2 to hit, but apparently only if your unarmed attack modifier is already higher than the battle form's. Ummm...What?? If someone wants to play a Strength Druid and really lean hard into battle forms, I don't see why they shouldn't have that option. After all, they're likely giving up some Wisdom and some spell attack power to maximize their battle forms. Why isn't that allowed? And if the devs don't want Strength Druids, why mention it at all? Currently I think that unarmed modifier rule only applies in like 3 or 4 levels during a Druid's career.
For me, the constant growing in size is the biggest issue with battle forms. Large size isn't hard to accommodate, but there are alot of places where Huge size is impossible. Form Control is a very poor solution. Personally, I feel like Large should be the biggest size for alot of battle forms, Huge can be a real pain. In 1E, the difference in stats between a Large and Huge size form wasn't very big, so I never felt like I NEEDED to be Huge, it was there if I wanted it. In 2E, the Stat differences are significant and I feel like being as big as you can be is the only way to keep up. I was hoping they would address battle forms in the Remaster but they never did.
Thing is, I've never heard a single person complain that they can't "trivialize encounters" with magic in 2E. What I keep hearing, which also matches my experience playing casters, is that spells mostly miss or get saved/critically saved against by their targets. Wanting to be successful at least half the time isn't the same thing as wanting to "trivialize encounters". That's the problem with magic in 2E in a nutshell: it very rarely works, at least against competent opponents. That's something that needs to be addressed in any next edition, however many years in the future that is. Paizo might be losing out on alot of players based on the number of ppl I've seen give up on this game after trying to play casters and getting frustrated.
The "something sucks/no it doesn't" debates are never over. Whether the topic is magic, Alchemists, or Archetypes. If something is underperforming based on someone's expectations and/or previous experiences, they're going to say "it sucks". Meanwhile, the people whose expectations are largely being met will respond with "no it doesn't". Bottom line, this is all personal perspective. As someone who loved Wild Shape and Alchemists in 1E, I consider the 2E versions of these things abominations and hate them. Alchemist and battle forms do have their supporters in 2E though. Now let's say someone deeply loved magic in 1E, then they might consider the 2E magic system an abomination as well.
I do miss all the customization available in 1E. In 2E I feel like characters are "on rails". Like once I choose Ancestry, Background and Class, it feels like there isn't much I can really do to customize that character. Most class feats aren't very interesting or impactful (though some are), and skill feats are one of the worst things in the game in my view. I dread having to choose those. I guess archetypes are supposed to help with that, but in practice the vast majority of archetypes are really weak and just don't offer much. I don't really see much difference between floor and ceiling for most builds, which I guess is either a feature or bug, depending on your point of view.
I would be very surprised if Champion got nerfed in PC2. Also, I'd be very surprised if Guardian didn't get buffed some in the final release version of that class.
Regarding 1E Martials, no argument here. Every time I played a martial in 1E my character tore every enemy in half. I was never one of those ppl who complained about martials in 1E. I never understood those complaints myself. A 2E martial is still quite good however, even if they don't hit quite as often. Here's the thing, I don't doubt you at all when you say higher level casters are powerful. I personally have never played games that high level so I don't have that experience. Problem is, it's hard to get that experience when the people who play casters keep rage quitting cuz "casters suck".
That +2 to save DCs is really harsh too. Makes it far easier to take down a Guardian with poison, disease, fear or some other Fort or Will effect. Taunt is just a mess altogether.
In 1E, the spells themselves were much better (even at low level), casters could cast more spells per day, and monster AC and save modifiers were generally lower. Add that all together and casters in 1E were far more powerful. I played alot of divine casters in 1E and really enjoyed them. I won't touch a caster in 2E tho, they're really weak at the levels I've played at.We're talking about the same low levels? In PF1 a Caster with an 18 could cast their first level spell 2 times and then they were more or less useless for the remainder of the day. Sure, some of those level 1 spells worked really well sometimes, but you often wanted to have more than 2 fights in a day. Just cantrips being useful is an incredible buff to low level casters. Sure, Sleep and Confusion were very powerful for low level spells. And spell slots were much more plentiful. That said, attack cantrips are much, MUCH better in 2E.
People say PF2 casters are worse than PF1 casters at low levels? Did they ever play a PF1 sorcerer? Are they just talking about like 2 witch builds that were playable at low levels? Goal posts move so fast in “fix caster” conversations it can be hard to keep up. I think the one complaint I can identify consistently in those conversations is “why can’t my caster super specialize in casting a handful of spells and always have those work?” And I think the answer is “because that was identified as a problem, not a feature of PF1’s casting mechanic for the developers who wanted choosing spells to be an encounter by encounter decision, not a character build restriction. In 1E, the spells themselves were much better (even at low level), casters could cast more spells per day, and monster AC and save modifiers were generally lower. Add that all together and casters in 1E were far more powerful. I played alot of divine casters in 1E and really enjoyed them. I won't touch a caster in 2E tho, they're really weak at the levels I've played at.
Every single caster I've played to high level is literally the strongest group member able to crush encounters like no other character in the group can do other than another high level caster.That's the issue right there, "high level". Only a very small percentage of campaigns get to high level, so most people are playing casters at levels where they SUCK. Martials work just fine right out of the box but casters have to be "aged" like 8 or 9 levels before they start working right. Not many people have that kind of patience, at least in my experience. I think you misunderstood me, I'm not the one frustrated with playing casters, I prefer martials anyway. I'm talking about the many players I've seen coming from 5E or PF 1E who get frustrated with 2E casters and quit. I avoid casters because I have no patience for them, but all the disgruntled players leaving games cause the 2E casters aren't meeting their expectations is disruptive and frustrating to me as someone who wants to keep a regular game going.
Every single caster I've played to high level is literally the strongest group member able to crush encounters like no other character in the group can do other than another high level caster. That's the issue right there, "high level". Only a very small percentage of campaigns get to high level, so most people are playing casters at levels where they SUCK. Martials work just fine right out of the box but casters have to be "aged" like 8 or 9 levels before they start working right. Not many people have that kind of patience, at least in my experience.
Taunt needs a significant boost and some feat support in the final version. Right now, Taunt is only useful as a ranged debuff, because it's far too risky and punitive for the Guardian to Taunt an enemy that's in melee range. Frankly, it's barely useful as a ranged debuff anyway, considering how high most monsters attack bonuses are, -2 to hit makes very little difference. I'd add a damage debuff as well as an attack roll debuff on Taunt, and get rid of that ridiculous buff for attacking the Guardian. Instead of buffing the enemy when it attacks the Guardian, just have the debuff not apply as long as the enemy continues targeting the Guardian. That would actually justify using an action to Taunt. Also, the name really needs to change, call it Challenge or something.
I don't see what the Guardian is actively doing to stand out and take their share of the spotlight in battle. That's what I've been saying as well. To be a priority target, you have to be some sort of threat, like a fireball-tossing Sorcerer or a giant raging Barbarian. Taunt isn't mind control, and any intelligent enemy can immediately dismiss the Guardian as a threat once that enemy has seen how poorly they swing their sword. An intelligent enemy would save the Guardian for last, after killing the rest of the party. To really do their job as a Defender, the Guardian needs more OFFENSE.
Thank you for writing this summary, very helpful!
I would just change the name remove the ac/dc penalty and leave it as a debuff effect at range. Guardain does needs something they can do from a distance since intercept strike incentivizes them to position themselves a certain way and they dont have great mobility in heavy armor. This is an excellent idea, particularly if they provide some feat support for this version of Taunt.
In my view, if Champion can have normal martial attack progression AND legendary armor proficiency, I don't see why Guardian can't have it also. There are other differences between these two classes, there's no need to make one strictly worse than the other.Maybe Guardian is not a tanky martial like a champion. Im thinking its a front line support like a warpriest. even in that role it has a lot to overcome but if weapon proficiency stays where its at warpriest support capacity is a better standard to compare to than a champion. I don't think Guardian to Warpriest is a legit comparison because the Warpriest is a full caster and also a superb healer. Because the Warpriest is so much more versatile, Guardian should leave it in the dust when it comes to melee combat. Otherwise, why play a Guardian when Warpriest is so much better?
In my view, if Champion can have normal martial attack progression AND legendary armor proficiency, I don't see why Guardian can't have it also. There are other differences between these two classes, there's no need to make one strictly worse than the other.
I mean, alot of this boils down to perception and feel. To me, 1E classes had alot more variations and differences between them than 2E classes. In 2E, I feel like martial classes are all really similar, and caster classes are all really similar. I struggle to even notice the differences between classes in 2E sometimes. That's why I feel classless design is the next step in this evolution. That said, I doubt we'd see a new edition any earlier than 8-10 years from now.
I'm a Pathfinder 1E fan and to this point I have not enjoyed 2E. That said, I'm not sure why any 1E fan would look forward to the next edition thinking it's going to be more like 1E. If anything, it's going to be an evolution of 2E. One thing I can see happening in the next edition is the elimination of character classes. That trend has already begun, since in 2E, almost every class conforms to a generic martial or caster template, with only minor differences between classes from the same template. It would be easier and far more transparent to just get rid of classes altogether, and have players choose between a martial template or a caster template, and then just build their own "class" by picking from a list of available martial/caster class abilities and feats as they level up.
Why does Guardian needs a normal proficiency progression? Because missing is not fun. In combat they do only two things, protect allies and hit things. They don't have the spellcasting versatility of the Warpriest, or the alchemy of the Alchemist. All they have is "I take damage, I am tough, and I hit things" And they are mediocre at being tough and hitting things. That does not sound like fun to play. Couldn't agree more. In the end, this class is part of a game, which is meant to be fun. All the actual playtest posts I've seen have agreed on one thing: Guardian isn't fun to play.
I'm a much bigger fan of Pathfinder 1E than 2E myself. I personally find 2E quite dull, especially when it comes to character classes, which all look pretty much the same to me. All that said, I think it's way too early for Paizo to be thinking about 3E. While I may not be a fan of 2E, I know that alot of people are, and announcing 3E would really annoy the 2E fanbase. Personally, I think Paizo needs to give 2E another 3-5 years at least before beginning the 3E Playtest. Just my perspective as someone who's not a 2E fan.
But the Guardian has offensive power. Compared to a Champion, you deal precisely 12.7% less damage averaged on your whole career. That's way less than the Champion/Fighter difference and I've never seen anyone complaining about the Champion because of that.I mean what you're fundamentally describing is that the utility the guardian brings doesn't compensate for its offensive deficiencies. Giving the class damage steroids is one way to solve that but not necessarily the only one. A Guardian is a martial, and there's no way they should have attack proficiency equal to a Warpriest. Especially since the Warpriest is also a tremendous healer and has the versatility of being a full caster. The Guardian meanwhile, has no such versatility. It's my opinion that Guardian should have the same attack proficiency as Champion. Also, Weapon Specialization needs to be a class ability at 7th level rather than 11. That's basically just making them equal to other martials, right now they're behind, without any out of combat versatility to make up for that gap.
|
