My group is going through Age of Ashes right now and there are more flying creatures in that campaign than any other I've ever seen. My Frog Barbarian is doing just fine, kicking ass.
It's just a matter of playing smart. Don't rage right away if you think there's any chance the monsters will fly. Rage only takes one action, so you can rage once you close into melee range and are relatively sure the monsters won't fly away.
If the monsters fly, shoot them with a ranged weapon. I recommend compound bows. At higher levels you have other ways of dealing with them, like Sudden Leap. People act like Barbarians are helpless without rage, and it's just not true.
One of the conditions of Rage is that there have to be "enemies you can perceive". If you're caught raging with flying bad guys, just run out of the room so you can't see them, then you can drop out of rage and use ranged weapons.
Most flying enemies are pretty obvious, they have wings and such. So what I do with my Frog Barbarian is just use my compound shortbow or throw javelins instead of raging. Arrows and javelins don't do quite as much damage, but it's not bad either.
Later on, you can enchant them so you can be even better at ranged combat.
I'd go with Dragon Barbarian, personally. Giant Barb is too much of a glass cannon. They hit hard but they're too easy to crit and go down way too fast. They're fragile, and for me, that ruins the whole Barbarian vibe.
That said, you may like different things than I do. These are just my personal thoughts.
I agree, though I'd like to point out that the "Raise a Shield" action gimped martials as well. It was an absolutely terrible idea to make using a shield an action.
Lesson learned, my next character will be using a two-handed weapon instead of a shield.
The other major issue is that the core book straight lies to you about Mutagenist being a viable option. The drawbacks to most of the mutagens are horribly crippling. That, combined with only having light armor proficiency means there's no place for the Mutagenist in melee combat.
The only combat focused Mutagen I've seen that doesn't have a crippling drawback is the Energy Mutagen. Of course, it happens to be Uncommon so getting access to it is entirely up to the GM.
That's because 2e Alchemist is an extremely poorly designed class. If you wanna play a skill monkey, Rogue is way better. If you play a healer, Cleric, Druid, and divine Sorcerers are way better. If you wanna play a skill monkey and healer, Bard is way better.
Alchemist isn't good at anything really, except crafting. I'd recommend playing something else.
A few pages of options in a 100+ page book isn't useful to me. I didn't forget those books, I left them out because those are examples of what I don't want Paizo doing. As far as I'm concerned, unless a book is mostly character options, it's not worth my money. Of the 5e books I've seen, only Xanathar's fits that description.
I'm not bringing this up to crap on 5e, I'm bringing this up to say I want Paizo to go a different direction. There's more than one valid approach after all. Just my perspective, I don't claim to speak for anyone else.
Well, my comment was supposed to be a bit tongue in cheek. That said, 5e had been out for like 5 years and has had only two player-facing books come out in all that time (Core Rulebook and Xanathar's). So, I actually wasn't far off.
Almost all of their books have been published adventures or bestiaries, for GMs only. That's not the direction I want 2e to go. I don't want a dumbed-down, basic game for noobs. I want depth, I want options.
Given that much classes + 4 new ones, i would prefer more archetypes instead of classes.
Couldn't disagree more, the archetype/multiclassing system is pure awful. I'd prefer more classes, the ones we have so far are all cookie cutter and completely unoriginal. The martial classes are pretty much all the same, and the caster classes are pretty much the same.
I want original classes, ones that break the mold. Just my .02, I don't claim to speak for anyone other than myself.
I agree Rysky, that's the point I'm trying to make. There's plenty of ideas for additional content, Paizo doesn't need to slow down or stop making books, as some people seem to think.
The other issue is that the classes in the CRB and even the ones announced in the playtest are a bit...cookie cutter. All the frontline melee classes seem the same, and the casters seem the same. Don't get me wrong, I still really like 2e, I just feel that there are many different types of classes and playstyles that haven't even been explored.
For example, a melee caster (or Gish). The closest 2e comes to this type of character is the Warpriest, which is pretty badly designed. Actually Cleric in general was poorly designed. In 1e you had plenty of choices if you wanted to go that route: Inquisitor, Hunter, Bard, Occultist, Magus, Alchemist, Spiritualist, Skald, etc.
Even with the new APG classes, this type of character doesn't exist. That seems like a pretty big void that could be filled in the somewhat near future with a new book.
Data Lore wrote:
"Fantasy dude with the X-gene" is the best description of a Sorcerer that I've ever heard.
Regarding Oracle, as much as I hate the 2e version of that class, I will say one good thing about it: Oracle is a natural fit for multiclassing and archetypes. Their feats are so underwhelming that there's really no reason you can't just use all your class feats on multiclassing feats or archetype feats. You really don't lose anything by doing this.
I'm tempted to do exactly that when the official class comes out: play a Battle Oracle, multiclass Fighter, and use all of my class feats on Fighter feats while still retaining divine spellcasting.
In 1e, once you learned a spell, you could cast it and it automatically scaled up to your level. Take Fireball as an example. In 2e, you need to learn Fireball again each time you gain a casting level, otherwise it never scales up. In 1e, Fireball did 1d6 damage per level, so as long as you learned it once, you never had to learn it again. Alot of blasting spells were like that.
Now that I give it some thought, I think giving Sorcerers more spells learned per level than Bards would've been a good way to balance the classes. The general consensus is that Bards are better than Sorcerers, and I'd have to agree.
Alchemist, particularly Mutagenist, is trash in 2e. That seems to be the consensus anyway. The issue is that the 2e design philosophy seems to be that each class can only do one thing. Alchemists have been relegated to a support role by the developers, which basically means they're weak in combat.
The only thing 2e Alchemist can do well is craft stuff. If you were thinking about creating a 2e version of your Mutagen-chugging melee monster from 1e, forget it. Play a Barbarian instead.
I was a fan of the 1e Oracle, and from my perspective the only good thing about the 2e Oracle is you can completely ignore the horribly crippling curses by just not casting the revelation spells, which aren't very good to begin with.
Which of course, brings me back to the title of this thread. Why play an Oracle instead of a Divine Sorcerer? Two extra HP per level? Dunno, that was the only real reason I could think of.
What they should do is dump those trash revelation spells and turn revelations into class feats, each tied to a particular Mystery. The same way some Barbarian class feats are tied to specific Instincts. Also, they should just have a separate list of curses you can choose from that develop and change over time. To make Oracle even more unique, they could have some class feats that change the way curses work or mitigate their effects.
Stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself...
I agree with everything you said and have pointed out basically the same things. I gotta admit it is kinda funny that if the Battle Oracle wants to use social skills while his major curse is active, he has to b%$$+ slap the person he's talking to. That might work for Intimidation, but Diplomacy?
I am among those that say that the over-nerf is real, but "completely unplayable" seems quite the hyperbole, honestly.
Well yeah, that's why I included a range of possibilities in my post, from "not as good" to "completely unplayable". I'm observing my friend to try to figure out where on that spectrum 2e casters are. At some point though, I wanna try it out and see for myself.
Definitely. The guy I'm talking about loves Sorcerers and played them exclusively in 1e. Also, I've played casters in 1e, and I can see how little his Sorcerer is doing in 2e.
Also, I've read the core book and could see that casters got beat with the nerf bat pretty hard. I'm just not sure how hard yet: completely unplayable? Or just not nearly as good as they used to be.
I don't have any actual experience playing a caster in 2e, my current character is a Barbarian, and he's been alot of fun. The Sorcerer in our group seems to be having less fun though, plinking away with trash cantrips like Daze. I kinda feel bad for him, but then again, we're low level. Maybe his character will get better at higher levels.
If we do another campaign, I think I'll play a caster just to get the experience and see how bad it really is. Looks bad so far though.
Data Lore wrote:
Oof that's harsh. 2e casters already border on useless, and Electric Arc was the only cantrip actually worth spending 2 actions to cast. The rest are a waste of actions.
As far as streamlining the system and simplifying, I agree that PF2 is mostly successful. I say mostly because of two things that became unnecessarily complicated in 2e: sensing things, and conditions.
Conditions have become so complex that my group really needed the condition cards to track them. Btw, the condition cards are a great product.
Hidden, Undetected, Concealed, Detected, Observed, wtf?? Unnecessarily complex and hard to understand, this particular piece of the rulebook is a streamlining fail.
Otherwise, my group is really enjoying the 2e system. Cheers Paizo!
When playing a barbarian in Pathfinder 2E, does taking Fury instinct immediately give you Raging Resistance or must you still wait until level 9?
I think the OP's gloom and doom is overly dramatic. However, I do agree that casters have been nerfed a bit too hard in 2e.
I used to enjoy playing divine casters in 1e, but the divine spell list sucks so bad in 2e, I won't play one anymore. That said, martial characters are so much more fun in 2e than they used to be. I love playing my Animal Barbarian.
I think the biggest issue is how crappy cantrips are: 1d4 damage, really? I think d6 or even d8 would've made casters much more relevant in combat.
Or maybe we can read just fine and we decided we don't like the cost/benefit ratio. I've read the curses and while I see that there are some benefits, I think those benefits are fairly mild compared to the drawbacks. Except Battle, that one is actually cool.
Not only did they get rid of revelations, which were awesome, but they replaced them with these garbage spells that activate your curse every time you cast them. I don't see that being a fair trade at all.
Captain Morgan wrote:
That's a trope? I've read a ton of fantasy books and never even seen that. Must be a manga thing I guess, I don't pay much attention to that genre.
That explains it at least.
My big issue is the weapon itself. I hate that you need this stupid special weapon to use your abilities. I would prefer having the extra damage and the clumsy penalty because I'm bigger and stronger than anyone else due to my giant powers, not because I have a stupid looking weapon.
It irritates me to no end that the only reason Giant Instinct is like that is because of Amiri. I don't wanna play any of the damn iconics, I wanna play my own character.
Hate to break it to you brother, but you're in a pretty small minority when you say PF1 Alchemist sucked. There were alot more "OMG Alchemist is OP" threads than there were "Alchemists are Underpowered" threads on these forums.
Most people who loved that class hate the PF2 version. I loved playing a Mutagen-swilling melee monster in PF1, which isn't even a viable option in P2, sadly.
Regarding Oracle, I liked the variety of choices in 1e: I could choose a Mystery, several Revelations, and a Curse. Lots of possible combinations. P2 did away with that, which I hate.
There's definitely a significant group of players who love the "power at a price" theme. I'm not one of them, I look at Oracle and see "Sorcerer with Disabilities".
Too bad, cause I really liked the 1e Oracle. Paizo is developing a habit of taking classes I really liked in 1e (Alchemist, Oracle) and making them suck. Not a good thing for me, that's for sure.