HeHateMe's page

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.

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.

Bluemagetim wrote:

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.

Strike accuracy issues don't need to be addressed if hitting things for damage isn't the point of the class.

I would still prefer that they are addressed and the Guardian has the same weapon progression as a Champion, but it's not strictly necessary.

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 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.

I've got an objection. If a class with 10 HP/level, the best AC of the game, extra damage reduction from armor and Shield Block goes down with two hits, every other character would have faced the same fate or worse.

PF2e isn't really a game where a single character can tank alone for long, Guardian or not.

Good critique about Hampering Sweeps.

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.

HeHateMe wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The battle forms need some work in PF2 or they need a shapechange spell for infiltration. By the rules, you can't even talk in dragon form or any battle form which is just egregiously bad design, especially for druids who can stay in form long enough to convince something they are a dragon or elemental or what not.

I believe they have a ritual for a persistent servant that doesn't require sustain. But rituals are a pain to use for casters requiring groups to execute.

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.

Yep. The battle forms could use some work to make them more playable and sensible. The stats aren't as bad as I initially thought, but the size and talking issues are a pain. Why would a dragon or a righteous might cleric not be able to talk in a battle form? That is just ridiculous.

But at least they are usable all the way to 20 unlike summons, which are unusable combat for most levels.

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.

The battle forms need some work in PF2 or they need a shapechange spell for infiltration. By the rules, you can't even talk in dragon form or any battle form which is just egregiously bad design, especially for druids who can stay in form long enough to convince something they are a dragon or elemental or what not.

I believe they have a ritual for a persistent servant that doesn't require sustain. But rituals are a pain to use for casters requiring groups to execute.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

HeHateMe wrote:

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.

This does not bead very much in common with the game as I have been playing it. Class vs classless design is a very different kind of choice than you might be implying, perhaps you're conflating the chassis (very similar because it mostly describes attack and save progression) with the actual class abilities? Because that would be like saying 1e Barbarian and Fighter are basically the same class because they both get full BAB, martial weapons, and good Fort. That the Rogue gets 3/4 BAB doesn't make it a distinct class, it makes it barely functional in the game's major gameplay loop, combat. All other class abilities appear in the form of class feats because one of the most popular things from 1e was the ability to take the same class and give it two different sets of abilities to match your character concept while having the same core chassis.

Not gonna tell you not to love 1e (I did for many years!) but this idea that class protection would go away the moment the designers thought they could get away doesn't feel terribly supported by the evidence we have currently at our disposal.

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.

Secret Wizard wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

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.

But give it so much defensive utility and you either (a) trivialize encounters, or (b) risk becoming unidimensional and useless in any situation that doesn't adapt to your specific niche (AC tanking).

Offensive power IS versatility.

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.

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.

Taunt is pretty bad imo, but I think there's a bigger issue with Guardian that Taunt is attempting to cover for: the Guardian is a complete non-entity offensively. It poses basically no threat so it can be safely ignored by the enemy. If the Guardian could hit hard and do damage, I don't think a gimmick like Taunt would even be needed.

HeHateMe wrote:

When I read the Playtest document my immediate reaction to Taunt was "There must be some mistake here", it just seems like a really bad class feature. With that said, has anyone tried playtesting the Guardian without using Taunt at all? Call me crazy, but I feel like frequently using Taunt makes the Guardian worse, not better. I was wondering if anyone put that theory to the test.

I briefly tried a Bodyguard-centric Guardian who did nothing but Intercept Strikes and almost never Taunted. It was sort of okay, but also was just about one of the most boring and reductive playstyles I've experienced. Most of my actions boiled down to Striding towards whichever ally was taking the most heat, and spending the rest of my actions making Athletics maneuvers or Striking with a ranged weapon, depending on the enemy. At higher levels, you do get some feats that help with this, like Intercept Energy, but the whole way through I just felt like little more than a health battery, attaching myself to other people without doing all that much myself. My Strikes were mediocre, and Unkind Shove didn't feel like enough, not so much because the feat is weak (it's actually fairly decent), but because at that point it felt like I was Shoving only because I had nothing better to do, and sometimes it backfired by making enemies attack someone else instead.

A lot of this was also done also with enemies who weren't assumed to be too smart, and who were mostly melee, which I think was the best-case scenario for the Guardian. Against the few ranged enemies I used, the Guardian couldn't really do much except make ranged Strikes or Taunt if they wanted to stay in Intercept Strike range, and I imagine a smart enemy would be able to observe what's going on and just target someone else in the party. I did attempt a "Diver Down" kind of situation where the party all gathered around the Guardian so that the latter could Intercept Strikes for everyone, but that...

Thank you, I was curious about that.

I don't like the whole idea behind Taunt: making yourself vulnerable to entice enemies to hit you instead of your allies. That's not a good or fun approach. A better approach would be to replaced Taunt with a mechanic that PUNISHES the enemy for attacking anyone other than you. That's the way to be an effective tank.

Personally, I could see shifter being either a general archetype or possibly a barbarian class archetype (basically an enhanced/more versatile Animal instinct). With the barbarian getting a bloodrager class archetype, I suspect a general archetype is more likely.

IMO, "shifting shape into one or more animal forms" is really too narrow to make a separate class.

Personally, I hope not. I really dislike the vast majority of archetypes I've seen to this point. They seem to be created mostly for flavor text and are pretty weak mechanically. Taking an archetype is like being penalized for wanting a certain flavor for your character. There are some exceptions of course (I like Sentinel, Bastion, Dual Weapon Warrior) but they're mostly bad. Also, Barbarian is one of the most restrictive and limited classes in 2E.

A martial shapeshifter needs to be it's own class and not dragged down by archetype or Barbarian baggage.

If this taunting mechanic forces us to invest in Charisma and roll to beat a target number then that's a hard pass for me. I hate Charisma-based characters, just a matter of personal taste. Rather I'm hoping that it works more like Marking did in 4E; no roll required.

Yeah, what people want (at least what I want) from the Shifter is a class that shapeshifts without all the Druid baggage. No edicts/anathema, no spell slots, just someone who is very good at turning into animals.

Yes exactly. However, Battle Forms would need to be considerably buffed as well to make a Shifter useful. Right now, they're pretty underpowered, slightly better than an Animal Companion. The reason they're so weak is cuz they're balanced to be used by full casters. Take away the spellcasting and Battle Forms will really underperform.

HeHateMe wrote:

Ugh no way, Untamed Form is terrible; extremely restrictive and underpowered. It just doesn't work as a character's "main thing".

Will have to let the like dozen plus wild druids I've played with know this. They had no idea and spent most of their campaigns being extremely competent and effective characters

Sure, but Untamed Form is not the only thing Druids have going for them. I was talking about a martial shapeshifter, they won't have any spells. Try playing a Druid without casting any spells other than Untamed Form, ever, then tell me how great UF is.

It really will be nice to see a support character option that isn't a caster and doesn't have to sing and dance to buff his or her comrades.

Personally I dislike classes like Oracle that are built around class abilities that feature benefit/drawback tradeoffs. Unlike 1E, where the benefits outweighed the drawbacks, in 2E the drawbacks nearly always outweigh the benefits. I want class abilities that make my character better, not worse.

In my opinion, Oracle needs to go back to it's 1E roots. Separate curses and mysteries, and class feats need to be more like the Revelations from 1E instead of the generic caster feats.

Just my own personal preferences.

Those big bad guys sure do love their gluten free diets

exequiel759 wrote:

Demorome wrote:

HeHateMe wrote:

As you mentioned, that shrugging off attacks fantasy no longer works cuz lowering AC opens Barbarians up to eating more crits. When I played a Barbarian I didn't feel tough at all, I felt extremely fragile. Not at all the experience I was expecting. Hopefully they dump the AC penalty in the Remaster, or if they want to keep it then Barbs need damage resistance from lvl 1. Temp HPs don't even come close to making up for the AC penalty.

Yup, I think another solution could be that enemies now have to beat your lowered AC by +11 instead of +10 to crit, but that might be tricky to remember...

If we have to jump through so many loops to solve the -1 to AC, why don't remove it? As we already discussed the -1 AC goes against the basic idea of barbarians being tanks that shrug off blows as they get hit and crit more often.

.

You keep saying this like this is a universally held consensus. It is not. Not getting hit is diametricly opposed to how barbarians are supposed to tank hits. Not getting crit, sure. Not going down super quickly, sure. But getting hit is part of the basic idea. See: Wolverine, Ultra Ego Vegeta, Metal Bat, and various other berserker types.

Ummm...Conan is THE ORIGINAL Barbarian, and in the Robert Howard stories he was described as having the reflexes of a cobra, or a panther, when he went berserk. He hardly ever took a hit, bad guys would end up hitting each other cuz he was so fast.

I wasn't as big a fan of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, tho I read a couple of their stories and I recall Fafhrd being fast and an excellent swordsman, not someone who stood around and got stabbed alot.

The whole "face tanking" thing has nothing to do with Barbarians in literature. As far as I know, it was a D&D invention that Barbarians were too stupid to duck a hit.

I mean the AC Penalty is mostly because the quintessential barbarian fantasy involves "you shrug off blows that would end lesser warriors and laugh in the face of your enemies" or something like that.

Though they might want to get back to the drawing board to figure out a way to better represent this since the Barbarian's other defenses like resistance and more HP aren't actually as good as "AC" because lower AC means you take more crits.

I think the "no more concentration restriction" seems plausible.

As you mentioned, that shrugging off attacks fantasy no longer works cuz lowering AC opens Barbarians up to eating more crits. When I played a Barbarian I didn't feel tough at all, I felt extremely fragile. Not at all the experience I was expecting. Hopefully they dump the AC penalty in the Remaster, or if they want to keep it then Barbs need damage resistance from lvl 1. Temp HPs don't even come close to making up for the AC penalty.

Hopefully there will be some goodies in this book for Kineticists

Metal Carapace is hideously bad, no doubt about that. I was so excited to play a Metal Kineticist until I saw how bad alot of their abilities are.

Personally I'd be very surprised if there's a new class to playtest considering they're currently busy revamping the entire system. I enjoy playtests, but that seems like alot to ask right now. Then again, maybe I'm wrong?

Applied_People wrote:

I predict no more easy dipping into Champion for heavy armor and the champion's reaction.

We really need a better way to add heavy armor proficiency to a character than "getting religion" anyway.

"I'm born again, time to strap on my Jesus Armor and smite some heathens!"

From a thematic and narrative standpoint, setting up traps and ambushes are really cool and satisfying where you have time, or a montage, to get it set up for an approaching opponent.

Which is why it doesn't gel with Pathfinder at all, where the players are the ones exploring, advancing, and chasing, not the other way around, they deal with traps, not set them up for opponents to stumble into.

Traps/Ambushes only work in certain niche scenarios personalized for said traps/ambushes, which probably aren't even fun or rewarding enough even if you do set them up right.

From a gameplay standpoint they'd have to work like WoW's Hunters' traps where they just yeet them and they deploy. Is that realistic, depending on the trap no but realism doesn't matter as much as consistency. More importantly, they would actually get used.

This is an excellent explanation. I think traps/snares have their place, mostly for a prepared ambush or if the party is resting in a location where ingress is restricted and can easily be trapped. As an in-combat tool tho, it's too difficult to pull off.