Lausth's page

My 1d10 is meaningfull to me even when i add +52 and 1d6 then another 2d6 to it. It eventually becomes 4d10 or 5d10 or more(iterative attacks and aoo triggers).

People take weapon spec for 2 damage. 1d10 has an average of 5.5.

EDIT: I know this is nitpicking and not entirely related to the op. Sorry about that. It just feels wierd when people calls 1d8s or 1d10s meaningless.

I want a d666 system.

I did. I playtested the wizard. One of my friends tested the druid. They werent funny experiences. I will playtest it more ofcourse. It is hard to find a dedicated party. I guess our next playtest session will be next week.

EDIT:With amiri i was invincible! That is ofcourse due to gm rolling very low all the time in that session.

I feel the need to stand up for the kineticist. Sure, it has flaws (like how hard it is to hit with physical blasts at late levels), and being underpowered compared to trad casters, but the rules arent too complicated (just dense). I'd love it if they released the kineticist early in 2nd ed, or made the sorcerer like the kineticist.

Edit: i lovecit when companies experiment with mechanics. I hate vancian and spell slot based casting and love alternatives like psionics, tome of magic, magic of incarnum and warlocks/dragon shamans.

This is a 2e forum. I dont want to turn this thread to a 1e kineticist thread but as a player who played kineticist class for 3 years now. I dont think kineticist is underpowered. You can reach to +28 to hit and do more than 100 damage in a round with a kineticist telekinetic blast without accepting burn while flying while having the ability to turn invisible with more than 200 hp and some stupid fort save while having at will breath of life and some other stupid stuff at level 12. Your hit can go higher than +28 to. I can accept that reaching that point requires wierd things and some system mastery but kineticist isnt underpowered. I feel like i should give mark his credit where its due. Your class is a funny one and i like it.

EDIT:I know you meant casters but nah it isnt underpowered.

It gets better once you get used to it.

EDIT: It gets a lot better. I am fairly positive that 2e CRB will be good once its done and released. They have a lot of things to do. So some complicated text is understandable.

sigh

Shroudb

I am worried for new gms and new players. I started this game with occult adventures. Wierd invisible walls, misunderstood text and intentions was baked into my first year. It was a soul crushing experience. If you want newer people to play your game you should avoid those and let people have fun with half of your options you are giving to them.

More experienced players has no candy in this. They have their own games.

This why i dont want to discuss how to make magic better here. You need people who want to make magic better first.

EDIT:I dont want newer players go through the same things i had to go through. This magic system is pushing them in that direction.

Putting spells in an uncommon list wont do. Just adding some notes to it or guiding new gms to better understand the problems they could face would be much more helpfull to them. At its current state uncommon list will be no go list for a lot of gms. Why making it look like a game breaking choice is better than informing newer gms. I just dont get it.

Wisest decision? Hardly. They could have add a note to it. Saying how and when to use teleport. Talking about wisest decisions. Nerfing half of the all of the player choices(Out of 12 classes 6 of them are casters including the alchemist) in your game where players of said classes starts to feel like a useless weight isnt exactly the most wisest decision ever. Yes i am including the cleric to the list. Being the healbot isnt the best caster experience ever excluding people who likes that type of playstyle.

Lausth wrote:

PF2 is similar to occult. It will take sometime to get used to. I dont think it will be hard to remember things after you got used to it.

I started this game with the kineticist. I do understand your pain. It will get better in time.

It will only get better if Paizo improve the game though. Right now, I don't think PF2 is in a good place, and that's a very popular consensus. Adapting is one thing, accepting is another. This is a "this need to change" not a "oh we'll just get used to this".

A lot of things in the playtest book can change in release. Pazio is just trying to gather some data from us so they can make a great game.

If they found out that majority of the players dont like the current way of writing things than they will change it.

EDIT: I dont like somethings in the playtest to but if i were to try to make a great game, my playtest book would look like this one.

You can nerf teleport to some point. I dont think i ever saw people who likes arbitrary long distance travels where they have to fight arbitrery random encounters and face challenges such as climb this unnecessarily high mountain. Teleport saves you from those and it is a nice backup plan when things dont go according to plan. You can nerf it to a point where it cannot be used for things such as scry and fry but putting it into a list which new gms can easly see it as a no go spell isnt the way to do it. A lot of those gms will look at uncommon list and saw them as broken spells.

You could buy a level 8 scroll which would cost some money and cast some spells which can be dispelled that also cost a lot of money combined with caster health pool and making yourself a target? Well good luck with that.

There ways to counter those things. First of all it would be hard to find a level 8 scroll among other things. I dont think they are even hard to do it.

Can you guys please stop acting like we dont agree with everything. Yes some nerfs is nice and acceptable however current nerfs are pazios classic overnerfing things so they dont have to deal with it later on.
This kind of attitude even though it works on some magic items it will not work on players entire kit.

Nerfing everything then expecting players to have fun in a gaming environment is going too far. This is what we said and honestly we all are saying the samething about the entire 2e playtest.

People who likes martials complain about skill dcs and other things too.

Lausth wrote:

2/3? in 4d12+16 magic weapon adds 2d12. BTW i wasnt talking to you. I was talking to rameth.

Yes, 2d12 and +1 attack.

That's how important the +1 attack is, you can actually check the math yourself, actual percentage of damage with is 167.39%

So a bit MORE than 2/3rd

I didnt say it was weak. I just said it wasnt the 2/3 of the entire damage like you suggested. I was talking about what actually happened in game.

I dont see how i was biased in all this. Maybe i should have my breakfest now.

EDIT: Casters job isnt just the buff martial either.

I just compared a level 9 wizard with no optimization in 1e to level 1 barbarian with no optimization in 2e.

Damage comparison is your example. This god thing became popular after treatmonk. He didnt meant actuall gods. God wizard in 1e is a wizard who helps his team with buffs,debuffs,control and utility. That is his job. God wizard is a teamplayer and dont outshine anyone. Martials didnt break the game with their stupid amounts of damage in 1e? Thousand damage in a round is somehow weak?
What do you want your casters to do in 2e? Nothing? Do you always want to play 2e in a dungeon crawl mode? With durations like that that will be your experience.

EDIT: Apperently for some of us staying back and doing nothing in combat is somehow fun.

@Freagarthach More i look at it more i dont see how this is complicated. You are not rules lawyering your way out of this. Ethical paradox does nothing to save you from alignment shift and no celestial heal wouldnt save you either but i guess every gm for himself. BTW there was this cheap item called ghostbane salt(i guess that was it), you can easly be hurt whenever your gm wants to challange you.

@Rameth I played with level 1 iconic barbarian amiri. My friend cast magic weapon on me then i moved into damage the slime in doomsday dawn.
Two hits and 43 damage with 4d12+16. At level 9 with fireball you do 9d6 damage which is 31 damage before reflex save and resistance or immunity.

Lausth wrote:

I wouldnt call you transcendently powerfull...dont get me wrong it is good. There are reason for not allowing evil PCs. That is certainly one of them.

So that beign said what did you do in sombrefell hall? What kind of spells did you pick.

Envoy of Balance has to be neutral. They have an ability called Ethical Paradox that affects their interaction with spells and alignment descriptors. That character has been one of my favorites to play, and seems really powerful for my local environment...but I am curious to hear where your sense of transcendently powerful PCs goes :)

As to Sombrefell, we have not finished, but my Wizard multiclass Cleric focuses on Heal and Augmented Summon Monster - Hell Hound. So far the Hound has been great, and with two other dedicated Clerics in the party, my healing resources are so far under less strain than in the first two modules.

You are just very battering blastable. Well i wouldnt use that on you as your gm. Probably. Well you cant be killed in your shadowform so maybe. I dont think i would allow ethical paradox protecting you from alignment shift too but well thats just me.

So basicly smash smash heal smash? Huh with two clerics that should be fun. That is ofcourse if people like clerics. Happy to hear you having fun with sombrefell.

EDIT:I am realy not seeing how ethical paradox protects you from alignment shift. I think the act itself(Which is casting a high level spell with an evil descriptor) causes the alignment shift. I dont how to see that as a spell effect. Am i wrong?

Martials could one shot anyone from level 1 to 20. Ability to one shot someone from level 8 to 20 will not help your argument.

You know i am seeing each side calling others a minority. Please stop. Everyone on these forums are a minority.

EDIT:Just to be clear. All of us on these forum are part of the same minority. A lot of people never visits these forums.

EDIT 2: Calling other people minority doesnt help your arguments. It makes it look biased and makes it look like you are trying a little too hard to support your argument. Which it doesnt btw.

I dont understand. How did we disrespect him/her? I just wanted to help him/her the same way experienced players and pathfinder community helped me with my own problems. How is that horrifying?

Basically, I think it's a dependency issue. Some of us like playing characters with a really strong independent streak, but that makes no sense if your character is heavily dependent on magic items.

With casters, they can have spells prepared for most situations, and magic items end up just feeling like an extension of what your character is already capable of, especially if your character can craft magic items. But with martials that magic sword is proof that some of your damage came from a wizard, and in 2e, thanks to the crazy magic item dice bonuses, it's proof that most of your damage comes from a wizard.

I got to ask this. Do you think wizard or sorcerer is the source of all magic? What if fighter could forge magic weapons? Would that solve your issue? I am preaparing for mythic campaign as a gm. The issue that you pointed out is to be honest alien to me. I never had a player who had issues with magic items otherthan the WBL limiting those which is solveble. I am seeing a lot of people who dislikes magic items and i think this forum has a chance to effect my table. So at which point magic stops representing the wizard? Why is it so bad to need magic items in a high magic game where magic is everywhere otherthan the obvious WBL issue. Is it possiable to add magic to your martials in way that wont make you think the wizard? If it is possiable than how would you like it to be?

I am seeing a lot of people who dislikes magic items and they just say i want to do this x thing while some of them hate anime,some of them hate magic,some of them hate otherthings. You see there isnt exactly many things to go with here. Whatever you do you upset someone.

EDİT:I didnt use magic as synonym for magic items. I just meant anykind of magic. It could be in anyform.

If people are not sure about the plan then there is no plan.

EDİT:At that point only plan is you going to castle.Swing your sword,cast your fireball,throw your bomb until it is dead or move on to a different part adventure.

You bother because there are other people in your party.
An adventurer group isnt made of people with the same specialization fields. You know some of the plans people make might rely on the rogue never failing that check(well they could because you know spells,blindsight,etc). While some plans might rely on wizard never failing at his job or fighter never failing at whatever his field of expertise is. I think pf 1e is more than just your modifier but i guess that is just me.

Lausth wrote:

This edition wants to challange you all the time at all levels.High levels of investment in one thing making you awesome is PF1e.PF 2e is more gamist than that.So naturally even the very earth itself scales with you and on a level challange means that you have a chance of doing that thing %50-%60 of the time.

I don't get that at all from reading the rules. From reading the rules I get that, for the example of lockpicking, a standard lock will have the same DC no matter what level you are, but when you're level 4 those will be easy to pick but you'll have graduated to picking high quality locks meant for securing really important places, and when you're level 20 you'll be able to pick those in your sleep but will have a tough time with the artifact puzzle locks engraved with fell runes of protection, wreathed with the most sensitive of alarm spells, guarded at all times by sleepless constructs and bound greater elementals protecting Tar Baphon's phylactery.

And, you know, that makes perfect sense to me.

You are right.

For instance, when the PCs’ level
is relatively low, they might be faced with climbing a stone
wall with handholds, but later in the campaign they should
encounter tougher obstacles, like a smooth iron wall.

CRB does mention skill dc's better than i remember. Sorry. Very earth it self doesnt scale with you.

Well...stealth isnt that much different than first edition. You usullay failed not because of your +900 stealth modifier but because of your fighter with 12 dex -5 acp and no investments to stealth anyway. Either that happened or that adventure turned into a hide and seek game while your party waits for you to finish it for like 30-40 minutes

This edition wants to challange you all the time at all levels.High levels of investment in one thing making you awesome is PF1e.PF 2e is more gamist than that.So naturally even the very earth itself scales with you and on a level challange means that you have a chance of doing that thing %50-%60 of the time.

I have another far more outthere option. If you want damage to carry over battle to battle build that system not some work around to limit items. Here is an example that simulates rounds in a boxing match.

HP is changed to Endurance.

Endurance is lost when you are hit and for some special abilities associated with very physical classes (this is based of the kineticist). After each encounter you fully recover endurance after 1 min, but you keep you level non-leathal damage that can not be healed until a full rest.

Damage carries over from fight to fight to fight, healing items are only useful in combat meaning higher level items are better than lower level ones, and the rules are modeled after something real.

I am playing a kineticist since its release.Burn mechanic isnt fun.Dont do it pazio.

.....

Blaming people starts fights.On internet.This is a discussion.Dont blame people.

System mastery? Did you ever see any of us blaming people with low system mastery when they started saying things like caster-martial dispartiy,martials are useless,martials has no ways of doing different things or anything else. I suggest stoping right there man.

And one of the main goals of the magic system is that making you heighten your spell slots. Because if you dont your spell slots at lower tier will be lot less usefull than in 1e. They talked about this in their own blogs.Come on.

EDİT:And for the love of god please stop blaming people with powergaming. Yes that is what you are doing. We want caster to be usefull and fun. Martials in the first edition isnt useless at all. If your team mate optimizes his/her own character more than you ofcourse he will be more powerfull than you. That is a table issue. Please tell me how ability to one shot a boss which is a CR+4 is balanced or weak(that is a fighter btw. Which can deal more than 700 damage at level 12. Please stop.)?

Fun for everyone. Right. Casters are bored and feels useless. Martials feels awesome and gets one shotted.

Lausth wrote:

Your ideal is martials are cool and casters are terrible?

If you're familiar with the large number of threads around Caster-Martial Disparity in PF1 then you'll undoubtedly be aware of the number of people arguing that it's not a problem with arguments around how, "it's a team game", "you should play your concept and not worry about the power level", and "it's not PvP". You'll want to explain to them why a disparity is a bad thing, because it seems perfectly reasonable to throw those arguments straight back at you if you're going to complain about power disparities.

Inability to do what you are good at because something was powerfull when optimized at a different edition and in 2e's case in a different game is not a good argument.Do you think disparity is closed?What exactly pazio did to close it?Dont you need your caster to cast fly on when you have to deal with flying enemies?Dont you need caster to cast teleport if it is allowed in your game to pass a very hazardous enviorment or dont you need the cleric to heal you so you can move forward with the story?Breathing underwater?Controlling enemies?Buffing you?Come try me.Throw my argument back at me then.I have played with paladins and fighters who could deal hundreds of damage while i was there to help them.I was in situation where a boss could one shot my paladin and i thought if i were to play my witch instead of my kineticist i could have saved my paladin and inqusitor.Saying martials are lame in the first edition is a lame argument and i dont think it has a lot of basis anyway.It was a team effort in 1e.Now i am not sure if that is the case in 2e.

EDİT:Why making spellcasters badwrongfun in this edition is ok?What is the argument there?You had a lot of fun in first edition.So to make it fair we make you suck in this one.Please play this game for 10 years.

We all know what opinions are like

Yeah.We do.

İ didnt get noe at first.
So tell me what exactly do you like about this edition?
This low fantasy sword and sorcery setting feels clunky and unfun when the sorcery part feels no joy at all.

EDİT:Since we are at it.Please tell me as a gm do you enjoy when youtube distraction starts?Because with a system like this that sorcery part will be loking at youtube in combat.

Your ideal is martials are cool and casters are terrible?

Lausth wrote:

So it is only me that feels like that this edition will be PF 2e:Martials will die edition.

LOL From my experience, this is Pathfinder: TPK edition. I dont think Martials are singled out for death.

At low levels?Sure.But at high levels seems like a different story.

-Now due to lower spell slots per day you just prepared one fly spell.
-There is no where to run.
-Wizard has to chose who to save.
-Guess who is gonna die.

EDİT:Teleport is no longer an option.Sorry.

Cast no spells in first two encounters?Right.Definitely the most fun experience i can imagine.

You know.I played starfinder for a while both as a gm and as a player.Like for 100 hours.It gave me the dissatifaction that 4e did to older players.Now they are doing the same things to pathfinder.I am seeing very similar design and i dont like it.It is not just the power level.I am seeing the meaningfull choices from developers and designers all the time.None of this feels meaningfull.Are they saying that because most of the choices in starfinder are meaningless?That was certainly my experience.Right now when i look at starfinder i am not seeing a game.I am seeing a a very big advertisment project for shadowrun.Now they are doing the same thing to pathfinder and i am thinking about trying out 5e.

So it is only me that feels like that this edition will be PF 2e:Martials will die edition.

Lausth wrote:

Soo instead of casting that power once which will be the case due to less spell slots most of the time.Now I have a choice to cast it more than once and be useless rest of the encounters so i will be casting it once per encounter?

Can I ask you to take another pass at explaining this one, as I really have not idea what you are trying to say.

_
glass.

Sure.

Lausth wrote:

Most of the spells having 1 minute duration is just an another way of saying that these powers are once per encounter right?Did i get this wrong?

Yes, you got it wrong. Duration is completely orthogonal to usage restrictions.

You are probably not going to want to to cast a 1 minute spell on the same target more than once per encounter (unless it gets dispelled), but if you did want to there is nothing stopping you if you have the slots/prepared spells (which are a daily resource) available. And unless the spell in question is self only, there are probably other targets.

_
glass.

Soo instead of casting that power once which will be the case due to less spell slots most of the time.Now I have a choice to cast it more than once and be useless rest of the encounters so i will be casting it once per encounter?

_
Lausth

shroudb wrote:

that's why i said "one of the issues".

as of now, casters are the easiest and more consistent way to debuff (and control to a degree) enemies.

martials have little outside of providing flat-footed, while casters have access to various conditional penalties to give to enemies. Conditional bonuses for allies, Quick and etc

I was hoping Legendary would open up some epic shenanigans for martial-types.

I was hoping for that too.

dnoisette wrote:

Lausth wrote:

I dont get something.What exactly martials are having problems with that cant be solved by magical items?

Martial characters don't want to have to use magical items.

They want to be able to perform the same level of magic as spellcasters but retain all of their better combat abilities.

/end sarcasm

i like that when one of the main issues casters bring up is that they want more damage, to reach the martials, but when they confront the narrative issue their defense is: "but martials do more damage.!!!11!"

also, you can buy wands and staves and fling fireballs every round.

"i don't get why casters don't want to have to use magical items to solve their problems?"

/end sarcasm

Just to remind you.Not all casters are blasters.Please do more damage.I'll even buff you.

EDIT:Only once mind you.Me sucking more means you suck even more as we level up.Because Caster martial dispartiy as people like you claim still seems to be a thing.Me having less slots means one less spell that can make you fly,cure or solve anyother problems and martial purists hate anime so you dont get those powers per encounters.

So basicly they want anime powers while they hate anime?

Most of the spells having 1 minute duration is just an another way of saying that these powers are once per encounter right?Did i get this wrong?

Well...if anyone reading this 5 years later and playing a healbot cleric.Thank you sir for saving me thousands of gold at cost of your own fun.I salute you.

Soo cleric's are money saviors now?Never thought them as such.Well I guess that is better than being a wand of clw.

Malk dude I like you and your positivity about 2e but please stop saying that people that dont like resonance is the little camp.There is what 10 or 15 people in this thread?Half of them says they dont like the resonance.I have 30 friends which we play regularly for more than 4 years.None of my friends like resonance.Almost none of them come here to rant about it.Different sides exits that is true but there is no telling which one of them is bigger.

Do they have to make in quadratic progression?I think this as a game.I dont think they do need to make higher tier wands to be less cost effective.They can just change it if they wished too.

EDİT:5 clw wands heals for 5d8+5 costs 3750 csw wand heals for 4d8+7 costs 21k.Difference doesnt need to be that big and it is obvious people dont want to pay a cost like that just not to play a healbot cleric.Even though pf 2e seems to be trying to solve that problem I am not convinced that it will be affordable easly and difference of 17k will still stand.

Ehm...I have a solution for all your wand problems.Make high tier wands actually great and cost effective.There your problem solved.No need for something as useless as resonance.

Tarrasque.Buff him.Buff him to infinity.