Lightning Raven's page

265 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I, myself, am not very pleased with a lot of the world building in the game and how paizo didn't take the opportunity to try to make something new out of magic in their new system. They picked the completely basic, and archaic, option and only clipped its wings.

Regardless, OP definitely should be looking up different RPGs. Pathfinder, D&D and its offshoots aren't for you. They all share the same type of abstractions and inconsistencies.

If you want to check out an RPG that is fantasy, you can definitely seek out The Witcher RPG. It's designed by R.Talsorian games, which were the guys behind Cyberpunk 2020. Their combat style is very well known to be realistic (minus some abstractions and other choices for ease of play) and from what I could tell the Witcher RPG had its combat system based on their Interlock system (the name of the system featured in Cyberpunk).

As for world-building, consistency and everything else... Well, it's the Witcher world. It doesn't require an explanation!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Am I the only one that doesn't get why such a fuss about rarity?

It's just a tag system. It's easier for the GM, it's easy for the players. I think that having the permission of your GM for some things to be standard, even some that are not particularly well known for being banned. For example, recently, my GM banned all resurrection spells except Breath of Life (because its requirements are very narrow).

I really seriously don't get why it's such a bother to know if it's ok. In fact, so far, most of the things I've seen that are uncommon are stuff that requires backstory to be worked into your character, which is pretty much everything I already do while creating my characters, I don't like the cherry picking style of character building that just doesn't give a s!+& about character, only focuses on making a "build".


Or your PC can just move away. Force them to spend two actions if they want to attack. That's called outmaneuvering the opponent. If you say you can't, then you simply picked the wrong battlefield.

Also, this is implying that's a 1v7 battle, which is hardly the case. The first prepared round of attacks on the idiot orc that charges in stop the other orcs on their tracks if the GM likes to play the monsters as creatures not bags of HP with some dmg.


Now this one seems REALLY REALLY interesting. I would definitely want to play one of these guys. The ability to make a path through difficult terrain is nothing to scoff at against a lot of battlefield altering spells.


Bandw2 wrote:
krazmuze wrote:

This is not about adding modifiers to your past rolls, it is about comparing the possibility of everyones future rolls....

you... are not getting it.

DPR calculatiosn are used to determine how you should build your character, what you will get the most out of. d6+1 versus d6, there is not choice to take, d6+1 is the better choice. there is no reason for me, even in play choose an option that does 1d6 damage versus choosing an option that does 1d6+1.

short of...

The point of the variance is actually to know that you CAN choose de 1d6 option because it's an actual choice you're making rather than "gimping" your character for the sake of being more flavorful. This way, you can more easily choose the options you think are better suited for your character and playstyle without worrying that you're supposed to be doing far more if you picked the cookie-cutter feats such as Power Attack, Deadly Aim, Furious Focus, Precise Shot, Point Blank Shot, etc. you had to pick in PF1e.

To put it simply: In PF1e if you're Barbarian without Power Attack you're basically forfeiting the main reason why you're playing a Barb in the first place, the huge amount of damage that's beyond other classes reach, without it other combat-oriented PC's will manage to do the same or far more damage while doing everything else they do that Barbs can't.


I kinda like thinking about variance now. It's always awful having to choose something that isn't as flavor or be more constrained because I feel like I could be doing better.

Acknowledging that variance is an important factor while coming up with builds can help everyone realize that sometimes the "most optimal" choice isn't giving you the edge you thought it would, thus leaving you free to choose something else that's more interesting or fitting for your character.

It definitely creates the very welcome environment of build variety, nobody will be afraid of deviating just a little bit from the standard DRP required or stuff like that. Some people, like me, have very unforgiving AND lucky GM's and that also need to pick up the slack of other players in my party so that we manage to stay alive (I can't remember the last time our party had an appropriated CR encounter, it's always CR+1 at least).

It may be just my personal situation, of course, but I like to have the best of both worlds: Realizing my character's vision through feat, traits and other choices while also making an effective character. If PF2e's math allows me to do that because there will be some bonuses that I can get away with not picking, then I'm happy.

I've never before have given much thought about DPR and whatnot, just kinda accepted that the veterans new better than me, but I find myself realizing that this new perspective actually changes even more my way of approaching character building.


The variance is coming from the dices themselves and how they can overlap, which makes the small increases and other optimizations not noticeable during the span of the campaign, which can make it easier to realized that the less optimized choice is not actually that bad and the dice rolls will influence as much as will your smaller dice or slightly lower bonus.

For instance, using agile weapons will make a difference if everything else is the same simply because they will hit more often after the first attack, making up for the fact that a longsword deals more damage.
It's just showing that DPR calculations isn't as accurate as people seem to evaluate it, specially now that this system have other factors to take into account.


SuperBidi wrote:
krazmuze wrote:
So for when I run out of arrows before we get to the big boss - I know my lighter daggers are likely to be doing just as good as your longsword

On an 18 Strength Ranger, Longsword does 1d8+4=8.5 on average and Dagger does 1d4+4=6.5 on average. You're doing 30% more damage with a Longsword, whatever the combat conditions. If for you this 30% damage difference is ok, then it's ok. But there is no world where Daggers are competitive to Longswords on a Ranger.

To be accurate, you have 0.5% chance to deal more damage with Daggers than Longswords after 10 hits. If that's what you wanted to show.

The point of Krazmuze's calculation is to show that variance is a big factor into calculating such things. Which is why this 30% you're mentioning is because of an infinite number of rolls, which doesn't happen in reality at all.

The point he's trying to make (coming from the other thread) is that variance is a huge factor that normal DPR calculations don't take into account. Which is why, with dice variance, this "30% more damage more" is subject to the variance and may overlap. If the issue is purely damage, then yes, the sword hits harder, but you still need to hit which is why the dagger can be a good option as well and not just an inferior choice.


Yes. It's best to carry around two weapons. You should always be versatile with the kind of damage you deal. It's also recommended to carry an extra weapon to deal ranged damage, since it's not every fight you'll be able to fight in perfect conditions.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

We want shields as "an interesting thing you can use because your conceptualization of your character is 'they use a shield' which also has mechanical weight which reinforces your concept and makes it feel rewarding" but we definitely need to avoid "shields are so good and there's so many runes and mechanics around them that it would be foolish to dual wield, or leave a hand free, or have a two handed weapon."

So this is why I'm opposed to shield runes- there are no free hand runes.

Which is why it would be interesting to instead of gating some abilities behind having a free hand to force it, it would be interesting to give a benefit for wielding a light weapon in your hand. For example: In Pillars of Eternity going one handed melee only grants you a hefty accuracy bonus, it is a computer game, but I find it a nice idea. It could be translated into getting a +1 to attack rolls by having a free hand and wielding a light weapon, it's a significant bonus, but the drawbacks are pretty clear: Smaller diced weapons than 2-h, no reach, less AC than weapon and shield, it doesn't have the extra weapon with different traits and you also are constrained to fewer options. But the thing is, every drawback already exists and it's applied, getting a benefit for using this playstyle could make more builds a lot more attractive, not only the classes that will probably have lots of feats to make it work.


Might as well by a ton of cheap shields just for the AC plus the expendable extra DR. Why even bother with fancy paper shields when you can get simple paper shields late game that you can buy by the dozen.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Would "your shield can only take enough damage to be broken in a single hit, rather than destroyed" be worth a feat, like a general feat which has shield block as a prerequisite?

No. Because this is straight up a feat tax. It's basically reading: "Should I be paying a feat for doing something that should already be working?"

I was afraid shield rules would turn out funky even since I realized how the numbers were working in the playtest. It was a whole thing regarding if the shield was only taking the reduced damage rather than reducing the damage and also taking the rest. Some people claimed it was just the reduced damage, which was why the numbers were fine...

Turns out I was right the whole time. The shields were supposed to be taking full damage and needed to have numbers to support it. Sadly, they didn't do a thing to remedy that, neither altering shield numbers nor choosing the easiest route of assuming the shields only took the damage they reduced. It was the least realistic approach? Yes. But it was the easiest to use, since you could simple multiply the toughness (DR) by X and come up with the amount of hits you wanted the shield to withstand.


graystone wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
Maybe there's something that will warrant such a steep cost for such little movement and a conditional flat-footed.
It's pretty much a 1/2 move + Feint but instead of Deception (Cha) vs Perception DC you roll Athletics (Str) or Acrobatics (Dex) vs Reflex DC. This opens up the maneuver to those with 2 different stats/skills and a different DC to target: for rogues that don't care about Cha, this is a pretty good deal.

It opens up a different route for feint, yes, but why the half-movement and two-action cost? Or am wrong in thinking that for the same amount of actions you can fully move and make a feint check, without any investment other than having a stat and a skill, and still be pretty much doing the same thing with the only benefit lack being guaranteeing no reactions from the target?

I dunno, I think it would be a nice and flavorful addition if the feat was kept as it is, but the movement also ignored difficult terrain, since your character would be doing some crazy acrobatic movement or expertly moving around the battlefield/enemy. I would be more inclined to pick it up and it's a minor change and also conditional.


Is it me or Daring Act is just paying two actions to move 1/4 of the distance you would otherwise in a gameplay environment where Attacks of Opportunity (the biggest threat to this kind of action) is not common enough? Seems REALLY steep for a 6th level Feat. If you could at least make an attack at the end of the movement, it would seem more reasonable.

I don't know, it seems like a tax feat for Daredevil's Gambit based only on the information given here. Maybe there's something that will warrant such a steep cost for such little movement and a conditional flat-footed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
The amount of utility a Gish can have available seems pretty significant

Gishes absolutely have a lot of utility and that's great, but this chart also seems to suggest that when it comes to raw damage dealing, a gish can invest feats and gold into getting good with weapons and still manage to be just barely competitive with the cantrip they could have used with zero investment.

Obviously the advantage here is that you can squeeze in an attack action after casting a 2 action spell, but I feel like someone who's dedicating significant investment into trying to turn their wizard into a gish wants a little bit more than... there's nothing better to do with their third action so might as well attack gameplay.

I'm not particularly thrilled with the prospects as well, but there are some mitigating factors like True Strike, Bespell weapon, the ability to actually hit the enemy with your main DPR source if it's flying or other impairing conditions that can't be reflected through charts.

I just wish they could deal more damage by attacking or there were more feats supporting the playstyle. Seems like the designers managed to make a complete 180 from the playtest, if beforethe most optimal way of playing a wizard was to MC into fighter and work really well, now it's the opposite, not only you can't keep up, but you still have to juggle a lot more things during a round than a fighter (when to cast a spell, when to simply attack, using focus powers, etc).

Seems like Gishes were balanced assuming that most spells weren't nerfed, you can switch grips for free, there's still touch attack and that there's a ton of supporting abilities.

Probably, everything that a Gish-build will gain as features will be just keep up stuff that can make the class smoothly function, rather than enhancing the playstyle.


Squiggit wrote:

Those caster numbers look really really bad for anyone who wants to play a castery gish.

The gap between the fighter and everyone on those 2-3 action attacks, particularly against higher level enemies, is kinda concerning too.

Obviously as it's been discussed these numbers aren't perfectly optimized but as a first look it's a little concerning.

This does seem like it, indeed. But unless everyone is planning to play in white fields and just standing wacking at each other, these charts provide meaningful data but they're representative of an actual combat.

For example, the Barbarian is being pretty lackluster in these, but then you use a Sudden Leap to get into a guy that would require a fighter to waste two actions to reach then the Barb can also get an extra attack. The amount of utility a Gish can have available seems pretty significant, although I also agree that damage was a little bit too low and there was no way to make the build flow better and the lack of armor proficiency from MC feats also hurt a lot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadMars wrote:

Winter Witch.

Winter Witch, Winter Witch, and Winter Witch.

Oh, wait. We still have to do that witch class for that first, don't we? Well, when we finally cross that icy bridge, I request:

Winter Witch.

Your Jadrenka portrait is very telling of your preference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought the class feats were really weak and uninspired in the playtest, but so far, every character I've created in PF2e offered me interesting choices, even the alchemist. Though the latter was because I chose the bomber path, which is the one with less issues even if it has the PF1-style feats that only exist to keep up, rather than offering meaningful choices.

Try to make a character of higher level and use it in a combat, you'll see things can change quite bit. Somethings will not click until you see how combat plays out, since movement is more important now, interesting reactions also can offer quite a lot of nuance to your playstyle (specially for champions). Damage is also different now, you don't need to be "full-attacking" the whole turn in order to perform what's expected of you.

There's plenty of changes that will require experience, things may look bad or uninteresting (which I don't think they are, honestly, Starfinder is much worse in this aspect) at first glance, but nothing that a couple battles can't showcase the strengths or uses of some feats.

Example? Power attack. There's been plenty of threads saying it's a downgrade in damage... Except that crit chances are higher in your opening attack an since you're a fighter, this means you're critting even more often than other classes, now couple that with less static numbers and more emphasis on dice and you get quite a nice feature that can perform well with high AC or high DR enemies and offer a meaningful choices in unfavorable situations (environment, concealment, debuffs, etc).


HeHateMe wrote:
Personally, I just want more class feats. There seem to only be a few class feats of each level in the CRB, and most of those are terrible. I'd love to see more options and builds for each class.

Most are really good and interesting, with alchemists being outlier. You either only checked out alchemists or is analyzing the class feats through PF1e's lenses. The paradigm is very much different and thus, it's hard to count on your previous knowledge to evaluate them specially when you still don't know what is the "benchmark" to hold up a certain feat against and I'm not even sure if there ever will be a "benchmark", but definitely there will be feats that are way more interesting than others for most builds.


Maybe it can be feasible. But I think it would be a perfect chance to make the archetype even more different. Basically, I'm expecting something in line with a Witcher and I don't feel that the current alchemist can deliver that through mutagens and mutagenist field of study we have right now.

For Divine Hunter, I think it's a significant playstyle change that could warrant an archetype, or maybe even just a new type of champion a purely neutral or lawful, a champion that upholds nature's balance in all things, it can grant wiggle room for a more ruthless Champion.

But honestly, even if there's some of these that can be recreated, it's nothing but a makeshift thing, specially since these ideas can be expanded upon, rather than just making them similar to what they were before (Divine Hunter offered a lot of the mandatory archery feats for example).


Urban Barbarian, Warrior Poet (artist glaive-wielding), Mindblade Magus, Watersinger Bard, Dervish Dancer, Archaeologist, Martial Artist Monk (at least the idea of exploiting the enemy weaknesses), Qigongg Monk, Mutagen Warrior Fighter, Inspired Blade (either for the upcoming swashbuckler or a fighter variant), Divine Hunter (Archer Paladin), Holy Gun (one that's actually good and fits the theme well), Sensei Monk, Empty Hand, Tattooed Sorcerer.

Some of these probably fit more as a class path or were already somewhat implemented (Qiggong and Martial Artist Monk).


RussianAlly wrote:
I actually kinda prefer the vancian system because it means characters with potentially long lists of available spells like Druids, Clerics, or Wizards, do not require the player to be checking the whole list all the time, which to me seems easier on new players and players who aren't that invested in the system.

That's exactly the opposite of what should be happening. The benefit of preparing spells, specially for those with the whole list available, is having all tools available when needed, which in turn either prompts a read of the list or the player should at least be aware of some niche options.

For example: My party is currently on Skull and Shackles Book 4 and in order to scout the area, which our party knew there was a high possibility of encountering undead and ghosts, I prepared Aura Sight, a spell I never did before because we often wouldn't have that amount of fore-knowledge about a place (our GM can be very stingy with knowledge).

By encouraging players to choose a select few spells not only wastes the benefits of the style, but also further makes my point that this system doesn't encourages experimentation.

You either make each slot count with the broader and straight forward spells or you risk preparing something that will never come up, specially if this risk is taken with your highest level spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mekkis wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:

There was a survey. Sadly the majority of answers was in favor of keeping the vancian system.

As someone currently playing a Cleric for almost a year (regularly) and reading the spell list all the time to find new tools and answers to help my party, I can say: The vancian system should've been gone.

There's already a good precedent with Arcanists, PF2e should've kept the change and they could easily find ways to change the sorcerers while they're at it, after all Sorcerers now can be divine, occult, arcane or primal and that's a huge change nobody was expecting... I'm pretty sure nobody would complain if there was only Arcanist casting (almost like 5e, without heightening) in the game but spontaneus casters were similarly overhauled to compensate.

The survey never actually asked that question. The survey asked something like "On a scale of Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, do you think that wizards are flexible and powerful".

Did you answer the open question surveys? It straight up asked about that. I can't remember if they used D&D5e style of casting or liking it to arcanist style (around that time, there were plenty of discussion on this topic even).


Double skill feats and skill increase is overkill. If it were one or the other the class would still remain a great skill monkey.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mellored wrote:
rainzax wrote:
The point I agree upon with you all the most is this: RPGs tend not to explain these playstyle differences very well.

I completely agree with this.

It would be nice if there was a "relaxed" / "average" / "advanced" options. Not just for casters.

Simple fighter (Warrior?) ignores damage types, can't be flanked, shield is always raise, ignores OA's, and other features that remove any nuance in the way of just hitting stuff and being hit.

Average fighter has maneuvers, shield block, and damage types. The current fighter.

Advanced fighter (warlord?) has stances, maneuvers, damage types, battle tactics, and called shots.

Then you can have Magician, Wizard, and Mage. Or some such.

It would be interesting to have entry-level archetypes or even some simplified version of the rules such as what they did with Starfinder's Beginner Box...

But honestly, I think people also must realize that in order to play RPGs you need to read the material, there's no running away from that. Realizing that your effort will pay off in a character that you will want to make and it will be satisfying to have your vision fully realized in the character you created from scratch. It's way different than being a new player and relying only on what the GM and other players tell you about and you make some watered down choices and go with the motions. I'm not saying that it isn't fine to get some help building a character initially, but I also think it's fair to expect at least interest enough from someone to at least learn how to play the class properly and even that the person reads enough to know their options.

This is the basic of the basic and I think if one wants to play an RPG, they need to know that a little bit of effort comes with it. It may seem like what I'm saying is obvious, but we had a guy in our party early this year that was removed because he made absolutely no effort to learn the very basic stuff reaching the point of actually playing more than 10 sessions without even knowing where to look in his character sheet. The guy burned through 3 characters during these roughly 10 sessions, with one of them lasting exactly a single session (his poor choice and lack of knowledge of what the character could do got the whole party killed).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Arcanist was my first character ever. I know a lot about how cool they are (I played it from 1st to 7th level).

But I know full well that the majority of people chose Vancian casting for some reason, very likely just to avoid changes. Regardless, I think that a good chunk of the players that venture into playing prepared casters don't actually change their spells often, in fact, I've seen several prepared casters in my groups basically just using the same things over and over. Specially with a new player at our table that chose Wizard and Magus.

You may think "but this is on them!" and it's not entirely untrue, but it also can be said that the system doesn't actually fosters what its defenders claim it does. It's just an archaic system that makes an environment that creates a bottleneck for spells that otherwise would be significantly larger if a unused prepared spell wasn't a waste of resources.

Also, I don't know why you equal hybrid/spontaneous with laziness, because I've already tried making several spontaneous casters and I always thought that even though you don't need to be making choices every day, the few you make are far more important than what a wizard must make, which means that having knowledge of all of your options and weighting the pros and cons of spending one of your repertoire slots in a situational spell that while will not be used every day but can often come in handy (remove paralysis or dispel magic), thus these few choices require a lot more effort in forethought than simply having a dead slot for the day.

My concise opinion on vancian casting is as such: I can use the system quite well and I'm willing to put in the effort. But I don't think the "benefits" of the system outweighs its noticeable weaknesses, clunky requirements and demanded bookkeeping. It also more often than not don't foster what's supposed to for the player, because either players just stay clear from prepared casters or just pick the bread and butter while sometimes prepare situational stuff after the fact to remedy a situation.

Arcanist-style rewards forward thinking (which all prepared players like to have) while also allowing for flexible playstyle throughout the day. It also have the side benefit of opening up the landscape for spells, because since you don't have to prepare quantities, you can save one or two slots for highly situational stuff and still contribute with everything you have available (albeit with less variation) if required.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:

Prepared spellcasters are super fun for Know-it-Alls, because they represent the Ultimate Challenge!

Forget the lore.

Can you predict how the adventure will unfold, and prepare your spells correspondingly, in such a way that the sum total of your plans, contingency plans, and contingency-contingency plans result in you using up exactly all of your spell slots to maximal effect?

Can't do that with 5e because their magic system incentivizes disengagement and laziness...

This hardly ever happen. Which the majority of the time will mean this: "This spell can be broadly used enough to warrant a slot?" If the answer is yes, then you're going to prepare it. If it's mildly situational (specific for undead, water environments or similar) then it's either gong to be a scroll or prepared when you have low-level slots to spare. If it's single purpose spell then it will either be a scroll or it will be prepare the next day to solve the issue(most remove X).

People can prefer the old-style casting as much as they want, there's no wrong with that, but I find it very hard to deny that the vancian system doesn't actually accomplish what's supposed to do. Most players just pick a subset of all-round spells and the narrow utility ones become scroll-only. That of course, assuming the newer players (or even veterans) don't actively dodge the system by picking spontaneous.

Before any opinions may rise claiming that's because it's the way I play, let me assure you it definitely is not. As I mentioned in my another post, I've been playing Cleric for a long time now and my previous character was a Wizard and I always read the spell list and search online looking for new spells. I know the importance of having a good Cleric in the party and so far, there hasn't been any casualties on my watch (now the chances are even less with my Breath Of Life coming online).

Arcanist-casting is straight up better, because its the best of both styles, you can prepare your stuff and you have space for B-tier spells that would never be prepared because if the specific situation didn't arise it would become a dead slot (which doesn't happen when you can pick and choose how many of X prepared spell you want to cast).


10 people marked this as a favorite.

There was a survey. Sadly the majority of answers was in favor of keeping the vancian system.

As someone currently playing a Cleric for almost a year (regularly) and reading the spell list all the time to find new tools and answers to help my party, I can say: The vancian system should've been gone.

There's already a good precedent with Arcanists, PF2e should've kept the change and they could easily find ways to change the sorcerers while they're at it, after all Sorcerers now can be divine, occult, arcane or primal and that's a huge change nobody was expecting... I'm pretty sure nobody would complain if there was only Arcanist casting (almost like 5e, without heightening) in the game but spontaneus casters were similarly overhauled to compensate.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Generally I think each class can be built in fairly effective ways, but I do think there are certain options that stand out as kind of lacking.

Pretty much all of the various fighty-spellcaster options feel like they have some issues when it comes to functioning in combat. I'm lumping Alchemist in here too because they have weapon proficiencies like a caster.

Alchemists in general feel like they have the most precise requirements to be good, while a lot of martials can legitimately be built to a functional degree just by picking an idea and running with it. You can pretty much do whatever you want with a Fighter and it will work. That's definitely a good thing though.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rogues are definitely queens of skills
I wouldn't say overpowered, but it's frustrating that rogues have pretty much completely monopolized being good at skills when in PF1 core there were several classes that could make passable skill monkeys. The Ranger in particular feels like it lost a lot on this front in a way that doesn't necessarily feel like it serves game balance in equal measure. Especially since I'm not sure I particularly agree that rogues suffer all that much in combat.

This is the exact the type of thing that all classes should allow: "You can pretty much do whatever you want with a Fighter and it will work. That's definitely a good thing though."

As someone else mentioned in another thread and I find myself noticing and readily agreeing was the fact that a lot of the choices the alchemists have are math fixers rather than new options. I mean... Why they even need to choose a feat to use their class DC on their crafted items is beyond me. This SHOULD, without a doubt, be baseline for the class.

Mutagenists should be able to either significantly benefit from the mutagens by keeping the penalties with insanely high bonuses in the current duration or could have way longer duration or cut back a lot on the penalties and slightly increase duration but keeping the bonuses as they are. This should be the class benefit, the ability to use mutagens like the specialists on it that they are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I disagree that Rogues and Fighters are overpowered. Rogues are definitely queens of skills, but that's still less utility than spellcasting, and their combat suffers a tad compared to other martials to compensate. And Fighters are very good, but not better than Rangers or Barbarians.

They only seem overpowered compared to how bad they were in PF1.

IMO, class balance is fairly good (martials are better at raw single target DPR, casters are better at debuffs, utility, buffing, etc.), but Alchemist is a tad underpowered unless built just right (only Bomber seems on par with the other Classes right now, and even then only when they take just the right Feats).

My point was less about calling them overpowered and more how their niche made them clearly stand out from other classes. They have a lot of strong and interesting options while also having two design niches that can't be breached and I think this paradigm ends up making other classes suffer as a byproduct.

It's more of an issue I have with the design philosophy around these classes rather than just being completely broken to the point of being called OP. But I still stand by what I said in other threads: Rogues gets way too much skills and it doesn't make sense beyond just empowering the class for no particular reason other than because they sucked before and now the devs are overcompensating.

What I'm trying to say is that having a class designed under the paradigm of "Must be the best numerically in battle" and "Must have twice as much skills for no reason other than Rogues are supposed to be cool" is very constricting for other classes and I rather have a different approach that leave some space for the others to equally shine in this territory.

Side Note: I was feeling that Rogues were the new Operative and now I've found the PF2e Envoys, the Alchemists. Similarly with Envoys, alchemists are feeling like a playtest class which how clunky it works it itself (Example: some Envoys abilities specifically call out other features to exclude synergy. Also, the class has no progression beyond 8th level).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If I had to say which ones were "overpowered" I would say confidently Rogues and Fighters. Both have a lot going on for them that was specifically created to uphold their perceived niche.

The Fighter must be better at everything related to combat, yet doesn't have any flavor attached to it, which in turns makes everyone else be significantly weaker otherwise they will be stepping on the Fighters toes.
While Rogues received the Operative treatment. They are king of their niche as skill monkeys and now also are better at combat than before.

Honestly, I find it to be two very unhealthy niches to uphold for the game overall.

In short: They look really cool in what they're supposed to do and everyone else must be below them because its their domain.

But it's just my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inspire Courage is +1 hit AND dmg, it grinds my gears it's not being totally applied!


Some very nasty and well known incidents of outbreaks? Yeah, probably. Apocalypse level event? Hardly.

Physical contact is not the most efficient way of transmission and there's also a huge factor to take into account that there's less people inhabiting Golarion than the urban environment we live in. Also, any long term spreading would cause counter measures to be taken by everyone else, remove disease and other prevention would become more prominent.

So I don't think so. But it's very feasible, and interesting, to have a whole town infected. Sounds like a cool adventure.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
Does anybody play this game just to have fun? Like, do you ever make a character just because you like the concept? I'm just curious. A lot of folks seem to just want to power build. I'm not judging. To each his own. I just didn't know if anybody actually made a character they liked without being completely concerned with the math.
Literally no one does that ever and--quite frankly--I am a little embarrassed for you for even asking that.

I'm pretty sure the question isn't as embarrassing as you think. There has been a lot of concerns regarding "viability" or similar concepts about a game that has been barely out.

I, for one, have as the sole concern when creating a character is "how can represent this character with the options available and does this character is functional?". So, far, I don't feel like I'm creating characters that don't function well, which was fairly easy to do in PF1e due to misconceptions (some of them even because of guides, I might add).

Remember, the game is new, it's an entirely different environment. What was good before may not be good now. Simple example? Combat healing is strong now, this changes the evaluation of some choices that would receive a low "grade" in PF1e for doing the same task.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Both for weapons and for armor are two wasted opportunities for character choice that are being gated behind proficiency. I really wish that weapon effects and armor benefits were broadly available just by having the item, rather than gated effects. Such a shame.

Also, Fighter doesn't need to be the absolute best at everything. There's already A LOT going on for the class on top of a shorter skill list and skill invested are kept up over levels rather than being left by the wayside due to a lack of skill points. Being slightly slower than these classes for a very rare effect hardly makes it inferior when the class is rocking legendary proficiency in attack rolls.


Mewzard wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

There's not a lot of skills in 2E. A Rogue will pretty much have all of the relevant ones trained right off the bat.

It does seem a bit silly, they could do with 1-2 less since they also have more skill increases. Let other party members shine too!

I mean, a Bard can take Eclectic Skill at level 8 and add their level to every single untrained skill, and even use the trained options for said skills. Throw on top of that Bardic Lore, where you are trained in it and can use it for all Recall Knowledge, and even raise it to Expert when you're Legendary in Occultism, and the Rogue isn't the only skill class (also, you know Investigator will be one too).

But yeah, a lot of your skills as a Rogue will be Trained, as I doubt most Rogues will be able to resist having six Legendary Skills.

Here's a thought: The Bard options are kinda nice... But, they will not get significantly better over time, the Rogue will. More skill feats, more options and some of these options will inevitably be great, making it having DOUBLE the amount of skills of everyone else significantly better.

I would rather have them getting a little bit more than normal, but I think double it's way too much, specially for a class that can also handle itself really well in combat.

I would rather the Rogues to have less skill feats overall as a trade off in other areas (more unique combat approaches). But that's just a matter of taste for me. As long as they don't turn out to be OPeratives, I'm fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"I gave myself away with the pokin'". Stonebreaker, Omelette.


As in PF1e, I think Paizo kept the rules about movement triggering AoO's. Which is what makes the Warrior Poet's ability Petals in The Wind to not be overpower. Movement will only trigger once and maybe you can land a single Disrupt Prey... At best.


Sliska Zafir wrote:

What made 4E D&D wizards great was the condition infliction and controller (moving foes around) aspects.

Imho, Paizo missed an opportunity to make spells do this.

In addition, I think the fantasy roleplaying game has evolved from "memorization" as a ruleset. The most famous wizard of them all (not you, Harry), Gandalf, didn't spend hours poring over some spellbook, and wasn't limited to what he had prepared.

Paizo had the opportunity to fix this too. The 3.5E Spirit Shaman picked from spells available for the day (communing with spirit), and then could cast any of those using any or all of the spell slots. Each morning when you prepare, you select those available that day. Then you could use ANY, and repeat them.

I played an aberration sorcerer in playtest, and was horrified that my very limited resources (often were save negates) weren't on par with a martial who could do essentially the same thing, any number of times.

Wizard was my favorite class in 1st AD&D - 3.5E; I haven't played one in 1E PF, and don't imagine myself playing one in 2E. I did however, play an arcanist, which I think, though broken in some respects, represents what a wizard should be. I wish they had just ported arcanist as the new wizard, into PF 2E, and rebalanced it.

There was no lack of voices here in the forum regarding Arcanist casting. But sadly, a lot of people were purists and advocating for a system that for the majority of players doesn't actually do what it's said the system do.

Most people with prepared casters will just find a selection of spells and stick with the the majority of the time. They're easier to understand, they have broad uses or offer good damage and/or utility (such as invisibility and flying). For a player that's willing to keep searching options, like me, it still creates a huge bottleneck of spells, because either the spell is very good and you're going to prepare it, or the spell is not good enough and you move on to better options, there's also the highly situational and reactive spells, that the system actively punishes since you can only be proactive with your choices (since you rarely know exactly what lies ahead with time to properly prepare, if you have many of these options, your GM is a saint).

Arcanist casting should've been the new wizard. The new sorcerer could've used even more changes to justify its existence, the change in spell list was already very welcome, having more differences in casting (using DnD5e metamagic) would further create differences. Just because Wizards have arcanist casting, doesn't make sorcerers obsolete, significant changes must be also made in the other to compensate the huge change in wizards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if is 100% accurate, but any feat that has an "Improved" version down the line fall in this category.

Unless the previous version is already pretty cool and the improved version makes it meaningfully better, I think these types of feat chains just remove character options.

When something is pre-requisite to another, I find it miles better if the new option enhances the playstyle the play is going for, rather than just making the first version less bad (since often the problem is screwing over your action economy or simply level appropriate bonuses).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm finding it interesting these archetypes based on regions and organizations... But I'm hopeful that they don't follow on Starfinder's steps. Those are nowhere near as interesting as what we got on PF1e.

In fact, I'm looking forward for future class archetypes for PF2e, one of the biggest strength of PF1e must be carried over to this new edition, but since so far every archetype has been for all classes, this leaves me a little worried. But it's probably because it's only the Core Rulebook. I hope.


That's what I'm saying, he will attack with the penalties. Doesn't matter if he claimed he was going to cast defensively after trying to "sneak in" an attack. He's trying to break up an action into sections that aren't supposed to be broken. For a more direct answer to your question: "I'll use spell combat and I will cast the spell defensively", then your answer should probably be "You get your benefit and your penalties". This is no attacks, then spell, or spell, then attacks (you can't have them in between) in a separate "instance", this is a spell type of full-round action that only a Magus can do.

But honestly, why is this even an issue? Magus can, and should, have a lot of bonuses to concentration checks and since they're casting low level spells, the DC either will be met without requiring a roll or rolling very low. And this is me talking after seeing a newbie player using a magus that's not half as optimized as somebody that is trying to cheese the rules to gain extra benefits.

This is a non-issue. The guy is wrong, you're right. He eats the penalty if he really wants to eat it, but he shouldn't be needing it most of the time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Optional rules to remove mandatory items (The Big 3) fall under the same umbrella. Does it mean it will be these rules will come latter as well?


"If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty."

Doesn't matter the order, the penalties are applying to the attack rolls, that's both RAW and RAI. After all, it's all happening almost simultaneously in-world.


I kinda understand it's this way purely because I've seen the ability being described as such before... But I think it wouldn't hurt at all to call it "previous" rather than first to be clearer on the intention of a downward trend in power. Otherwise, it seems like only the first ever spell is the condition, specially because it's hard to conceptualize (at least for me) each use of the Bond Conservation as each separate instance that is different from the previous and it's because of the the chain of effect has its power reduced.

At least that was my understanding of how it's supposed to be and why it's "first" rather than previous".


Wait... Did the designers really wanted to say "First spell cast" or previous spell cast?

Because the difference is kinda huge.


If the PF2e's rules about poisons and diseases are going to be like Starfinder (which probably will since they were alternative rules from PF1), then CON is way more valuable than before.

You guys also shouldn't dismiss the impact on HP. As far as I recall, there were a lot of complaints here in this forum about deadly critical hits, the prevalence of them against higher CR monsters (more likely to crit). Also, why it's less valuable for no reason? Are we assuming monsters are dealing less damage now?

I think CON is more useful now than before just because diseases and poisons will be actually threatening. Not to mention all usual benefits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't mind arguing about details, I'm all of them because details are what makes the world feel alive and lived-in. A mark of good world-building.

But seriously debating if a week is 7 days or what not? This doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme, unless of course we're talking about how different the week is from reality, like the one in the Kingkiller Chronicle series, with eleven days named and changed based on the culture developed in the series.

Why would it matter if in 7-ish days the effect would end? It's still a really long time that doesn't actually affect gameplay for most cases. Unless the party can't refuse to attend a huge party and the item can't be removed from the user's face.


the Internet wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
Why is everyone arguing about something that will barely affect the game?
Have we met?

Hahahhaha. That's true. People are gonna argue regardless of merits.


Why is everyone arguing about something that will barely affect the game?

Odds are that this will be created during some downtime, the party will be fine, most people in town will be fine. Also, I don't see anywhere the item preventing someone from removing the item and only using it when battle is to be expected, of course, a compromise has to be made to use such a dreadful item in the middle of a crowd.

PS: I don't know if "invested" prevents the item from being used when you want it or if there's a specific time (or interval that prevents benefits from applying) to invest the item.

1 to 50 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>