Lightwire's page

I agree that it’s best to take a very loose interpretation of things when transferring characters and it’s generally best to start with new characters for a system change. I personally like PF2 a lot but many characters in RPGs end up with the mechanics or exactly how something bleeding into their personality.

However if you don’t really have the option, then I’d do the following. Please note that this advice is to try and hit your RP goals while still being mechanically functional.

Priority is sniping, take the Precision ability and various feats for Crossbow. This works doubly since the crossbow feats lean on heavy damage and slipping into stealth. Perfect for a back line sniper. Crossbow ace and running reload. Still works just as well for reskinning only now you’re also farting around the field and your foes don’t know where the shot will come from.

Secondary is the animal companion. To keep this up I expect you’ll need a good portion of your class feats. Getting the free archtype thing going would be an obvious power boost here but it also might be more moving parts than you want to try in your first foray into the system. I’d use the bird here, or a reskinned bat, since it’s support ability particularly fits what you’ve said you use it for. Get it, get it mature, and likely nimble after that. I’d also strongly consider taking the beast master archtype as well. May seem silly since most of the companion feats are already in your class at a lower level, but the archtype lets you have multiple companions. So if one goes down then after the fight you can patch him up. By which I mean swap in another identical one.

And lastly you mentioned support. Which you primarily took up due to a lack of healing. I’d suggest you ignore spells completely here and use your skill feats to master battle medicine and post combat medicine use. It’s way more handy than other editions of D&D type games and your using an entirely different resource to do it. So you save all the feats you might have used to get a heal spell or such. Depending on how deep you want to delve you should still have some free for other aid boosters or something to help you stealth, or even underworld connections.

MaxAstro wrote:

I don't see this being an issue. Sure, from a strict powergaming perspective it is, but out of all the various player options, ancestry is by far the one most likely to be made for a flavor reason. The "cost" of tiefling is being a tiefling, which isn't going to mesh with all character concepts.

I have a player, for example, who specifically took Cavern Elf over Dhampir because she wanted to be a drow, not a dhampir. That sort of thing is pretty common. The variant heritages pack a lot of baggage onto your character.

Thread was asking for examples of power creep, and I'd certainly classify a new option doing the same thing as an old option + more as fitting the definition.

Plus yes, you can always choose inferior options for thematic reasons, but that's a rather poor excuse for thematic options being mechanically inferior in the first place. And as for baggage... you didn't really mention Aasimar, whose only baggage seems to be that common people think they're awesome (& mechanically can eventually gain flight).

Those options are restricted by rarity so not automatic picks. And it’s worth noting that all are obvious, you don’t get the effect of being an Aasimar without it being obvious that you are one.

And at least from my perspective the perceived bonus is a rather small one. Sure you can pick the ancestry for some additional options, but in the standard game you only get 5 picks over a full character. There are already a swath of good picks for any given ancestry. In fact most ancestry’s already have more options each than all three of the plainer scions, each fairly equivalent in power. So to me getting an extra dozen options I might maybe pick one of isn’t enough to qualify as power creep.

I may see if the table wants to switch to the skill point system down the road, when it might make a difference and they have the knowledge to choose. But I think it’ll be extra complexity They don’t need at the start. I don’t mind handling extra complexity on my end but at trying to limit it on theirs. Thank you for the point though, I hadn’t really considered it.

As to 5E? This is a personal opinion but I find the system dull and overly static. You can’t make enough personalization choices, and gaining levels doesn’t feel rewarding since nothing changed but your HP. I’ve played it and can run it, but I don’t want to try running a game in a system I know I dislike because then GMing is nothing but work.

As to the conflicting goals, it’s just a personal choice to reduce those effects. Finding the balance that to me feels right for the game I want to run. I could see doing it with all those aspects right up front but it’s just not what I’m planning to run.

While the idea loosely holds true for now I expect that a few years down the road what we’ll have is the best 2-3 classes at anything With each having a different way of getting there. Even now it seems like you have to pick carefully to avoid this.

For instance, I’d say that the druid and alchemist both excel at filling multiple roles as they choose, presuming they don’t over specialize. The druid can bring higher numbers to a particular role, but really it needs to choose what it’s doing for a given day ahead of time. The alchemist can either focus at the start of the day and fill that role longer, or stay flexible and fill whichever role is needed right then.

Personally I prefer this, not every class needs to be great at everything, but each thing people want to do should have a few options to get there that are equally valid. Otherwise the game will end up weighted towards the things that are more frequently used and we get less variety.

I sidestepped the number of hands issue for my rogue with a pair of gauntlets. Fairly little of my theoretical damage comes from the weapon anyway. And having both hands frees me up for any number of shenanigans. I do a fair bit of debuf, decent flanking damage and have more skills than the rest of the four person party combined to work with outside of healing.

I suppose it’s just my perspective, but why would someone with magic devote much time to training as a doctor? It would seem that a leaf druid for instance would almost always have a better magic option available, learning a doctor’s skills would be a lot of extra effort. I’m not trying to be critical of the character choice, you do you is my general stance. But I’d be curious as to the thoughts behind the mindset, since this is a RP focused idea. If someone wouldn’t mind giving a bit of explanation, I find character Ideas interesting.

breithauptclan wrote:

I was planning on leaving this thread alone. But this one got to me again.

And I don't mean to call you out specifically, ExOichoThrow. But I do want to illustrate the point I am trying to make.

ExOichoThrow wrote:

Social skills are exactly that: SKILLS. They can be worked on and improved. Instead of categorizing your supposed friends based on levels, why not allow them to just practice those skills and get better as players too?

Fly is also a skill usage just like intimidate and lie are. Try practicing that one and let me know how much you improve.

I dont understand. You think this is a good point? Because you cant shoot fireballs IRL you shouldnt have to attempt to use language to make up reasonable lies??

There have been several threads of discussion about deception use, at least as I read the thread. Though they seem to blend a bit.

Breithauptclan’s point seems to be that for some people those skills are not things that they can gain out of game. At least not in a span of time relevant to any gaming group. And I don’t think that’s an unfair or untrue point. Their complaint that GM(s) have required the use of out of game abilities they didn’t have to use in game abilities their character did have.

To take a less absolute position, though in another genre. How would you feel if you you wanted to play a Decker(hacker) in a shadowrun game. But any time you went for a dive the GM required you to breach a computer system they choose? Computer use at that level is also a skill, and very likely one that could be as useful as any social skill in today’s world. But it certainly doesn’t seem like something you should be required to have to play in game.

Not every skill is something everyone can master. And for some regardless of effort they will continue to have issues that others don’t.

@mathmuse

I think the problem is less that the of two shields you compare The non sturdy shield blocks slightly more but a limited number of times a day. To me that’s completely valid and a the shield does a neat thing. It’s more that the HP of the two means the non sturdy shield stands a good chance of not surviving a hit from on level foes, or multiple hits from lower level foes, if used to do that neat thing. Consider the difference between the spine shield and the level 4 sturdy.

The spine shield Blocks 12 damage a limited number of times, and has 24 HP

The level 4 sturdy blocks 8, more than the spine after it’s done it’s limited run, and has 64 HP.

That’s thee times the HP on a shield that’s half the level of the other. I’d absolutely take the lower level shield and toss the other if I was a shield using character. Who wants their main bit to shatter if you use it?

@Castilliano

I’d actually say that being a support focused character is both easier to successfully pull off and more impactful in PF2 than 1. In 1 a bard’s song at my table was very rarely high enough to matter with the numbers that were going around. In 2 the tighter math means the numbers stay relevant. Support in PF1 was largely limited to some song and then you just slapped out buff spells until you ran dry. There are far more options here.

You could sing, move into flank and then demoralize. That’s a +4 swing, a 20% higher chance of both hitting and critting for at least double damage. All things a bard can do and excel at. And not even touching on their spell list which shouldn’t be ignored. I’m not saying you shouldn’t have some means of offense. Just that it’s not necessarily necessary to use all the time.

I haven’t seen enough aid use in combat to say how well it works. With the right feats though I could see it being very effective, particularly against a boss.

I would take care picking out focus spells, mostly because you’ll spend most of your adventure unable to sustainability use more than one a fight. Some like lingering performance have seen some good use at my tables though.

I like elf for skill monkey, the ability to change around some of your skills(with the right ancestory feats) based on what you’re facing can be a big deal, depending on how the campaign goes. Though bardic lore can make that less important you aren’t looking at enigma. Elf also gives you a noticeable bump to mobility and the option of the elf step feat, so you can dart around giving flanking or demoralizing with more ease. Con isn’t as big a deal because no matter how high it goes it’s still a much smaller portion of your HP, get it up to at least 10, and keep up Dex since you can use it both to attack and defend.

Getting used to the action economy can take a bit. I’m glad to see your ranger, who was most likely to fall into the habit of just full attacking has been trying more. I might suggest printing out an action list of what the generally available actions are for each player. And adding some of the skill actions as the characters gain access to them(based off of training). Having the details for how to do something and what it does at their finger tips might help them experiment more. Including the list of status effects can also help with that as it’s not necessarily apparent how much they do.

Perhaps add an enemy who specifically does some of those things to you next few fights. Showing that the minus one has a similar and stacking effect to the plus one they’re already using from the bard may help them follow suit.

As to the board gamyness complaint? Fairly valid actually, IMO. The system is much more specific about what you can do and how, and what you can combine(in so many ways to its own benefit and playability). Similar in several ways to D&D 4ed which had that complaint. It’s all handled much better and is much more free from than that was but their are definite similarities and some people will pick up on those. I certainly haven’t had anyone I know of actually make that complaint but I can also see where some could. How much weight you want to give that though as opposed to it just being someone grumbling about change is your call though.

Also, once the quarantine in your area is over you might find it worth your while to search for Pathfinder Society in your area. They should be used to people who are new to the game, and it’s easier to slip in and out as schedules demand. Plus it should be much easier to play with strangers since the setting is specifically about that. There’s some variation in all that due to people of course but in general. This also serves two other goals. One, you get a chance to play even while you GM. And two if you use the Society scenarios to run your home game then you can get a chance to play through them first, which is a good way to improve your running of them. Just a suggestion though.

PF2 is a good system to learn in, I could suggest some others like Savage Worlds too. PF1 isn’t bad, though it’s a bit of a rougher start for people just learning. If you go system hunting I’d avoid anything too rules light like vampire or fate, they require a lot more GM calls during running, which takes a lot more energy and focus from what you’re otherwise still learning the skills of. I’d also avoid anything too crunchy since the more rules you need to learn before you really start to play the less your likely to enjoy.

I think con is getting valued at more than it’s worth. In this edition what a given level of con provides is a much lower percentage of HP and a bump to probably the least common and impactful save outside of nitch games. It’s also worth noting that when the designers stopped and looked at the stats for the GMG Con was the think they felt was worth just removing and adding its few benifits to something else. That con is typically allotted a boost has much more to do with the spread of boost we have to use than the value of the stat. I think it’s definitely bottom three for importance to most characters. And probably actually bottom of the barrel for actual use in most games.

That said I think some con based characters would be very interesting. I particularly like the idea of a Blood Mage class now that it’s been mentioned.

To expand slightly on what I meant by commentary on things that aren’t changing. What if the Developers posted in this theoretical form that they’ve reviewed the alchemist and while there are some minor tweaks that might be done the class is at this point working as intended. That while they know many consider it as having to spend too many feats to mathematically keep up where other classes spread out, the alchemist starts spread out by having access to an ever expanding pool of alchemy items which it doesn’t have to pay anything but be the right level for use of. Thus it’s a class that will ever increase upwards in both power and versatility as new products are launched without needing to spend anything else. And boosting the class as it stands now would end with it overpowered once a more reasonable level of products are out there.

Do I think that would make everyone happy and stop forever the constant threads on issues with the class? No, but that don’t think infinite wishing fairies would make everyone happy. The goal is to make a reasonable number of people happy for the effort used, and knowing that agreeing or not that the “problem” was reviewed will typically do that.

Lightwire wrote:

I think the TTRPG sector could learn a decent lesson from the video game companies.

I think you don't realise the fact that the money video game industry brings and capabilities of companies there exist on a different plant than the TTRPG industry. They're not even comparable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to Paizo fixing obvious errors (like forgetting to print a range of a spell), but I'd rather have them design new stuff than engage in lengthy explanations and debates aimed at a tiny segment of the playerbase which has a tendency to be unhappy no matter how hard you try to make them.

I do realize, and I at least am not asking for anything particularly lengthy. A paragraph of explanation if that would fit the bill for most that I can think of.

Over all what I’m talking about is an increase in community engagement. Some way to get FAQ’s answered with a level of explanation that cements understanding. A tendency to tell players that something is actually being looked at for errata or balancing even if nothing is changed in the end. A short explanation as to why something isn’t being changed could even help settle people. An increase in engagement does two things. It increases the players interest and attachment to the product and thus should increase sales, and it it can help the developers know what’s working best and holds the most interest with a wider audience. These are both good things which would appear to provide more benifits than cost.

Did you stop buying Paizo books because of broken feats, archetypes, bad classes? You didn't.

Did people less invested than you stop buying them? Heck, they likely never even noticed what you perceive as issues.

Will you stop buying Paizo books if they don't implement an easily accessible path online with the designers hand behind to use in your home games? Nope.

So, business-wise, what's the point of implementing that? "Well that would make me feel better" doesn't count.

I did! So did my whole normal group in fact. Or to clarify to a less absolute standpoint bought significantly less. Among my group probably a difference of 20-40 fewer books of various types. So not exactly breaking the business model but also I’m just one person who happened to be online, see this post, have had a change in purchasing, and also was willing to make a post. Please consider how small number 1, 2 & 4 as a percent of players before dismissing 3 as worth considering.

We play Pathfinder as a system for something like 60% of our games. We got much less willing to buy the products until we’d really reviewed them after running into too many problem products. There are some particularly infamous items like the advanced class guide(everything in it or related to it is considered banned without serious work), but even before that there were issues. And due to the need for review we don’t really have any duplicates among the group after a point.

Personally I find a reasonable level errata healthy. Too much of it is a sign that the publisher lacks someone doing a core piece of work like what happens with most shadowrun products. But it still shows that the publisher cares enough about their game to do the corrections when they realize they’re needed. Honestly if my group was looking at a game and the subject of errata was actually raised we’d be far more worried about none than ten pages.

I think the TTRPG sector could learn a decent lesson from the video game companies. We don’t need constant balance changes like some of the games mentioned, but there is obviously room for corrections and clarifications. And getting some of the thoughts behind that is something that some of us would obviously like. Take poison, there was some definite argument before the errata that you couldn’t poison an arrow, but that by RAW you had to poison the bow which then transferred to the arrow but somehow only if you hit. The errata corrected this and a bit more explanation could be helpful for those who care on judging edge cases. Not needed but useful. Honestly even just knowing that something is being reviewed for errata would be nice. It might not help with the debates because people like to argue, but on the other hand it might after all.

Ancestry Paragon

Currently running in a game where GM decided to use this, and my experience is the opposite so far. I actually think this will become a gold-standard in many/most home games, especially as more Ancestry feats see print in future books.

Does a lot to bridge the gap for those that feel that, in the transition from 1E to 2E, a lot of the Race/Ancestry was "lost".

Plus, it simply puts that character choice front and center.

Just to ask, because this hasn’t been my experience and I’m curious. Why do you and players around you feel that PF2 lost some of the ancestry? The exact opposite has been my experience as you now make choices and have it be relevant beyond level one.

I know that some of the things that were fairly standard have been paired off into feats, but I can’t think of a single instance in over 2 decades of play in various systems where a dwarf actually used a stone cunning style abilities. And a lot of us were already changing up what we got from a race with alternate traits in an almost exact parallel.

Ancestry feats are more powerful than I think people realize, though frequently more situational. I think even the GMG mentions this when talking about the variant. And unfortunately if you’re ancestry is human most of their feats just let you trade out the potential flavor for something else that’s generic.

What I meant was your idea about not allowing multiclass archtypes being a good one. While I find that PF2 is better about preventing multi class shenanigans the MC archtypes are I think one of the spots where the balance is most likely to fail. And I just meant that some combinations are more powerful than others, particularly when martials grab things that add together. Like a fighter or ranger grabbing Barbarian rage just to hit harder, or a cleric taking the angelic sorcerer bloodline spell to get more juice from their free heals.

I haven’t used them yet but I also like the way some of the optionals work. It’s worth remembering that versatility is also power, but I don’t really think they’ll add too much so long as a little care is taken. The ancestral paragon does seem more powerful, because several of the race feats are very strong, but that still seems like it’ll be something that can be managed. The MC option will probably work best for preventing a flood of power if you limit it in some way. Maybe asking no one doubles down on their classes focus, or asking everyone to pick an archtype. Or depending on setting just giving everyone a specific archtype like Pathfinder or Hellknight. But however you do it I don’t think you’re going to end up with more power than a plus 1 or 2 equivalent, the math in the system is tight and they seem to have been watching out for combinations of things much more carefully this edition.

I am just saying Spellstrike and Spell Combat are not the only things Magus gets and looking at only that distracts from the fact Magus has a lot more going for it.

It does have other class abilities but however they choose to implement it most of those abilities aren’t compatible with the new system. The arcane pool for instance. The pool on a vanilla Magus had a lot of separate abilities but they almost all fit into a few small categories. There’s the weapon enhancement, which based on the current system would be both more powerful and much harder to pull off in the same way. The fact that the magic weapon spell doesn’t highten would imply the designers don’t want a spell to replace having the runes. There’s probably space for some design here, but I’m not sure exactly what that is.

There’s also the spell recall, but given how all the classes had their spells per day cut back I certainly can’t see any way to bring this back except as a reason for a feat for an extra high level spell or copying a wizards bond ability.

There were some pool based attacks that were used instead of spells, but with the improved combat abilities of cantrips that’s a moot point.

Then there’s the many options that give you a temporary bonus for one roll or another. They’re all math fixes, which is something this system is avoiding.

Metamagic has become an entirely different beast, so I don’t think any of those are relevant.

The weapon and armor proficiency has been brought up.

I can’t vouch for the others but for me at least I didn’t really bring up other abilities because I think most of them are irrelevant since they don’t really translate. We may get a focus spell or a feat with a name that references them, but I don’t think the Magus had any other abilities that translate into the new system.

It sounds more like your issue is the frequency of the overnight rest than the challenge of your fights. Any fight is going to be much easier than intended if all the casters can freely use a full day worth of supplies on each encounter. And I don’t think you’re going to be able to balance the razor edge which is required to hit them with something that can endure that full and free use of abilities, but that won’t deal so much damage that a character or two drop each round. Not in the long run at least.

My suggestion would be first talking to your players. First because they may be perfectly willing to modify their behavior once you point out how the system is both balanced and enables a longer day of adventuring. And second because if you suddenly make any of the other changes to enforce that without talking it over they may feel you’re playing dirty and have just randomly decided to change the rule.

Then make in game moves to enforce the new pacing. Maybe there’s a time limit before the bad thing happens they've been hired to avoid. Or maybe their patron hired two teams to get the shiny and is only paying whoever gets it back to him. Or depending on the setup pick and seed camp sites between some of the encounter locations. If they don’t use one they’re harassed with minor encounters all night, which means more fights with progressively fewer resources and then they’re fatigued the next day.

Perhaps a little off topic, but the thing that interests me most is if and when we'll get 100% new classes and what they'll be.

I’d like to see that too. Maybe a talisman based class similar to the alchemist? I like the idea of talismans but they don’t see much use around me. People forget they’re a thing most of the time until we find one. A class that could make them, and maybe provide temporary runes could bring them into the spotlight as a tool to use just like potions.

I’d like to see more archtypes than full class revivals because dedicated archtypes are better for blending into a a greater number of options for any given character. Plus only a few of the missing classes really tread much new ground instead of just offering another way to do something we can already do. And with the greater flexibility we have in the class framework in PF2 we don’t really need 6 plus different basic frames to play a divine warrior, 2 or 3 with more flex will give us an even larger number of choices in the end.

Not covering all of them but some standouts.

Summoner will be its own class, but I don’t think we’ll see it for a while. I think and hope they’ll wait and work out the issues with the current minion abilities before they try taking them this far. There’s a lot of opportunity for both greatness and failure here.

Kineticist, would make both a good class and a great addition to our current crop. I’d imagine a class built around focus cantrips for main abilities with focus spells(focus metamagic maybe) to replace burn. The bard shows that a class can be heavily reliant on this ability and I’d like to see it taken further to be the real core of a class.

The other occult classes would need a lot more work, to step away from their mechanics as we knew them and find new ways to express the idea behind them in the second edition. Some like the occultist I can almost see, others like the spiritualist and psychic would likely be better off rolled into another class as greater options(summoner and sorcerer respectively imo)

Gunslinger, I think this would be best as an archtype. A lot of the unique abilities that the class had were really just in service of making up for issues they built into the weapons themselves. So much of it could be paired away into something that can be woven into any class. Plus given all the many many archtypes in PF1 that added guns to other classes I think there’s a lot of desire for something that’s designed as an additive instead of just working like one.

Magus, one of my favorite classes in PF1, and one I hope becomes an archtype. When you look back into it there aren’t very many magus unique abilities, but those that there are could be added onto any casting class with very little work. Or with a little more for other classes too. I’d much rather have bards stabbing someone and leaving them with a curse than a full class that looks almost just like a wizard who took fighter dedication.

Cavaliers worked pretty well as an archtype in the play test and I’d be fine with that after some refinement.

Almost all the hybrid classes feel like they’re unnecessary now that each class has so much more room to build in. So I think most of them can be covered by expanding the options provided to the base classes.

Shifter, I have no idea what they’ll actually do, but I’d like an archtype from this one. Something to let the wider swath of classes into some shape shifting and also let druid go even deeper into it. I always regretted not having a more shapeshifting version of the druid as an option.

A few suggestions. First make sure everyone understands that their AC can actually matter in PF2. It can actually be a change that doesn’t sink in, especially seeing as you seem to be rolling a statistically unlikely number of 20s. That can leave them feeling like their new higher numbers matter even less than their old low ones. In PF1 I can remember any non cleric caster of mine that broke AC 13, you simply couldn’t keep your number high enough to matter so I and others didn’t, we went for HP and positioning instead. But in this edition your proficiency bonus and just a little attention will do the work for you. Let them know that even unarmored a 14 or 16 Dex means the enemy will miss a lot more. You don’t need to take extra feats for better proficiency, you can get the same bonus from strapping a buckler on and getting the +1 there.

As for the rogue, let them go for it. I actually play a ruffian rogue with gauntlets too and have yet to feel like I’m missing out on damage I could have had. The actual difference between gauntlets and another weapon is only 1 point, maybe 2 a round. In trade for that point a round I always have my hands free. Since I play medic a lot that means I never have to argue with a GM about battle medic, I can raise the buckler I never bothered to take a feat for wherever I like, I took a multi class into cleric and can use the focus and spells without checking to see if I’m holding everything right, and I can do any weird rogue or skill thing that crosses my mind without having to drop or sheath. That’s a lot of flexibility and in my mind well worth the loss of a little damage for a skill focused class.

On the sorcerer, I can see several things they might try to improve their combat abilities, or just behaviors I could suggest, but it really sounds like this player isn’t quite on board with the combat focus you’re aiming for in your game. That’s probably the point to settle instead of trying to “fix” their character’s mechanics.

Just my thoughts, feel free to take or leave. And hope more fun is had in the mean time.

The clerics divine font ability fills some of the same design space as the wizards arcane bond, it doesn’t have as much flexibility but it gets more uses. So it’s not really as much an outlier as it seems. And there are plenty of other abilities that exist in a similar space. Just not identical which is good for character diversity. And it’s existence opens up some design space for the cleric. Channel smite wouldn’t work without a surplus of heal and harms, same for healing and harming hands.

The first one off the top of my head? I’d love to see one for elemental focus on spell casters. A few focus spells and bonuses that key off specific damage types, a metamagic that affected resistance and immunity. It could be fun for Druids, wizards and sorcerers, maybe even clerics with the right gods. I always enjoyed playing casters that doubled down on a particular element. Right now it’s better to have a variety of damage types to trigger weaknesses, but a fun devotion could bring back being the firiest firemancer that ever did fire fire. May still be somewhat less effective but it could bring it within range of the other and wouldn’t rely on successful knowledge.

It heals 30, but that’s still half of what you can expect from the spell at the same level. And that spell can be used repeatedly in the same combat without issue, or not at all if it’s in needed, giving it better flexibility. The lay on hands advantage is that the champion doesn’t need to also invest in out of combat healing, since the focus spell does the work for them, though it doesn’t quite catch up to someone dedicated to that either.

I don’t think the concentrate has any direct effect, much like many other traits. However it does interact with other abilities, much like many other traits. For instance you can’t do any of those while raging. Something that has probably been missed in the case of demoralize by a great many barbarians. Though there is a level 1 class feat to change that.

A lot of the traits are there to interact with other abilities, or possibly future options, not to have an inherent effect of their own.

kaid wrote:

Diego Hopkins wrote:

My only problem with this is that the cloistered cleric, who's job is to heal people, doesn't have a comparable option.

Medicine + maxed wisdom means they can downtime heal like champs.

This takes a few feats to accomplish (battlefield medic and continuous recovery), which everyone else in the party can also do. Don't get me wrong, I like mundane healing being opened up to everyone.

My issue is that the paladin basically gets the ability to magically heal the party up between encounters and the cleric doesn't. That doesn't make thematic sense to me.

It's also about the balance between martials and casters.

I can take a party consisting of a barbarian, a fighter, a rogue, and a paladin into any dungeon. As long as one of them is trained in medicine and has the battlefield medic feat (easily acquired from a background) we will never lack for HP. At level one, they can only use medicine once per hour, but the Paladin is healing 6HP every ten minutes. This party of martials won't run out of beat-stick, or lockpicking, or magical healing.

If I take a party of a wizard, alchemist, sorcerer, and cleric into a dungeon they will run out of spells and bombs after a few encounters. Then they are relying on cantrips and crossbows(alchemist). They will run out of magical healing because a party of casters is squishy. Again, mundane healing at level one is hourly. I run out of magical beat-stick, and magical healing pretty quickly. This party is likely to have to retreat and rest overnight to regain resources.

I understand that they wanted to break reliance on casters. I think they broke it a bit too much.

I Don’t think it’s anything near this bad. Though I am happy that a caster from each school is no longer a necessity.

For instance your second party, presuming they had some cohesion instead of being the absolute worst picks by default.

The wizard meta magic thesis and universalist means you can brain foes with your brain and hit a swath with a widened burning hands, eventually you may run out of juice but your cantrips aren’t terrible.

The alchemist, not actually a spell caster and as a class it has some notable problems. But it can pack a bunch healing, bombs, or mutagens and still leave space for a highly situational item like antidote. Then play with a crossbow or more likely light armor and a shield. It’s not far behind the rogue for AC if any. And no reason he can’t bring the lockpicks just as easily as the rogue.

The sorcerer may have a bloodline like demonic or draconic giving them a decent weapon if they’ve prepared for it, and if demonic they’ll be gaining temp HP regularly.

The war priest cleric has obvious appeal at a front liner and brings enough party buffs and in combat healing to keep them alive for a long while.

The caster party thus has piles of in combat healing, and while they may run out of the ability to nova they in exchange get to nova, and even without that they can have decent damage. The all martial party however has only 1 heal per combat (excluding everyone being a field medic which honestly the other party can do just as well.) and they can have major issues with foes who fly, are incorporeal, or just keep climbing out of reach. The champion may get to heal faster out of combat but once they take the easily accessible feat continuous recovery, so can everyone else.

In PF1 it wasn’t just common but the default assumption that any party that could start affording one of the cheapest magic items in the game would wave a stick at their injuries and be back to fighting in under a minute. And I’ve consistently seen new players told how the medicine type skill doesn’t actually heal anything, just throw magic at it. To me this makes things feel much more natural than a wand of cure light.

Personally I’m of the absolutely opposite opinion that this takes anything from Magic healing classes. They no longer have to stand there and wave a stick at an axe wound. They can use their spells to buff, or even attack instead of spending them to patch up wounds. And if they want to they can still cast the spell to save the party literal hours of time. A cleric now gets to be a divine magical agent of their god, instead of a magic aspirin dispenser.

If you want a grittier game where healing takes more time and resources, that’s fine and to each their own. But as the default natural healing isn’t actually going to come up much anyway, people will just use spells to get the same effect at the cost of being able to do something else. And the skill training and skill feats that it will take to keep medical healing up with the damage you’ll take are hardly a small investment.