That's what makes it fun! Let's let the adults have something for once.
This isn't an argument per se, but a salt-to-taste type thing. I enjoy playing hyper-specialized casters such as save-or-suck Enchanters or Cold Caster builds in much the same way someone loves playing a dexterous rogue or a fighter who specializes in greatswords. Nobody is wrong for wanting casters who can't over specialize to dominate one area of the game (although I would disagree that thats unfun or overpowered to allow), but I don't like that my favorite thing has become far less viable.
I will say I wanted sorcerers to be able to heighten at will. I just don't think they were as good without it, and I don't buy the choice paralysis argument.
Ultimately, a lot of this comes down to preference, vision for the game, etc. But most of the serious "casters were over nerfed arguments" won't appear here because this board tends to lean heavily in favor of Paizo's design decisions for obvious reasons. Not that there are not plenty of dissenters, of course, but the majority of dissent is going to be found in reddit/rpgnet/random forum here etc. To get a good argument, you'll need to go somewhere else and talk to somebody WAY smarter than me, or get lucky and bait one of the wise old timers here on the other side to feel wordy.
Both sides also accuse the other side of being the hostile perpetrators of bad faith arguments and disagreements, which probably perpetuates the endless cycle of these threads.
I am a minority-of-one on my view of casting in any case, it seems. My lonely camp is "only blasting is good now" which seems to be the exact opposite of experience of everyone else. My view comes from play and armchair rocking alike.
I still enjoy the game and want it to thrive. I think some of the changes have been positive. I like that items are much more important to casters now, but I wish the spell DCs of casters scaled better and sooner. I want a spell to crit as often as a rogue's sword because while that would be more powerful, spells are also hardcapped now. There is no more infinite charisma/insane amount of spell shenanigans. You need to be getting more out of your best spells than a fighter does out of her mace, because you're waiting for those opportunities with a lot more eagerness.
I utterly despise the incapacitate trait, which prevents casters from ending encounters with spells like paralysis while for some reason, a fighter one-shotting the ogre with a crit is fine (this really happened in my game, it is not a hypothetical*.) The counter argument says its all about the cinema of the game. One simply doesn't feel good while the other feels exciting and like earning it. I disagree, but either opinion is arbitrary. It is gone from every one of my games until the end of time.
Basically, casters are not useless, they just lack the exciting interactions with the very good new action economy martials enjoy. Their DCs are close-ish but need to be better, they need for variety in terms of class features, etc. Some things were done to make them more viable but I just don't like the design direction.
For instance, casters can do a lot more non-magic things better now as a trade-off. I hate that. I want more magic, not more mace-swinging viability. To other people though, while a fighter can be all about fighting, a wizard who does only magic feels boring or silly. Again, opinions, opinions.
*The fighter did have some help from magic weapon to do this, but a caster's role should not be to simply help the martials. In any case, as far as I can tell he could have done it without the help. This is why healbots are bad and boring, in my eyes. The reverse is true. A fighter shouldn't just be a wizard's bodyguard for when black tentacles can't cut off enemy charges.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
No doubt that bag is really filled with unjustly collected taxes meant for Europe.
In all seriousness, I really like bulk, personally. It doesn't have to make perfect sense, just enough sense. It's easy to use and explain to players, and stops the tedious inventory tracking of PF1 while never getting so ridiculous as to be a non-element. It also eliminates some difficult math problems for incompetent idiots like myself.
(Seriously, Paizo I am not about to calculate the volume of the items I want to put in my backpack vs my backpack. I am flattered you believe me to be capable of that but I want you to know that your faith was beyond misplaced. You may as well pray to Baba Yaga for spells.)
Yes, your peer review was extremely valuable. I think the board will ultimately approve my designs but in the event it doesn't, I will have to accept my loss with grace. I only hope I can have as much dignity in defeat as Tableflip McRagequit always did.
True, I love a good round of what if and all that. I was just providing my opinion on the whole subject to be honest, not trying to shut down the discussion.
That's fair, I'm sorry if that came off accusatory. I didn't so much mean that you would do so out of malice, just that calling it pointless felt like it was invalidating the exercise (to me.)
I *would* be willing in any case to be that while info travels faster in Golarion than in Middle Ages/Early Modern Earth, it probably goes more slowly than Modern Earth. I think stuff like rolling to identify a simple lion in any case probably doesn't belong in the game, although having a character choose to roll could be fun if they were trying to ham it up as someone from a very different society or background.
Of course it's pointless, that's what it makes it fun to argue about! I don't personally run it either way, and have never had the issue in a campaign. But why not have fun entertaining the question? It's so boring to just shut it down and not explore the idea.
For the record though I wouldn't make a PC roll a knowledge check for something super basic, and don't worry, my games and worlds are very fun! Have you considered sometimes people have fun playing the game a different way?
The DM of wrote:
One thing that doesn't hold up to scrutiny here, but I think is interesting to explore, is the assumption of the actual level of information and education the average person on Golarion has access to. Don't get me wrong, we have gauges, and there are schools, apprenticeships, etc.
But for me, it's a hard sell that someone coming out of Sandpoint would recognize even 15% of Varisian fauna (especially as some of its fauna is from places like Leng), and that's assuming they were educated. The opportunities you likely used to learn those things (formal education, traveling, safely observing the wilderness) are something a person living in say a desolate war-torn wilderness full of monsters would never have. How many ogres has a level one PC read about or observed up close? There is no way your knowledge is just osmosis in the sense you think it is. You only know about animals that existed millions of years ago because thousands of people worked hard to get you that information, and then literal millions struggled to deliver that information to you through the hard fought process of funding things like schools. There's a lot I feel you're taking for granted. No one did Valeros that favor. No giant shoulders for him to stand like we have.
It just feels *odd* idk. And you probably still only possess that information on animals in broad strokes. It would be truly impressive for amateur enthusiast who doesn't study animals to be able to differentiate various obscure relatives of the Sydney Funnelweb.
If we can turn the witch into something substantially changed, we can substantially change the occultist. I like witch better my way, and wouldn't want to sacrifice my favorite class to test such a sentiment. Of course as you see above other people feel just the opposite.
Besides, this new edition features occult far more prominently. There's no reason to assume it's so far off, and an occultist prepared caster could still heavily be themed around implements. It would need to be substantially differentiated from both the wizard and bard anyhow.
Huh, I just really vibe with it the other way around. I feel like the witch has broader potential than the occultist, but I think it's just subjective stream-of-consciousness.
I wouldn't ever begrudge someone their fun, and I'm fine if I don't get my way, but witch was my favorite class in PF1 for years and if it doesn't do it what I'm hoping it will- regardless of quality- I doubt I would play or enjoy it. That doesn't make anyone else wrong, but I certainly have a stake. My lone opinion isn't important by any means, but some people do have strong feelings on a personal level.
I agree broadly with Rysky and the others, but trolls would be a bad example for me. Trolls getting harmed by fire (well, the common ones) is so commonly known OoC it would be really, really, hard to ask a PC to roleplay not knowing it. I might just say "everyone in the world basically learns that if they live anywhere in the vicinity of trolls so bring out the fire" in that very specific niche of "monsters' attributes are so common they could probably even be guessed at by a fair number of people who have never even played the game."
That's a very specific niche indeed, though, limited to things like trolls, hydras, etc.
re: 2b) the lead designer directly addressed undead horde issue, stating they couldn't fit it in Core, but they have different solution planned for future product (could be APG?) which IMHO sounds like swarm/troop type mechanic.
That would be excellent, because while I understand the logic of building monsters/npcs separately for ease, fun, and balance, it would feel weird to have an evil necromancer be able to command as many undead as he wants (or well, a lot) because I say he can while the party's evil necromancer cannot simply because he's not one of the DMs funny accents. It can be an uncommon ability, of course, but it would nice to have a balanced frame of reference for: "If it's cool with you for PCs to do this, here's a fun way for them to do it."
Hiruma Kai wrote:
To be fair, if you call for initiative at all, many players will assume they are already under attack. You might tell players to trust you or to play the game differently but I think it has become a default response, especially because going first in 3.5/PF counted for a lot.
Generally, if I want players to respond peacefully to a monster or odd scenario (or have the option to do so) I don't call for initiative, and it's a handy clue that they aren't under immediate attack and have the time to consider options.
Lyz Liddell wrote:
It was meant to be a light one. I'm in the camp that would either like to see penalties softened, or the bonuses increased to make the penalties more appealing.
Now that it's been made clear the logic was in favor of having the Divine Sorcerer as an option for those who wanted an oracle-like feel without the curse, I've honestly switched sides to merely wanting the bonuses and thematic imagery of the mystery/curses increased, rather than the curse to go away, since it now serves a clear and excellent purpose to provide players with a fun "power at a price" type character (bonus because you don't have to be evil like in many settings!)
The price should still include some serious power, though, for the penalties to be worth it.
To be fair a lot of them appeared to be. Casters weren't nearly so overpowered in PF1 as many people pretended (the hysteria on this forum could be amazing to watch), and aren't nearly so unplayable in PF2 as many people here pretend (the hysteria over the nerfs can be amazing to watch.)
They were too strong in PF1 and needed to be re-balanced, and they were re-balanced poorly, but not cripplingly so in PF2.
It's not the "exciting" opinion to have, but I feel mine is the correct one.
But it's not so broad it works well with things like Winter Witch. Truthfully, the Witch Spell list didn't quite in PF1 either, even with additions.
A lot of people would dispute that God never did.
It's a funny world, like that. I cannot not imagine the level of zealotry constantly active and visible deities would generate even if they weren't doing anything. There would be tons of people worshiping...just Whoever. Aroden would have done just fine for sure.
Pretty much everything ever said about the relative success of both editions at being a fun fantasy game is opinion and not a fact. This statement is meaningless, even as a condescending reminder: everyone already knows. RPGs aren't exact science.
As far as the party issue, most people (if not all) are already arguing in that context. Casters were overnerfed even relative to the party. It goes on and on. No one is arguing they should be able to solo the game. Don't worry, I already know that's just my opinion.
As for me, I don't like blasters and trying to compete with martials for DPR. Ironically, I feel blasting and buffing are the only things casters do well in this edition. Enchantment is still okayish but I miss the really incredible things you could pull off with it. Felt like it does when you crit with a scythe or greataxe. That kind of feeling. It just isn't the same now.
I still like PF2, though, it's a great game. I just *mostly* play non-casters in it.
Tossing my vote in favor of multiple lists. A primal witch is the one thing I have always wanted for the game, and I don't think occult fits any kind of witch but one. It's a personal preference purely, but I couldn't sacrifice a favorite thing.
A polymorphing specialist witch becomes particularly possible under such a system, and patrons with random spells pulled from another list would never cover it so completely. Sure a patron could provide some, but I would never get ALL of them, otherwise. I imagine there's a lot of people who feel this way, just in different lanes (preference for arcane, etc.)
Oh, and I can't neglect to mention a winter witch who actually has all the options she needs now. That's one thing primal gives me that is simply too cool.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Yes, I am aware. I am saying that I do not like the idea of a witch losing spells permanently, or personally happy with it.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I don't know. With sunder gone, there's no martial equivalent, and it would be a tad unfair.
Not in theology or religious studies, no. Non-theistic simply involves a lack of concern, atheism is active rejection. This is a common misconception in the west outside of academia due to lack of non-theistic religions sharing a portion of the cultural spot light.
I'm hoping the devs will at least consider my middle ground idea rather than "choose whatever, it makes no difference" or "tie everything into niche and very specific flavor." In any case, I'll be playtesting the class as we received it soon and we'll see how I feel about my own idea after that. Hopefully I can post (useful) results.
As a general rule, I have always remained against mechanics that penalize you for using your basic class features. I personally loathe things like "magic is exhausting so as you cast you begin to take all these penalties!" or whatever. A heavy curse like in the current oracle write-up is just right out for me.
I wouldn't dare suggest removing it because I don't like it, of course, people with different tastes might still have a lot of fun with it. But honestly the oracles curses in PF1 while a little *too* non-present, at least let me enjoy the class without feeling too arbitrarily penalized.
To be perhaps unnecessarily technical, many eastern religious practices are non-theistic rather than atheistic. This makes divine the best choice in a lot of cases I think.
I'm definitely on board with that. I'm not looking to provide edicts or anathemas, only to distinguish witches without being either too vague or too rigid in regards to other classes. A potential downside to my model is that old patrons wouldn't benefit from the printing of new lessons (although this is true in regards to spells and patrons in PF1.)
Still, I feel like it makes the choice consequential and interesting without leading to choice paralysis or restricting concept.
Finally looking at Bardic muses, I'm not as into it as my idea, but I respect the idea of trying to streamline things through functionally identical mechanics. I just like my idea a *tad* more.
Edit: Rysky if you join me I will recant that portion and offer free cuddles to those who desire them.
I like the idea of a patron determining your spell list, so that was good, and I'm thinking I could get back on board with broad patron themes like PF1 in the sense of "winter", "trickery", whatever, but maybe they only grant access to certain groups of lessons while deliberately excluding others? So you have options but it isn't too zaney?
Like how the winter witch archetype could choose winter, trickery, transformation, etc. as their patron but couldn't choose fire or summer. But instead, we just sort of do that out the gate since patrons would be a bigger role over the kind of witch you play.
So if you pick a Winter patron, you can choose the snow lesson, the dreams lesson, the death lesson, etc. but not fire or being good at cuddling (since your cold flesh precludes this.)
Does anyone else like this?
I'd like to see it just dropped and Witches just Sustain their hexes/spells, and apply whatever non-annoying flavor they want.
Basically this. I would love to see the option remain (and was really just suggesting we needed more rather than calling for the removal of the option prior) but it should by no means be a main thing. Literally just a random thing you can do if you want, no pressure, no required assumptions about your character.
GM Stargin wrote:
I've waited so long for primal witches and it jives so much better with my image of the class I would be loathe to give it up, and opening it up to as many options as seem feasible is a better idea than restricting it to one person's image.
That's what I always did in PF1. I'd tell my GM I promised never to use my familiar for a mechanical advantage in combat and in exchange they agreed not to target it, ever. It was a working solution in a home game.
I think it needs something more exciting all together. A lot of the proposals feel too mechanical. Replacing one type of component with another might be useful, for instance, but it's a tad boring. Something best saved for a non-iconic feature.
Hexes in my opinion should still be the selling point of the witch. "You don't have to rely entirely on spells, your magic is much more than that."
Paying to maintain your basic class features seems like it could get very tedious. After all, the wizard/druid/cleric/sorcerer/bard just gets to cast his spells, why not you?
I'm all for making patrons matter more, especially mechanically, and as the biggest fan of Irrisen, the winter witch prestige class, and ice magic there ever was, I hope we would get some meager support for that like we got in PF1.
That said, I would be careful with the "dark unknown entity" concept a tad. It's better when it doesn't apply across the board, because while it's a cool theme sometimes you just want to be mysterious and witchy without necessarily being indebted to the Devil or trapped in some kind of hellish occult ritual stock exchange. I'll expect I'll play more than one witch and I don't want to be expecting to pay the dark price for my powers and uncovering the awful truth behind my patron every single time. It would eventually feel very goofy.
Of course, one could argue it could turn out to be positive just as many times as it would negative in story (leaving aside the issue of that single trope alone becoming repetitive over time at a table) but I don't think this is the natural tendency of GMs in a lot of cases, well meaning though most of us may be. Witches may be a kind of inbetween of clerics and wizards but neither core class comes with that much baggage. An option to play a more casual, in control, less-burdened witch should ideally remain open. In this regard patrons are functioning well if only for a lack of mechanics tilting it either way.
I really like the idea of being able to be a primal caster who isn't reliant on wisdom, especially because it makes me not feel like a druid. Primal also covers some broad concepts that aren't necessarily about jiving with nature intuitively (fey alone can kind of throw a wrench in that.) The idea of an int based primal caster or (cha in the case of sorcerer) is just too cool. I definitely don't want to move everything that uses primal towards an animal companion/friend to nature model in any case.
I mean an elven fighter would in theory work just as well, though, right?