The term „extra damage“ is nowhere defined. Is it part
Another thing is to look at what would be the most common classes that would take these Archetypes and then look at what stats they have, the 14/14 is probably easier for them (I foresee people having plenty of 14s in their side-relevant stats, but I'll go make a character or two and see)
It is harder.
I had played two characters in Playtest where this was relevant.
One a dragon Sorcerer with Str/Cha as the "main stats". Of course I pushed Str and Cha with every ability increase, so reaching the precondition "Str 16" was fairly easy.
Str 14/Dex 14 only works if I either run around with Str 14 till L5 (which is pretty awful for the claw attacks!) or choose a different feat and then later retrain to Fighter Dedication (which is sort of hacky). While for this character who is already L6 the issue does not really come up for someone doing a new character like this it is definitely awful.
The second character is a Paladin, who up to now only had Dex 12. Also don't know right now where I take the additional increase to Dex 14 from. Sure, it is possible somehow - but it will be a change "just for the sake of fulfilling the prerequisite".
Just a prerequisite of 16 for the main stat of the Dedication Class would be much easier to fulfill.
Lord Fyre wrote:
For my own group it was like that: We never even considered PF1 as our game system, but after looking at the PF2 Playtest it was immediately clear for us that we'd change from D&D 5e to PF2 (and I do not agree with any ideas that it would be "like 5e". In truth it does most things much different.
We especially like that you are not tied to "fixed sub-classes", but instead can design your character on a "by-feat" basis. We also liked the 3-action-system a lot!
And there seemed much less "overpowered sub-classes" than in 5e (sorry, if this is more PF2 vs. 5e than PF2 vs. PF1, but as I said, for PF1 we never even thought about changing to it - with PF2 we changed to it pretty early in the playtest already).
So in Short: Yes, in the opinion of our group PF2 is better than PF1. By a large measure.
In the Playtest Book it used to be "Str 16 OR Dex 16" for Fighter Dedication (and it was also like this in the Hero Lab Online Character Editor).
Now this seems to have changed to "Str 14, Dex 14" (in Hero Lab Online now Str 14 AND Dex 14).
Was this intended ? I suspect the "," should be an "or", but it is not entirely clear in the book if it is a "and" or an "or".
How is it intended ? As you usually have either a Str-Fighter or a Dex-Fighter I think it makes not much sense to enforce to have to go "both routes".
It is similar for some other "Multiclass Dedications".
After some more playtesting I switched to the +2d4 side ;-)
Also my original calculations had errors. Power Attack (I still think Double Slice is not possible for Claws as they are not weapons "held in hand") needs 2 actions, so the power attack+spell combo is not possible.
And of course my calculation of the 4th level Sorc was wrong - first heightening happens only at lvl 5, not lvl 4. Wrote it up from memory, and wrote it up wrong ;-)
I also noticed that the Wild Druid got 1d6 claws pretty similar to the Sorc Claws, and he got Heal as well - another thing which makes it likely the DPS (Dragon Sorcerer) is supposed to do a slightly higher damage (aka +2d4).
So, end of story: You were right, I was wrong, guys, thanks for the advice ;-)))
I was originally on the "only +1d4" side. But I reconsidered after some play, we play it now as +2d4.
If you check for example the Wild Druid you see he got already 1d6 claws, and that it is the intention to make the sorcerer weaker (who does not have heals) is not likely. The Wild Druids feature actually looks so similar that it's likely the whole damage is supposed to scale... at least I think so now...
As to double slice it says that you're supposed to have two WEAPONS in hand - with Dragon Claws the hands ARE your weapons, you do not have weapons in hands. So myselves (Lvl 4 Dragon Sorcerer right now, with Fighter Multiclass - my mother's (Bronze Dragon) heritage lets me be much stronger than I look ;-) ) I went for Power Attack where there is no requirement that you have the weapon IN HAND.
Have to admit I used the Giant Totem in my example as that's what our Barbarian uses... I agree with you it's terrible, but he just likes going for maxdmg ^^
Yes, Claws+Shocking Grasp only 4x per day. Ourselves, we usually only have 1-2 fights per gaming-day, we play a pretty story-based style.
After reading the answers you are of course right that Lvl 4 comparisions don't cut it (it's what our group plays at, and usually we restart at around lvl 10-12, that's with 5e, hopefully with PF2 the campaigns hold longer, but only time will tell).
Have to think on this (but also hope the officials will clear things up here at one point ^^). Thanks anyways!
What "Style" Archetypes should be in the Core Rulebook? Stalwart Defender? Arcane Trickster? Dinosaur Fort? Summoner? Tactician?
I think whatever should be in, should be something where you have, when you hear the name, a CLEAR idea what this is supposed to be. I already found "Gray Maiden" pretty nothing-saying (and yes, I have this issue with all Archetype-like features of D&D systems). Why not call this archetype "Shieldmaiden", that would be a classical name for a fighting woman in Fantasy (yeah, people might expect "only with sword+board", but that's not what it means). Gray maiden could also mean someone with sort of gray skin ^^
I personally say it should be something as "clear" as Fighter or Paladin or Wizard - else do not make an archetype of it, if you can't even think about what it's role in game is. Something like "Shadow Dancer" is really a bad name (If somecome comes in front of you and says "I am a Shadow Dancer", what do you think ?)
That's all too "computer-gamey".
In the original post, something like "Commander" or "Summoner" are good names, you can fully imagine what this is supposed to mean. "Healer" principially too, but as often Clerics of Healing Gods will represent themselves as "Healers" it is probably not a good name for an archetype. Others can heal too. A bit maybe Summoner has this problem as well.
Already something like "Arcane Trickster" - there is usually nothing "Arcane" in tricking people...
Also I'd say always think of how you BECOME such a person.
Dinosaur Fort is of course completely ridiculous, but I guess it wasn't meant seriously ;-) If actually wanting such a gamestyle (a guy running around with dinosaurs protecting him) I think a good name would be "Dinosaur Tamer" or something like that.
The Diviner is supposed to get a free Divination Spell per Spell Level.
No Lvl 1 Divination Spell for Wizards exists !!!
And on other levels you often have a "choice" of the only Divination spell at that level.
Maybe change the feature that the Divination wizard can also choose divination spells of other classes ?
I thought so at first (@shroudb), but after some more thoughts I disagree it would be underpowered.
A Barbarian (calculating with L4) makes like d12+3+4 Dmg, if he is Giant Barbarian maybe d12+6+4 so avg. 16.5 Dmg. If he goes the Power Attack route, 23 Dmg.
Dragon Sorc L4 with Multiclass Fighter Power Attack:
Claws+Cantrip: 4d4+3+1d8 -> 18 dmg
Yes, if the Barbarian goes Power attack AND attacks two times AND hits despite the -5, he does more damage. But the sorc also has other options and defenses especially (Mirror Images, False Life,...).
With both scaling we would be at 20.5/26/36 Dmg already, and with L5 onward it scales even better...
I fear for some other classes this would be "too strong" in comparision. Sure, you cannot always use 3 Actions for Damage, but still...
And now calculate with a L2 Burning Hands combined, or at L6 with the Dragon Breath Spellpoint feature combined...
Letting both scale in some groups will end up everybody and his neighbour playing a dragon sorcerer... we had such a situation in our 5e group, only Sorcerers and Barbarians left in the end ;-)
Anyways, I definitely think they should clear this up in a future update to make it clear if it's the one or the other!
Captain Morgan wrote:
Agreed. Though I think Dragon Claws is not supposed to be backup option. I think the idea is to do a Dragon Claws + Dmg Spell (or Dragon Breath). Combine this with Multiclass Fighter (Powerful Attack for yet another dragon dice) and you get:
4d4+x (L2 dragon claws + powerful attack) + 3d6 (Burning Hands)
Disadvantage of that being that all your actions are gone then ;-)But that's where Haste comes in if you are L5+ (do the Dragon Claws attack with the hasted action).
Yeah, I guess also with +2d4 the Sorcerer's Damage would scale a bit too well, when the Sorcerer can also do a spell (or Dragon Breath) after the strike.
Is there an official clarification yet, how the "adding a damage die" when Heightening with the Dragon Claws Feature is supposed to work? Is it +1d4 or +2d4 ?
Due to the wording of "They deal 1d4... and 1d4..." I would say it's +2d4 (that's how it was for 5e with the Greatsword which had a damage die of 2d6, but not sure if in Pathfinder this is also how things are usually done...), but I am not sure.
Also as on the heighten to 5th there is only mentioned "The Claws count as +2" while on 3rd also the additional Damage die is mentioned, do you get the additional damage die with every heighten or only once ? (So is at 5th +4d4 dmg, or is it +2d4 dmg... ?)
Interesting idea. I just have two issues:
- what would still be the advantage of playing a non-dabbler class instead of making it a dabbler?
My greatest wish to healing is that it should not be REQUIRED to have a healer. Coming from 5e, most of my groups do NOT have a healer. And it works (other things don't work there, in 5e, in a horrible way ^^). But that one aspect I would like ot keep. If you have a group where nobody enjoys being the healer (or only "Occasionaly") the system should support this.
The Treat Wounds Action (or however it is called) is a step in the right direction, but it is still too much dicing.
- Sort of makes the long rest weak, it should heal more than "treat wounds"
What do you think on "Healer requirement" ?
What you suggest sounds to me a bit like - 5e's way of multiclassing. And let me tell you - it is unredeemably BROKEN. You get Multiclass-combinations (usually characters where the combinations are just "like that" because of a gamemechanical combinaton, NOT because it fits to the story of this character) which are so much broken that no singleclass character will EVER be even remotely similar in "powerlevel". Not half in powerlevel. Not third in powerlevel.
The Multiclassing approach of PF2 was one of the things which I immediately liked on it, one of the thing which made me go "I have to convince my group converting from 5e to PF2". Tomorrow we will have our first PF2 Session ;-)
Have to admit removing Skill-Status from Perception has been one of the things I liked best on the new system. Perception-Skill was always one of the major complaints in our group for ANY system (being D&D, Midgard, Call of the Warlock, whatever...). Sometimes we even included houserules to "remove power from Perception".
As to questions about why someone "would do Skillfocus on a different skill if Perception is so powerful". Simple. Protest against the obvious. One of the players in our group, if something is OBVIOUSLY OVERPOWERED he will NEVER take it. He claims it is boring, it is obvious to take it - that's why he DOESN'T take it.
Also often you don't care for maximum efficiency, but want to do something fitting to your character. Also including Build.
I like the Treat wounds action. Before it existed, a healer basically was mandatory. Most of the parties I played with over the last years (we did not play Pathfinder, but 5e) was without Healer. Nobody in our group likes playing a healer, or if, then occassionaly. I think forcing that "there needs to be a dedicated healer" is bad.
and Treat Wounds fixes this. It basically is the "Short Rest", inofficially. Still I'd think it would be good to get rid of the dice-roll. Rolling dice rince&repeat is boring (pretty sure in my group we will get rid of the dice-roll).
As to "abusing it", maybe an idea is that the persons being healed need to use a Resonance point? (maybe not for a one-time-use, this would be too "heavy" I think, but maybe for 3x or such?)
angeila avalon wrote:
I reply to this from an unusual perspective - that of someone who up to now did not play Pathfinder, but D&D 5e.
In D&D 5e it IS possible to do what you ask for, for Pathfinder 2, there is a caster (Sorcerer) who can cast two spells per round. And it caused the WORST powergaming-nonsense possible, with Sorcerers casting like MGs.
I really really like the rule that casting a spell in PF2 takes 2 actions.
I personally would say though they should go the "full way". Multiattack penalties should apply to ALL attacks in that round, not only the 2nd/3rd attack. Multiattack should not be the default action to do, but only to be done situatively (as I mentioned I played 5e, where some classes have multiattack and some not and it causes the WORST balance-issues at all).
If I actually get my group convinced to switch to Pathfinder 2, I'll definitely include a houserule that multiattack penalties will apply to ALL attacks of that character in that round.
Generally it's one of the rules I like about PF2, that it limits multiattack/multicasting. Makes combat faster and avoids balance issues (have been there, have seen this, greetings from a 5e player and GM ^^).