Wumiao Xue wrote:
"Clue Points" seems a bit awkward to me, but it would simplify things.
But I do really like the idea of using different skills. Making perception check, recall knowledge check, medicine check, deception check, diplomacy check etc...
I mean, you got all these skills. You should have a reason to use them all.
This might take the form of an increasing attack bonus, or an increasing damage bonus, or an increasing debuff (or increasing number of debuffs). Alternatively, one might allow investigators to get benefits from prolonged study by increasing the number of these effects (each round allows them to either add a damage bonus, or an attack bonus, or a debuff).
Yea. I do think investigator would make more sense as a support class would be better. Possibly, each skill check gains it's own bonus, which you can hand out....
Perception Investigation: 1 action
Knowledge Investigation: 1 action
Medical Investigation: 1 action (feat, medic)
Deception Investigation: 1 action (feat)
Diplomacy Investigation: 1 action (feat)
Clue In: 1 action
Big Reveal: Free action.
That seems pretty good. A reason to use all your skills. Given enough time, you can rack up serious serious bonuses against a target. And several decisions on how to use your clues you built up. Do you spend more actions giving out bonuses as soon as you can? Do you spend extra rounds studying to save actions? Or do you keep all the clues to yourself for your own big burst?
IMO the investigator is not different enough from a rogue, and needs something new and unique.
And when I imagine one, I think of the Sherlock movie. Where Sherlock would spend time planning his attacks, before making a move. Thus I imagine a mechanic that does similar. Where you spend actions/turns thinking and building up a bonus, before a big hit. Something like...
Investigate Attack: 1 action.
Critical Success: When you make your next strike against the target before the end of your turn, do not roll a d20. It is automatically a critical success. If you do not strike this turn, you gain a +3 circumstance bonus to your next strike against the target within the next hour.
If you use this against a creature who is not actively fighting, and are relying on secondary clues such as their stance and wear patterns on their armor, you outcome is a degree worse.
I also imagine something similar for out of combat. Where you can "gather clues" towards your case, until you have enough for a "big reveal".
Yes, and no.
Yes, this version should just be a rogue racket. There is not enough to make it different.
No, there should still be an investigator class. It just needs to have more unique features. IMO, it should play more like a bard, or a 4e warlord. With more focus on getting and giving out "clues" (possibly similar to swashbuckler) to others, and less damage.
So looking at the monster builder document, monster AC scales faster than saves (2 or 3 point difference).
This mostly works out since weapons get a +item bonus, while spells do not.
But there are a few spells that target AC. Like ray of frost and polar ray. Meaning that fall -2/3 behind their save counterpart.
So should there be a +item bonus to spell attacks?
Fighter v barb, hard target vs easy target:
High level target.
40% chance to hit, 5% chance to crit
(.4 + .05*2) = 0.5
2d12+4 = 17 * 0.5
So fighter is slightly better against high level targets, but not all that much.
Low level target...
So as I though. Fighter does better against high level targets, barb does better against low level ones.
I just want them to state that shields are weapons, with or without boss/spikes.
Seems pretty clear to me.
"The shield bash is an option only for shields that weren’t designed to be used as weapons."
Shield = not a weapon, but can be used for bashing anyways.
Though I agree that the hardness seems off.
Divine Reflex at 14, gives you a second reaction.
I would much have preferred Create Bonfire.
Though fire whip also sounds cool.
I will say I always expect wizards to start out weak and become super powerful at high levels. because that is how I have always seen it work.
I did some math, and yes.
Casters are still weak at low levels, and still strong at high levels.
Also, fighter and barb seem to deal the same amount of damage. One -hits more, the other hurts more, but the average damage nearly identical. Havn't looked at rogue/monk/ranger yet.
assisted recovery is the same as administer first aid. It will let you get an extra roll, before more damage is delt.
GM can make the extra roll DC 10 if you have extra special. Like water on fire. Or just flat end it, if you submerge fire in water, or healed someone to max HP.
I would personally add expert medicine gets DC 10, master gets DC 5, and legendary can just end it.
Also, nothing stops the whole party from trying every turn. So even a DC 15 won't last long after battle.
Sure. I believe that is the intent. Unfortunately the rules aren't that clear about that. You use the standard craft activity to place a snare. The standard craft activity allows for consumables to be batch crafted with no added time. The only rider is they all have to be finished at the same time.
The standard craft activity takes 4 days. In which you can craft a batch of snares.
The craft snare rules says "1 minute to Craft a snare at its listed Price."
So it provides 3 exceptions...
The other snare feats only apply to the 1 minute (single, full price) snare.
But hey, I'm not your DM, so play how you like.
What time to prepare is required? All of this is doable in mid combat. Also, sure it is craaaazy to allow Jim the Ranger to do these things.
I don't see a snare that is worth 3 actions mid combat. You can do about the same damage just shooting the enemy and not wasting a limited resource.
With Lightning snare, sure. Even if the enemy sees you put it down, if you have a fighter with knockback, shove, Hydraulic Push, or whatever. It's an easy enough to move+shoot+drop snare, and whomever can trigger.
In the base rules, why wouldn't you be allowed to craft them in batches?
"You can spend 1 minute to Craft a snare at its listed Price."
I guess that doesn't prevent you from spending 4 days to craft a batch of 4. But those can't be moved, and I don't think an enemy will wait that long while you set some up outside it's door.
It also says "If you want to Craft a snare at a discount, you must spend downtime as described in the Craft activity". So I guess if you had a lot of time, and no money, you might do it in that way.
The way I read it.
I don't think batches or pre-building snares are allowed in the base rules. Just 1 at a time, craft them where you use them. "A snare is built within a single 5-foot square.. it can’t be moved ... You can spend 1 minute to Craft A snare at its listed Price".
Snare Specialist gives you a free snares per day. They take 3 actions to "craft", all others take 1 minute.
Quick Snare let's you craft any snare in 3 actions. Doesn't really do anything for Snare Specialist which was already 3.
Lighting snare is craft a snare in 1 action. Either a new snare, or your free ones.
I'll just point out that you can go dual flick-mace, with Double Slice and the like.
Also, if you pick up "knockdown" and "improved knockdown" that basically gives you the trip trait and then some. So you can skip the Guisarme at level 4.
Hmm.... well if you have 2/3, that would probably be enough to consider it +1 on average.Considering I gave +1 I gave melee for their semi-easy flat-footed, seems like we should add that in for casters as well.
Though, that still won't change the overall fact that balance was 15 rounds at low level and 30 rounds at high level. Might shift it to 20/40, but it would still be a scaling difference.
The other, bringing up other cantrips' damage, would also be an interesting option, but it's much less simple. You'd need to scale dice up and examine all other side effects... When given the choice between fixing one outlier and bringing everything else up to par with it, houserules aren't really the way to go.
Possibly a better option would be to boost the low level spells. So your crappy cantrip is can be interspersed with big moments.
I mean, burning hands is 2d6 = 7 against probably 2 targets.
Just need to do it in a way that doesn't scale well.
And I'm going to give martial classes +5 speed at some point, to help balance the high end.
Michael Alves wrote:
I just don't want it to be about 3 possible "builds". I want to have some intuitive "builds" that you can make by picking feats related to one "path" thematically, like "picking all demonic servant feats" for example, but still have the freedom to mix things and pick whatever makes more sense to build your own warlock, be that for story reasons or optimization ones, as both are engaging IMO.
Eh... true. My suggestions probably lock in the path a bit too much.Maybe a skill.
Demonoligist: You can use Occultism in place of religion to Recall Knowlege about (celestials, fiends, and undead). +2 bonus to identifying fiends.
Hexer: You can use Occultism to the Identity Magic on any curse. You gain a +2 circumstance bonus when identifying curses.
If they are more potent than animal companions, then they should have a drawback. Like taking damage for each round they are out. Which would be fitting.
I'd also like to point out the Abyssal Pact and Infernal Pact rituals. Not quite sure what to do with them, but seems like they should be an option somehow.
Does the sub-class do anything besides give you an extra feat? I like the flavors, but don't see any real difference.
Does the profane tag do anything? Seems like Manifestation has a few uses, but is there a reason your avoiding "invocation"?
Flourish seems like it should be added to a number of these things. Or probably better, have include the 1/round and 1/target in the Manifestation (or invocation) definition.
Any reason a why not to use the base familiar rules? Or Summon Fiend?
I would remove the Curse Affinity stacking. Either put the features in the base class, or as part of the sub-class.
I would generally structure the curses as
Terrifying Gaze seems like it should boost to Demoralize.
Curse of Slothfulness might be too much.
Profane armour seems like it should just be 3 actions. Profane Protection reduce it to 2 actions.
+1 AC and athletics.
Given Wis/Dex/Con are as 3 saves, you have 1 boost left. You other option is to pump Int or Cha (and feint is melee only).
Note: I'm not saying one is better than the other, just trade-offs.
Overall, I think the heavy crossbow is just a bad weapon design. 1 action is not worth +1 die size.
Martials start out with feats that give two actions for the price of one, or negate MAP. Later they outright get extra reactions, extra actions per turn, and all manner of passive bonuses that all stack with one another. Caster feats don't provide anywhere close to the synergy or power of Martial feats.
I have yet to play high levels, and certainly haven't got though all classes, so don't have a full sense of the system, so maybe marital feats > caster feats. But I don't think so. As Michael said, they generally don't stack and most of those extras are pretty conditional.
So, until I find new evidence (like expected rounds per day, resistances, evasion, ect...), I stand by my initial analysis. Casters start of a bit weaker, and grow a bit stronger. If I am wrong, please show me how so I can learn.
But given this was intentionally the case in early D&D, so it's not surprising to see it remain. I tentatively agree with citricking that level 7 (to 14?) seems to be the "sweet spot". Not sure if the devs intentionally included it, or it was just an artifact of sticking to the tradition, but I'm leaning toward the later.
Still, overall, I would say pf2 is the best balanced D&D game. Better than 5e or 4e (though 4e was was not unbalanced martial/caster, warlords and psionics where too strong).
Michael Alves wrote:
So far, my problem with doing this is that we still have no community consensus of what are the best builds, feats or anything. So it is hard to call something optimized when we don't have anything to compare it to. But we need to start somewhere I think.
It's almost as if they actually ran all the numbers before releasing the product.
Though it starting to seem to me like casters are worse than martials at low level, and better at high level. No where near as lopsided as previous edition, but still there.
For instance, if 2d6/spell level is equal to a fighter damage. But casters start with 15' cone, then a 20' burst, then a 60' cone, then 60' burst, then 4x40' burst. Equal damage, but hitting more people.
So my current balance suggestion are..
I also forgot focus spells...
Dragon Barbarian 5, using swipe with a Guisarme, 2 targets.
Level 5 arcane caster using a level 3/2/1 multi-target spell. Which they can do 3 times per day.
(16.275 + 10.85)*3 + 14 + 8.9 * R = 15.2 * R
So casters deal more damage if there are only 15 rounds of combat in a day (and 4 rests). And will still have level 1 spells.
Compared to 30 for higher levels.. Are low level days shorter than high level days?
Side discovery, spell slots scale faster than weapons, focus spells scale slower than weapons (maybe?)
Michael Alves wrote:
The math i did for AOE was for two targets not four, and Mellored did for 3 targets, by his numbers a barbarian and a Wizard would be tied for 2 targets more or less.
I assumed 2 targets for the barbarian (sweep + reach weapon), and 2 targets for the wizard. Seems like a good middle ground between blowing up 10 mooks, vs chopping down a boss.
That said, I did not factor in flat-footed, which is much easier to get in melee. So I should probably give the barb +1 more to hit.
And since everyone is saying the issue is at low level, I'll eventually run the numbers again at level 5....
If a creature decided to deal no damage, then maybe you should try talking to them.
A bow ranger does 3d8+2+3 = 18.5 damage.Vs the barbs 3d10+5+3+8 = 32.5.
A fair bit less damage.
100' range is still very good though.
I was going off the charts posted in the original post. With the barb effectively having an extra 2 points "to-hit".
But the spells half damage on a "miss" more than makes up for it. And that is multiplied by just flat higher damage.
And remember that a barb of the same level has items to balance his to hit compared to the blaster. And also a level 13 barb will have at least one damage rune so at least 1d6 extra per target...
True. But I am already giving the barbarian more than I am giving casters. Like they should have an wand of Chain Lighting.
Just to point out i am disagreeing with the way you calculated it, not with the point overall. I do believe even if the mages do less damage their sheer utility, variety, ability to hit from distance compensates for it.
If mages use all their spells to blast, they don't have much left for utility.Not saying blasting is the best option, but it's the easiest way to compare.
To find the balance point...
(64+52+42+28)*3*0.775 + R * (22.5 * .775) = 12*(32.5 * .7)+ R*(32.5 * .7)
So 30 rounds of combat before barbarian beats the blaster.
Assuming 4 rounds * 3 encounters per day....
Dragon Barbarian 13, using swipe with a Guisarme to help normalize multi-target damage.
Level 13 arcane caster using a level 7/6/5/4 multi-target spell. Which they can do 3 times per day (likely hitting more than 2 targets).
So yea. Blaster does 58.4% more damage than a barb. And still has the level 3/2/1 spells for utility. Casters easily win.
Let's try 5 round * 3 encounters (15 rounds of combat) a day.
So at 15 rounds a day, blasters still win with 42% more damage.