SteelGuts's page

Organized Play Member. 262 posts (263 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 262 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I saw a lot of comments of wanting to have an easier game, and maybe I articulated my ideas poorly. I want a game where heroes feels more heroic.

I saw a Cleric in 5E use Channel Divinity to fear 3 undeads, raised a fallen ally and kill a monster with his hammer the same round at level 2. The value of the round was just amazing. He died like a dog on a Hobgoblin crit.

I saw a Mutagen Alchemist Barbarian in PF1 rekt an hard difficulty encounter in one round by himself. He died the last fight with a failed save on Hold Person and Coup de Grace.

In PF2 I saw a Divine Sorcerer spam heal because it is the best value, a Druid with a useless familiar, an Alchemist without any power and a Barbarian missing 70% of his hits against same level opponents.

These are a few examples of 15 years of RPG and almost 7 of Pathfinder 1 and 3 of 5e. I swear to god that players felt more heroic in Warhammer RPG playing Docker and Scribe than in PF2. Or in Shadow of the Demon Lord. Or in L5R. Games where anything can OS you all the time, when you can become mad or corrupted or commit suicide.

We had at least 5 TPKs over the years. And 3 deaths on Rise of the Runelords and 5 in Jade Regent. 3 in Curse of Stradh.

And despite all of that they felt heroics in all these games. It was grindy, sometimes grim, hard, tough. But they felt like heroes. In PF2 they felt like blind weaklings that miss more than 50% of what they do.

Difficulty and having the feeling of accomplish something are not the same thing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You are all maiming very good point. Maybe it is just not a game for us anymore. I liked the fact that in PF1 there is a point where you start to be able to force your build almost everywhere, because you are that strong.

I think a lot of things that are intended in PF2 are not for us. My Figther wants to multi attack each turn, just like in PF1. We struggle and dislike some core changes that makes indeed the two games very different.

But you make a good point Unicore, maybe using optional rules like free feats could help us out. I mean you saw how much we played with a game we have difficulties with, we want to keep up with Paizo, it is just not our cup of tea in this iteration sadly. Maybe using optional and homebrew rules is a solution.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh no I do get guys that the game is very level dependent. Of course we can turned the levels down by 1 or 2, use less unique monsters (with bigger levels) and the like. It is just that we found that to be not quite fun as 5e or PF1.

No matter how you look at it, stacking debuffs to be able to hit, or having the base precision for a same level being around 50% for a same level monster unless you are a Figther, is, in our opinion, not fun. When you play 5e levels and CR are guidelines. When you play PF1 the entire focus of your development is to choose something (like Illusion spells, or Power Attack, or Bow, or Smite Evil or Grapple) and becoming so good at it that at one point you stop failing it unless you face a hard counter. In both there is either a sense of roleplay, you can hurt the dragon even if you are weaker, or gameplay progression, your gimmick will hit, no matter what.

And then you got PF2, Where level is everything, wehere casters are lacking core mechanics to hit, and where we think that having monsters hit more often and spamming True Strike and Inrimidate check to decrease AC is fun.

For example, why the Figther is legendary with weapons and everyone else master, but almost all casters can go to legendary in spells DC? It is because they lack the potency bonuses from the runes. And the truth is that the Magus felt weak in playtest because à Magus équivalent from PF1 would finished Legendary in both to hit and spells DC, but if you do that in PF2 you got instant bloat.

And I am sorry to say that there were never that much critics over the weakness of magic, or even the martial caster disparity, in PF1. Wizard are weak. Clerics are glorified healbot. Sorcerer are meh. Alchemists are a failure compared to PF1 (where it was one of the funniest class). Magus will be bad.

Just pick a class from core like Cleric. Make a Cleric level 4-5 and compare that with what a Cleric from 5e or a Cleric or Warpriest from PF1 can do. In terms of impact, action economy, tankyness, burst magic, buffs and removal. And come back telling me that the cleric is fine. Now do the same for the Wizard, it almost hurt me because the gap is so stupidly big.

They overnerfed accuracy as whole, and even more casters. And I think I am not the only one being sad about it. It is not a rant for the pleasure of it, it is truly a pain for us to not play PF again. But we disagree that being a crippled cut in half debuffing stacking,machine is fun when we want to play heroes. Even more when I almost TPK the group iw almost each boss. Because the Martials charge and take a three attacks sequences. Because kitting and stacking debuff is not fun.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I know my group and I stoped playing PF2 for many reasons, despite our hype at first. The fact that spell casting is utter trash was the main reason, in a quite long list.
- Wizard sucks. Alchemists too. In fact the only class in Core that did not suck is Figther.
- Divine spell list is trash. You are a healbot or a troll.
- Profiencies bonuses are all over the place, unfair to casters, just like potency bonuses.
- But the magic stilll feels strong when used by the DM because the monsters in the AP are higher level, so a fireball by a NPC feels terrifying but from your PC it feels so underwhelming. So so so underwhelming.

I see a lot of complaints on the Magic system, and people who respond with maths and True Strike. And I am baffled. They say they got the feeling that their characters suck and people answer: well statically not that much but try to cast spell with True Strike ans on flat footed ennemies. What kind of game design is that? There is a glaring issue with the core principle of PF2 I believe. And we played the first module, the first three volumes of the first AP and two homebrew scenarios from 1-7 and 11-14. But nothing to do.

- Spellcasting is terrible. From a maths, and fun, and a class balance point of view.
- Skills are unbalanced.
- Martials that are not Figthers miss way to often. I don’t care if they should attack only one or only when they got five debuff on the monster. Missing 50% of the time feels bad.
-Monsters are more fun to 0lzy than PCs..’’ Because they hit.

In PF1 you have control on what your character does. In 5e you got flavor on what your character does. In PF2 you either play Figther (and multiclassing in you want some utility like Invisibility) or you suck. That is not how you fix the so called martial caster disparency (which was never a problem in a group game by the way. I dunno how people complaining about that played PF1, but good luck finishing an AP in PF1 without some dedicated martial damage dealer in the group)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We stopped to play to PF2 after the third volume of the first AP and a few homebrew sessions (1-7). A lots of it has to do with fundamental design choices. So my tier list.

1. Fighter: God of the game. Also can hit ennemies so it is fun.
2. Champion: Does not die in one shot in a game where every boss is going to OS you.
3. All Martials: Because they can hit foes sometimes and even do damage.
4. Bard: Because you boost Martial and debuff foes and heal a bit.
5. Healbot: Wait no Cleric is the name. More on that later. You keep the Figthers alive.
6. Rogue/Investigator/Alchemyst: Congratulations you are almost a martial and you are good at skills.
7. Spellcasters: if Not Bard or Healbot you are trolling your party.
8. Wizard: Because we want you to feel bad for 20 years of game design.
9. Cleric that is not an healbot: congratulations you play the worst thing in the game.

Ok so we can observe that we are disappointed with the game. Because not hitting and gettin one shot is tiresome, and magic is just gone unless you are a glorified support for the Figther. Having an hard time hit three or even two times in a round is not fun. Incapacitation trait is not fun.

So go Figther Fighter Champion Bard/Healbot and enjoy a bit the game. Or go under 0HP’often and stack -1 to the boss with your third action or your entire turn (spellcasters yeah!)

Yes we are disappointed overall. Except the DM, because all the things that concerned the DM are wonderfull (monsters buildings, treasures, etc...). I will not even speak about the Divine spell list or I will be rude.

Monster creation is hands down the best part of PF2. I got pro and cons all over the place, but the creation is just plains perfect. I created 6 monsters from level 3 to 6 including one boss (spellcaster!) in one hour yesterday. They were all balanced and fun to play and play against.

I think since we started my campaign PF2 I used four monsters from the Bestiary and created all the other.

I made a Aspis Consortium Thug, Inexperienced Nimarthas Ranger, a Cheliaxian Infernal Magistrate/Boutny Hunter and finally Borzlo the Ebonnight, à kind of Sylvan Graveknight who looks so metal he could be an album cover from the 90’s.

So far perfect.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A lots of people are pointing out Bowman or Multiclass as viable builds, but I am not convinced that what people got in mind when they go for a Rogue Scoundrel who got a bonus in Feint is a Bowman or a Spellcaster, but more of a Han Solo, Jarlaxe, Dartagnan vibe. To be honest, a lots of people probably got the Swashbuckler class in mind, in a world where is does not exist.

Same as the Warpriest calls for a Warpriest, with strong weapon proficiencies, and the Mutagenist to Mr Hyde or Mundo or Frankenstein Monster.

Yet some of these subclasses are either underperforming, or working for specific builds way harder to make, or not responding to what is, in my opinion, the core assumptions surrounding their names.

So te remedy for that, news feats specifically tailored towards theses rackets or doctrines or whatever could be nice, and some of them could really mechanically use them.

Secondly this game is supposed to be easier for making a good character from and reducing the impact of system mastery from PF1. I don’t agree that Scoundrel does that as for now. And I would also like to point out that Archetype should not be considered as a for to build for a “main choice” of a class.

Thirdly my message was more about warning people about being dismissive of complaints and feedback on the game than discussing the strength of the subclasse.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that the OP message is that we need more feint and feat for Scoundrel, because it is by far the worst option of the three. The two other ones are fine, but this one needs an upgrade in feat specific.

I also would like to point that the OP got every right to complain about this issue, and that while a lots of people here are trying to help and come up with discussions and solutions, a few were really quick to shut him down. That is not a correct thing to do. We all love this game, and complaining about issue that you are thinking are core problèmes of the system is not just venting, but also trying to bring the problem to light.

You got the right to raise what you think is an issue with the game, specifically if some dev get to read your post. He is also right that Scoundrel should not just be team dépendant, because the other two are so much better that there is indeed here a balance problem. Scoundrel needs a buff, just like Alchemyst who are not bombers do, just like the Warpriest do.

Some options are, as of now, underperforming or requiring way more knowledges of system or specific team to shine. I think one of the fundamental of PF2 was to avoid to do a bad character. So far it is a failure for a few of the Core options.

These options should have more meat to their bones. By speaking about it, we might make the dev consider it. So please, let’s all be more respectful. If a player find his experience with the game terrible, even if it is subclasse dépendent, team comp dépendant or whatever else, we should give him an ear. Might improve the game in the long run.

I always says, as long as there is a knowledge check, if the level of the monster is equal, inferior or superior. Even if the KC is a failure. For me it is the “action tax” to be able to have an idea on the level of the monster. After that I can give other informations depending on the check, but Iwill very rarely give the exact level, just equal over or under.

Except for Battle Assesment from the Rogue, à critical sucess on the knowledge check or some Divination shenanigans. However I will always try to make some roleplay happens at the same time: “As you look at his posture, he screams En Garde! And fiery runes appears on his blade. He’s got a witty smile on his face and does not seem to fear the fact that he is alone!” Clearly, he is from a superior level!

And finally juste a piece of advice but I use Society for monsters knowledge on NPCs (is that a Cleric or a Wizard, what Kind of Martial schools are the guard, ...) Works well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

- A bender class. You can tell me that Kinetecist was kind of that, but not really no. Not enough. I want an hybrid monk/kinetiecist martial elemental classe, not a Monk with a few elemental strikes or a Kinetecist who can flurry sometimes, but a true full fledged avatar bender.

- A time class. Make it a time thief, a Chronomancer, a time watcher, whatever. But give us a true real time class. Who an remake action with reactions, or switch dice results, or maybe even kind of the narration, in very specific scenarios.

- A Dragon class. Either to play a Dragon, the monster, or a true Dragon Rider. You start at one with a young drake, and you go full adult dragon at 20.

- An Harrow Class. Like the early Medium. A complex, tactic, harrow classe you can play like a Medium from a Vampire Novel, or like Gambit from the X-Men, choose your « Major Card » and pick a card, any card.

- A planar guy. Someone who take powers from the Planes and use them, with alignment restrictions or focus on some planes in particular.

- A Warlock. Like in 3.5 or 5E. Or maybe not a Warlock but at least an at will magic user who is not the kinetecist (because we would have a Bender!!!). Gimme that Sidious feels. Spam a lot, spam with passion, spam with strength, spam at will.

- A kill it, eat it or wear it, become it kind of class. The trophy big game hunter one. Kinda like a mix between a Ranger, a Shifter and Boba Fett. Where you try to kill and use what you kill to do amazing things, like an armor in Monster Hunter, or a power or spell that the type of creature were able to use, or the knowledges of your prey.

- An astrologist class. You got a lots of things in the stars of Golarion. From old empires to Starfinder to Cthulhu to Desna to whatever. I think there is enough room in design spaces here to do more than a bloodline or Wizard sub school. Maybe you choose a constellation, or a star wanderer? You got spells and they are better at night or day? Dunno, but something to consider.

- I know this is stupid, but I would really like a class that is true support, got no direct combat ability at all or almost, and who is kind like an Archivist from Diablo or a Lawyer from Cheliax or an Erudite like Da Vinci or Flamel. Without spells, maybe a bit of magic but from a contract, pact, law of the man or philosophical beliefs. Like a Rahadoumi Philosopher, à Cheliax Lawyer, a Mwangi Sage. A Sage class basically. Like the Expert wnPC, but better and for player.

And thit is enough for today ^^

We had an Alchemist for 4 levels, a bomber, and got a lots of fun with him. Way more than the Divine Sorceress. Did a few very good hit, always having the good weakness to target (being very knowledgeable), skill monkey, a lots of buffs and prebuff (Darkision, Cheetah, à few poisoned bolt).

We also had a Rogue MC Alchemist, was really fun too. Seems to be a very usefully MC archetype.

However, DM have to let access to ALL recipes from Archyves of Nethys to have maximum range of abilities, and if it is not Bomber or a MC, it sucks. Chirurgien and Mutagenic are just trash tier for now I think.

I think you should do an homebrew heritage or feat for that kind of things, with something like Blindsense, or very accurate hearing and tasting. Something that does not disturb combat at all in close range, even maybe better for scouting and the like, but that make the character useless after 30ft range.

Items: Runes for Spells Attack Rolls and DCs.

Multiclassing: A way to obtain Master Proficiency in a Weapon. Maybe only one, or not an advanced, or some other limitations like onf the favored divinity one, but still, master proficiency just like the casters MC.

These are my « numerical » propositions.


Elemental Mastery (Metamagic, Elemental) (Wizard, Sorcerer Primal, Druids)
You can change the type of elemental dammage your spells is supposed to make. Like cold instead of fire on a fireball. Maybe you choose one element when you pick the feat, or maybe you can do it a few times a day but with whatever elements.

Precise Spell (Metamagy, Fortune) (All)
You next Attack spell you use two d20 and keep the best result, this is a Fortune effect.
Maybe a few times a day, and yes it is basically True Strike on Metamagy if they don’t give runes.

Debilitating Spell (Metamagy, Mental) (Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer)
Once a day, your next spell loose the Incapacitation Trait.

Shadow Spell (Metamagy, Evocation)
As long as the spell is in effet, you drop the level of luminosity in the area. If the spell only got one target, the target is surrounded by a by this effect that follow her. Can be countered by light effect.

Chronomancer Thesis (Wizard)
As the master of time, you become trained in Occultism. Everytime you get the Slowed condition, your reduce it by 1. (Or you can prepare your spell from your book in one minute, not sure which one is the thesis and which one is the feat). You gain the Borrowed Time Focus Spell

Borrowed Times (one, two or three actions)
You gave the quickened condition to one reature of your choice for one round, for each actions you use to cast the spell. You can cast it only with on action at level 1.

Heightened 2+: You can cast this spell with one more action, to quickened another creature for one round.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We houseruled a feat for that, the Monk can pick one weapon of his choice with Monastic Weaponry, but only one. Worked so far, and did not seems too overpowered compared to certain stances. We got a Gebbite Monk who wield a Scythe and is planning to go Staff Master.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

First of all I am sorry if I seem rude to people or Paizo. I’ve got a very familiar English, and I lack nuance so it is not in the purpose to insult anyone.

Secondly, I think the answer of Ruzza or TSRodriguez show that we can meet some common ground on what the casters can become. Maybe it just need time for me to be in a state that I can enjoy more. And accept that I dislike the Divine list.

Finally I did not try the Storm Druid, we only saw a Polymorph one, but he felt really fine. He had a statut bonus I think on polymorphie? Companions seems balanced this time, so they are still decent choice, not broken. Familiar are meh but the whole plant things seems to have decent, useful, and thematic feats. Finally for Storm I like the Master of the Elements vibe, the versatility of the Primal list and the few shenanigans they can have with concealed and conditions like that. Plus shield block, good skills, good theme, and few nice feats. Yeah Druids seems fine. Bards are good, at least on paper got yet to have one. I dislike the new Clerics, but it seems to be on me, Sorcerers (depending on the bloodline) and Wizards however have the short end of the stick I think from a game design perspective.

One think I am afraid make people like me vocal on the subject is that it feel sometimes less like balance, and more like a punishment for being the OP classes for 20 years. But by being over cautious, I find the nerf bat to have hit too hard. At the price of fun.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Druids are fine, Bards are good, I am sure we can fine a middle ground between God tier in PF1 and Wizard in PF2. I think 5E got it right, Concentration making it a very reliable way to limit the power creep while having strong effects.

And if you want solutions:
- Runes for Spell Attacks and DCs
- More Spells Slots
- More action variety for casters
- Better Divine Spell list.
- Strong and thematic and flavorful feats for the classes, like Bards Muse.
- More spells.
- The possibility to specialize in one field of magic, being your school, or god magic or whatever and have numerical bonuses in it, like the polymorph from the Druid. Maybe locking the other options in the same time, to really be specialized.
- Better focus spells.
- The possibility to grab Mastery profiency in weapons from somewhere, just like the Martials can do with a MC caster in spells. That is so unfair and gimp the Gish thing or the Warpriest.
- Better oroficiencies in other things than magic but relevant (lore skills, weapons and armors, special uses of magical items, knowledge feat that increase combat effectiveness like the ranger...)

I don’t know, maybe Warpriest could use their attack spell on melee? Maybe the Wizard can have a statut bonus in his school of predilection, and a malus in the other ones? Maybe the Sorcerer can use Charisma in his will save? Maybe the Wizard get free Lore skills? Maybe their is a Weapon Master archétype who give you Master profiency in only one weapon, not even a weapon type. Maybe you can make a boss reroll a save, or remove once a day the incapacitation trait with a metamagic feat? Maybe the Sorcerer have free slots for his bloodline spells? I don’t know, I think people at Paizo and here can be creative, and that we can figure out ways to increase the performance of casters whitout entering god altering reality territory.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TSRodriguez wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

So let's get things straight here.

A 5th level wizard casting the 2nd-level Acid Arrow is equivalent to a ranged fighter. With True Strike, they nearly double the damage of that fighter.
A 5th level wizard casting the 3rd-level Fireball against 3 enemies of the same level + using Force Bolt/cantrips will output the same damage as the optimized dragon barbarian with a greatsword over two turns.
This is basically the worst level for a wizard to compare to a martial.

How strong do they have to be before you're satisfied?
How will that not outshine everyone else in the party (again)?

It's pointless, there is no learning purpose here, only ranting.

>If AOE spells are good; Nah, the attack spells are the bad ones. I dont want to use only AOE
>Use true strike; Nah, expending every slot on true strike is bad design.
>Actually the damage is not that inferior to the fighter, and in some situations, even higher; Nah, useless class, ruined and everyone has abilities and feats, while the wizards only have spells that miss.

It's incredible, frankly, how everything goes back in a circle in this thread.

Yes we don’t want to do only AoE. Yes using consistently True Strike is bad design. I hear the last one though. Still it feels less cool than before, but you can’t put number on it.

But I am guessing what you want me to say is: sorry to find the Wizard for the first time in 15 years boring? So yes I can not play Wizard or a lots of other casters, or I can also give my opinion on the dedicated post on the forums.

And I heard the math explanation from Cyouni, and it seems that indeed damages are better than what we felt like during our game. But I think it should be the case more constitently because your spell slots are not infinite like a Strike, even more with True Strike taxe to have got chance to hit. When you ressource is finite, it should always feels more impactful, than when it is not. That what he had in prior editions, because you were able to make almost always succeed what you specialized in. Now, for casters at least, not so much. Specially against bosses.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Ruzza: We had if my memory are correct, a Frigthened 1 from a Warrior Intimidate check, a +1 from Guidance and maybe another +1 from another source. Not sure about the last one. We did average check, like 11-13 on the final boss of Plaguestone, was not enough. And she succed all her save checks easily against CC, and I did not pick a lots of effect even on fail because I was not as aware as I am now about how save worked.


Ok now compare that to 5e or PF1.

What a Cleric, an Inquisitor or a Warpriest (espcially the last one can do compare to the PF2 Warpriest): Hit reliabily with Bull Strenght and Divine Favor and Bless and a multiple of other numerical buffs. Use Immobilize Personn (and increase that DC with whatever) and Coup de Grace. Use for evil one strong negative energy channeling through the weapon. Have a tons of strong Domains/Inquisitions, some of them way stronger than a lots of flavorfull but weak domains now. They can also become really good at melee or range, use WIS for attack on some weapons with divine styles, and have a very very very flexible spell list, way more than now. Buff with Evangelist like a Bard. Gains more spells from other list than now (one for each level of spell). Use subdomains. Make stat B used stat A with whatever shenanigans to use your best stat.

In 5e:
A cleric can be a beast at AC, use Guding Bolt for good blasting and buff in the same spell, use a very powerfull Bless spell on the whole group, and cure all afflictions with only one spell. Cleric is with Bard probably one of the strongest 5e Class. They can have Counterspell, Invisiblity and Fireball depending on their domains. You want to really see the differences between a cleric in robe and a warpriest? Look at the Domains in 5e.

So you are going to tell me, and that would be adequate, than you have to compare Cleric from PF2 to other class in the same system. And now you watch a Fighter, and you heal. The Heal thing is not even a joke, the spell is one of the best in PF2, so good in fact and versatile that Healing is probably going to be one of the best value you can get from a spell slot. That, and the fact that you go from okayish to bad at anything else, make de facto the Cleric a healbot. You can of course, always try other things. But you will probably be always less likely to succed with the same panache as a cleric from PF1 or 5e. And your martials mates will probably succed more.

The equivalent of middle attack bonus (Inquisitor, Magucs,...) being Expert in PF2 is I my opinion not enough because you lack the sheer number of numerical buffs theses classes had. And why a Muticlass Archetype can bring you to Master with spells, but not Master with Weapon? Seems very unfair, again.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

Everyone degraded the Alchemist from the playtest on, and Jason responded by writing Fall of Plaguestone, showing exactly how powerful a bunch of alchemists can be in world working together.

How long before we get a very challenging module or AP chapter where the party is fighting an entire wizard enclave?

SPOILER Alert: They are going to hit with their spells, because they will probably outlevel the group and have busted spell attack. Because they are monsters with more levels than the players.

The other way around will not work, they would probably only get Fear 1. But at least the Cleric will have the opportunity to try to remove the condition x)

Trolling aside, I think that the system protect a lots of big boss from save or suck, but is particualry hard on the players. Wich means that in a meaningfull encounter, yes, the boss Necromancer could kill you in one deadly spell, as you would just make him bleed from his nose. Yes it is balanced, but it is not fun.

If spells are not going to be strong anymore, and that martials are fun, intuitive, strong, and thematic, at least go wild on the focus spells and classe feats for the Casters.

A good example for me of well built casters are the Druid and the Bard. Druids can have a pet, polymorph bonus or survival specialization. Bard have some of the best skill economy in the game, and they can always use what they are great at to do other things.

Clerics can heal and be subpar at everything else. Sorcerers and Wizard can...? Cast spells? Sometimes quietly? Maybe even once or twice in a campaign use a counterspell? Have a (...) familiar?

When I saw PF2 I was so hyped about the Sorcerer able to have different spell list. So in Plaguestone I played a noble girl from Cheliax, with the Infernal Pact. I was representing my character as throwing Hellfire on people, and use Charm and Suggestion on important NPCs. Well, I used heal, Guidance, and failed my Incapacitation Charms.

Next adventure, now I am playing a Gnome Ranger. Well I can tell you the difference is painfull for the Sorcerer. Same goes for our Wizard Dwarf from Plaguestone, a friend of mine, who now play Human Barbarian. So yes it is personnal experiences, but still.

I remember my Mesmerist from PF1 Reign of Winter or my Cleric from Curse of Stradh 5e, and my Sorceress felt miserable.

Our Bard feels ok, but he is a skill monkey before being a caster, and skills are strong now.

We have a 36 pages long post on the forums about the subject of Wizard, and maybe even Spells, being weak. In maths, or in flavor, or both. That is probably indicate an issue somewhere. Even if we disagree on the solutions.

As a quick fix, I decided at my table to give the potency bonus from runes to the casters (between +1 and +3 like the martials) to attacks, and to add a Power Rune (same prices/level than a potency rune) who add +1-+3 to the DC of spells.

So fa we are at the +1 DC and attack and it seems to improve the feeling without getting broken, we will see in the higher levels. I am considering removing the Incapcitation Trait, but I restrained myself so far, following some advices other forum users gave me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Donovan gets my point and present it with better nuance. I was just pointing out that in a lots of ways, Wizard is not fun anymore. They seem underpowered for the first time in 20 years, and even more in comparaison to the other classes, even the casters ones in PF2.

On top of that a lots of spells are nerfed or just plain bad. It make me sad to see that they streamlined the spell list but you still got three different spell for Curse/Disease/Poison. A simple overcast Restoration would have worked, it increase even more the healbot Divine list. Save or suck are finish. And it sucks out a great deal of the fun of playing a casters, big buffs are nerf like haste, things that were useful for the martials too.

You lack diversity (of course it is only Core book, I know, but still the lack of diversity feels real to our group) when you used to go Chronomancer Transmutater with a subschool.

Now the Martials feel amazing. Fighter is just awesome, Monk too. Casters, and especially Wizard (but I will even add Sorcerers and Clerics here) were overnerfed like they deserved it for being powerfull during 20 years of DND. And it is an issue when no one wants to go caster at your table. Or when you cant’t achieve the fantasy you got in mind for your character. Battle Mage specialized in Evocation should be stronger at Evocation than it is now.

In PF1 Martials got big moment when they were buffed, and shred that boss with a full attack or a insane critical. Casters got they clutch plays and their big save DC where they turn someone into stone. Now we got Martials with even more utility, and a caster that get to Fear 1 a boss. That is so underwhelming.

The nerf was too hard. The options are not enough. Some spelllist urgently deserve new spells, strong ones. And the math of the system, sir far, are better for the Martials than caster in think. No, casting True Strike should not be your default before an attack spell. Or you should have more spells.

Pathfinder 2 is a very good game, more particularly for the DM and the ease of predation, shenanigans and the like. But so far, except Bard and Druid, caster feel like a failure for me. We need quickly more options. And strong ones.

Cyouni wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:

Did the casters were overnerfed? Yes. As soon as the monster is lvl+2, they are useless, un less they buff (which feels, and I insist on feeling and not rulewise) weaker than before, or cast Fear. Or whatever the two others goods spells are.


I literally demonstrated that as a level 5 wizard against an enemy of level+2, a 2nd level slot deals more damage than a ranged fighter.

With true strike/hero point, it approaches double damage.

So I'm going to continue to call utterly incorrect statements like this out.

I was more referring to save or suck spell than attack one. As for attack, I am sorry I miss your demonstration if you disprove my point I will trust your math. But save or suck essentially suck against 2+.

However I do not consider than True Strike ou a Fortune point should be even a factor in this equation. True Strike should not be a necessary buff to do anything. In fact the way people tell True Strike like remind me a lot of tax feat in PF1, but this time a spell tax.

Finally I want to as you guys this: I think it is fair to assume that a lots of players here play DND or a version of since a good time now. 15 years for me and my group. Beyond the maths, when the guy who is a go to caster from BG2 to 5E say my Wizard feel boring, And that this comment is heard in other post or people, people who have a long history to play caster, from rpg to video games, maybe we can give a pause and consider what they re saying? Because a lots of people thinks the Wizard, as of right now, is boring, weak, underspecialized and does not answer well to the thematic of his class.

That is something worth considering, even if you disagree.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Should a Wizard who decided to be a blaster should make as much dammage as a Figther? Yes. He will be limited by spellslot anyway, but for these few spells, he should hit AT LEAST as good as a Fighter, maybe even more.

Did the casters were overnerfed? Yes. As soon as the monster is lvl+2, they are useless, un less they buff (which feels, and I insist on feeling and not rulewise) weaker than before, or cast Fear. Or whatever the two others goods spells are.

Were save or suck too powerfull before? Yes, after some times, maybe in certain builds. Are they more fun now? It depends on perception, but I and a lots of other players prefer to hit 7 times out of 10, and do nothing the rest of the time, than doing your max potential 2 out of ten times.

Was there really a martial/caster disparency? Yes of course, in terms of raw power on the game world. But almost all casters in PF1 were buffbot who transformed the Figthers and Rogues in murder machines. Si being OP when you allow the other to become god, seems good for me in a team game. And I would like to remember what the first levels of Wizard felt like, dying on a rat.

Now martials are even better than before, and cooler, and stronger and more versatile. And casters... range from weak, too (in my opinion) less fun than before. Magic Missile? Boring. Guidance? Meeeh. Incapacitation? Come on!

Now on each casters. Druids are fine, because they are thematic, pets and polymorph spells are decent, and the primal list is good. Bard are very strong, because +1 is strong in this system. Clerics are... healbots, because we don’t like evil gods. But at least they are good healbot, even if the spell list if so so bad (PF1: Divine Favor, 5E:Guiding Bolt, PF2: Heal, yeeeah!)

Sorcerers are trash. So many bloodlines are underwhelming. But at least some of them are almost decent, and they got the opportunity to grasp the fantasy of their characters.

Wizard are jut awful. Way worse than Alchemists. They are not the master of magic, they are not the Scholars of old lore with 2 skills, and you wonder in that kind of universe how so many of them became that influent when they have to cast True Strike of make a strong opponent critically fail is save. Damn Geb and Nex and Jatembe feel like jokes now. The schools and specialities are not defined enough, their proficiencies are too low, the spells are meh and they can have a useless familiar who functions like a pearl of power.

Nah casters need a buff. Too much nerf. We are starting a new homebrew campaign and none of my players want to play a caster anymore -_- Damn we miss 6th caster buffer.

And yes I like PF2, but I hate that the nerf staff hit so hard. Because for me it is the definition of more balance less fun.

Ok thanks to all of you and James for the clarification. So we got three big categories, one main family for each alignment and finally all the other ones that gravitate around the t3 categories.

And Kyoto’s are already here? Got to grab them, they are one of my favorite family of plannars. Zon Kuthon and Co are my go to when I want a fear/horror atmosphere.

Oh right thanks for this one.

Hey guys,

I'm planning a campaign within the Planes, and I wanted to be sure to be in synch with the lore of extraplannars in PF2, because a lots of ancients extraplanars seem to be united under a fewer families of extraplannars.

So is this list correct?

LG: Archon
LN: Aeon
LE: Devil

NG: Angel
N: ??
NE: Daemons

CB: Azatas
CN: Proteans
CE: Demons

And I'm guessing some subcategories are their own things, like Rakshasas or Asura and Oni?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Making a rapid chariot with Phantom Steed and Disk seems not overpowered for me but a clever combo of spells that make for a really good scene. This is exactly the kind of things that should not get nerf. And your Bowmaster can go on top of it and be the king of the world.

As for Possession that OS a Dragon at level 10, don’t forget than à proper buff well built martial at the same level can do the same in one full attack. So really it is not such a large disparency.

Too much nerf, from clever use of spells to utilitarian magic to very strong spell, to less accurate spells to boss immune to a lots of spells except the ones that are going to be taken each time by each character (Slow, Fear...)

The state of casters is disapointing. Even more for Wizards, as I think that Bards and Druids have really good feats, Sorcerer are meh but they got better spells and thematic roleplay, and Clerics are good healers.

If we take another example, people used to pick Half-Elf and get the Ancient Elf Heritage with Elf Atavism. While RAW there was no issue whatsoever, dev said that the fact that Elf Atavism was written in a way that prevented Half-Elf to pick it.

And there are no real age number for the feat or the heritage, it is just « flavor » text that prevents Half-Elf to be Ancient Elf.

So « flavor » text should no be underused, because in a lots of way they seems to be RAW as swell as RAI. However here, the two texts don’t tell the same things so I guess it is GM choice until we got an official errata.

Just pick one, and don’t forget it work the same way for the monsters and NPCs and balancing will probably be good.

But we should not really underestimate the value of flavor text in PF2 I believe.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:

Ok so first post:

Quick Fix that worked for us for casters:
- Potency Runes on Spell Attacks Rolls
- Rune of Lesser Power, Power, and Greater Power, at the same level than the Strikings Runes. Each increase DC by 1,2 and then 3. Same price.
- Remove Incapacitation Trait. Boss will suceed anyway, unless they got a 1. That's fun sometimes that they fail totally on a very low roll that target their low save.

Removing the incapacitation trait is going to wreck a lot of PCs at the higher levels of play.
We are playing around 12 right now. The DM just has to not abused with these kind of spells, frequency wise.

I mean, I guess that's better than killing everyone, but isn't a game in which the GM pulls his punches diminished?

It would sure take a lot of the fun out of it for me anyways.

You might be right, and it is a shame. But on the other hand, incapacitation is even less fun for us as it is.

The state of caster, and more specifically this trait, is probably the only thing that I really dislike in this game. All the rest is fine. But this thing, is like a big thing.

I had a Mesmerist in Hell's Revenge, we did not did the whole campaign but the first three volumes I think. At one point (SPOIL) the PC's, who are the bad ones, got to infiltrate a city with as Lord a Paladin which is the final boss of the volume. My Mesmerist Charmed, then Dominated him during his tour of the town, and basically they killed him in a dark alley at the middle of the volume. It was very fun, because yes they destroyed the boss of the volume, but it was a very particular character, with theses spells, this DC's, on this boss, at that time, with that roll, that made it possible. It was one of the very few boss of Ap to be OS like that. And the players are still enjoying it years later.

Incapacitation ruined these kind of stories. Sometimes the price for balance is fun, I guess.

Ravingdork wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:

Ok so first post:

Quick Fix that worked for us for casters:
- Potency Runes on Spell Attacks Rolls
- Rune of Lesser Power, Power, and Greater Power, at the same level than the Strikings Runes. Each increase DC by 1,2 and then 3. Same price.
- Remove Incapacitation Trait. Boss will suceed anyway, unless they got a 1. That's fun sometimes that they fail totally on a very low roll that target their low save.

Removing the incapacitation trait is going to wreck a lot of PCs at the higher levels of play.

We are playing around 12 right now. The DM just has to not abused with these kind of spells, frequency wise.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now, my take on the issue:

Are the casters overnerfed?
Short answer: Yes

Long answer:
Ok so now why people think this? It probably comes from a comparaison with PF1, DnD 3.5 et 5E.

But, I want to point out a few things from theses games. First, at very low level, casters were basically trash. One shot by a hometown guard with a crossbow. They start to feel go around 5-6 (Fly, Fireball) and by 10 they are very strong. 18+ is just god level.

Now, I ran from 1 to 6 Iron Gods, Reign of Winter and Rise of the Runelords. I played through Jade Regent, and for 5e Tomb of Annihilation and Curse of Stradh.

In each of these campaigns, never ever I have seen a martial/caster disparency before level 18+. Yes of course Casters have way more things to do. More shenanigans, more ways to break the game. Yes yes and yes. Do you play often in the 15+ levels?

But at the end of the day, in each campaign, they used almost all their spells (or Concentration buff in 5e) on the Barbarian/Slayer/Ranger/Monk/Fighter, who then proceed to kill whatever with a Full Attack. Each time.

Because this is a Team based game, most of the time. Casters were unablers most of the time. They dispell magics, cast Haste, watch out for Counterspells, Immobilize Personn for the Barbarian to Coup de Grace, Charm so that the Rogue can Bluff, Inspira Courage so that the all team got bonus on rolls. How is that overpowered, or not fun, to make EVERY Martials at the table a murder machine? Who get the cool description in slow motion on how exactly he rip the BBEG in half while glowing like a Christmas Tree from the Buffs?

And yes in exchange they got to start be able to oneshot encounters at level 10+. My Psychic friend in Rise one shoted all Dragons with Possesion and Intensified Metamagic Scepter. That is ok, after spending 4+ entire dungeons being a buff bot. And I will not even start on the bookeeping that requires Use Magic Items and being the only full caster in PF1 with the numbers of spells today.

The only time in three AP that I felt there was an issue was when I TPK the entire group against Karzoug, who won the Initiative with Anticipate Peril, and then Mage Disjunction. Because I was a stupid DM who thougth it would be fun to play the BBEG like a strategic mastermind, and I got a nat 20 on Initiative. And it is an overpowered inflated NPC in his home, who is a Wizard 20, overstuff with relics artefcasts and wish spells. Just for fun we redid the fight without Mage Disjunction. The Barbarian and the SLayer wiped the floor with hime after a few buffs and spells.

So yes they went too far in PF2. A Blaster Mage (which is almost always weaker than a support one) should be able to blast. An Enchanter should be able, sometimes, to Charm a boss. And a Necromancer Boss should be able, sometimes, to Finger of Death a Barbarian. Now the Boss still can, but the lower level lieutenants and PCs can't. This is very unfair for the PC & NPCs that are not BBEG I think.

And my god this is a team game. A TEAM game. I started RPG 15 years ago, and sincec then I see people complaining about a lack of symmetry between classes, but it is not important, as long as everyone as fun. If you want perfect balance, go on a MOBA or MMO (... lol, yeah, balance), or play chess against each others.

Or just let Willy the Wizard overbuff Brutus the Barbarian, and look at them smile while Malgus the Necromancer, your boss, does the same to Darem the Bonebreaker, his lieutnant.

Now Martials still hit hard, gained a lot in possibilities, are even stronger than before to butcher their way to the end of the campaign, and casters are a way weaker versions of themselves. Nerf bat hit too strong in my opinion. My go to player for the Fighter Barbarian type complains that his fellow casters adventurers can't buff his as well as before. So yeah, too much.

Now we got a hard time having even one caster in the group, even from people who played Wizard in 10 years. Everyone wants to play Fighter, how is that for balance?

Sorry if I did mistakes or my lack of style, English is not my mother tongue.

Ok so first post:

Quick Fix that worked for us for casters:
- Potency Runes on Spell Attacks Rolls
- Rune of Lesser Power, Power, and Greater Power, at the same level than the Strikings Runes. Each increase DC by 1,2 and then 3. Same price.
- Remove Incapacitation Trait. Boss will suceed anyway, unless they got a 1. That's fun sometimes that they fail totally on a very low roll that target their low save.

It is the nerf Magic for PCs that came with PF2 that is responsible here. While I understand I disagree with the concept, so I added a Power runes for increase DC by 1-3 like the strikings ones, and I added potency for spell attack rolls on staff, wands, focus and the like, just like the weapon runes.

Way more satisfying for now.

Allow him to have runes on his wands and staff with harder craft check. He buys the runes that allow to shift weapon type, and he can use it to switch the wand to a weapon. I did it, not really overpowered. And a lots of interact action with the manipulate trait, and sometimes even more depending on 2h etc.

As for player creativity, make a custom feat. A unique or rare feat that may be called « daggerstaffspearwand mastery » that they can take next class level. The time to get the feat? It will be the time to make it right and to learn how to use their strange inventions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

ABP are potency bonus, you’re good to go!

For me it’s the kind of things that I do with Hero Point. I mean from a RAW perspective you fall back so your Grapple end. But it’s kinda lame because it was a good cinematic move. So I will allow it for an Hero point to stay.

And to know if the Succubus fly higher with him or go down with him, I would make her a Athletics check against the Fortitude DC of the Monk I think. If she fails, they go down, if she succeed, they go up.

As a rule of thumb, hero point are good for this kind of scenarios. When you are unsure of a rule interaction, or rules are not on the cool side of things, but you don’t want to allow something that will become the default strategy, allow it but with an hero point.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you for your post perception check, it is not only my opinion but an opportunity to discuss the game. To be honest I wrote this post at the beginning for people like you and me who were considering PF2 and could find themselves on each side of liking/disliking the game.

Sorry to know that you don’t like this iteration. Maybe given time and supplements you will grow to give it another try, if not I am sure you will have PF1 that give you joy!

I am glad to see that post not being an edition war, and people giving some useful tips, and dev commenting on their design. I feel that this kind of discussion is useful on many levels, and that we can all be respectful around a passion we all got, and not just be **** about it on the internet.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact that I insist on the Magic Warrior being so bad is not a min-max thing. I could totally play a character who studied the art of Jatembe and refuse to remove his mask. I will probably negotiate with my DM to invent a few spells, an Anathema, and I will push his roleplay in my description of his spells and his culture. And it will look damn cool and fun to play and I will not loose class feat for that.

Of course the same could be said about each Archetypes, but the thing is that even if they are not broken, they are all at least (because some of them a just pretty nice) decent at what they are supposed to do. Mantis give your Sawtooth and Crimson/Mantis abilities jut like PF1. Lion Blade too. But if you studied the magic of one of the greatest human of Golarion and his acolytes, from at least one of them launched the Shory into the sky , which are the topic of legend, you got an Animal Form that does not scale and you better have an hole in your mask to be able to eat. Come on, let’s have some respect for the setting. I found the Archetype to be one of the very very rare trap option of PF2.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
DoggieBert wrote:
Fennris wrote:
As for Doggieberts comparison to PF1. I feel that the argument is flawed. Having played PF1 at high levels I never felt that all those items were required to be effective. Those were just power gamers must haves.

So, in PF1 most full BAB characters can actually get away without magical weapons at high levels and still hit decently, but AC has absolutely no mechanic of climbing on it's own without magic, so high level ACs are laughable without magic items. Maybe your group is just good enough that most enemies aren't meaningfully challenging to you without magic items, in which case I would say this is an argument about re-balancing monster difficulty rather than how much magic items matter.

In general though I don't think this question should be "Can I beat a creature of CR = X without magic items" in PF1 vs. PF2 since monsters have been re-balanced in PF2. The question should be "In a fight that the party has Y% of winning how much worse off are they without magic items?" These are likely much different CRs between editions due to the re-balancing of CR. I think in this case the PF2 party will be better off since pretty much everything except damage scales decently with level, while PF1 was much more reliant on buffs and magic items to get characters to the expected numbers.

Personally I prefer PF1 with Automatic Bonus Progression, and I expect I'll prefer PF2 with the equivalent, since, like you, I want all of my numbers stuff to be built into the character and allow magic items to be mostly cool abilities and flavor things.

The way I like to think of it is this: If a 10th level PF1 fighter steals a 20th level PF1 fighter's gear while the 20th level fighter is bathing, equips the gear, and attacks, the 20th level fighter is toast. Even a 1st level PF1 fighter pulling this trick can get to the point where the 20th level fighter needs a 20 to hit, but the 20th level fighter has enough HP to wait for the 20s to come.

In PF2,...

Thanks Mark that was exactly my point. Level matter, what you are good at matter, and your class fantasy matter. Magical items are much more icing on the cake. I was a very big fan of Automatic Progression, and I really like the current path of PF2.

I would also like to add that I appreciated you and other Paizo dev taking the time to discuss and explain the choices you made, the maths or the design behind it. It is always good to know how this or that idea came to place, even if we disagree.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The more I read it the more Mage Warrior is bad. Nondetection is good only if the whole party got it all the time, otherwise a BBEG will succeed to use it. Animal Form does not scale well, AND you got a roleplay Heavy malus with your only cool thing, your mask. Damn this is bad bad bad. You wonder how Jatembe and his Warriors made it to be such famous people with such bad class feats.

I don’t know how something so bad could make it to print. It is even more disapointing when we don’t talk about a random magic tradition, it is one of the most flavorfull and cool.

On the other hand all the others go from very decent at what the dedication is supposed to be to very good for a lots of builds. Really I want to try the Mantis.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except Magic Warrior who is very underwhelming for more than 2 feats, I find at least one or two decent or even good concept of characters for each Archetype. They are not overpowered but a lots of them are not underpowered too, they are flavorful. I am very excited to try Aldori or Mantis Rogue and a Barbarian Shoanti Runescarred.

And I am glad to not see any power creep, good for the future of the game.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Nice to see good talks here.

So to answer a few questions:

- I don't think the module ask for a tracking check, but I'm not sure as I was a player. What I am sure of is that as usual you got to be smart about what your character can do, and how put your abilities on the spot. It was usefull quite a lot during the game, giving us clues, numbers of potential ennemies, and the like. So yeah I found Tracking to be usefull, but it wwas not the most impressive power of our Ranger.

- For the Goblins, I am confortable with exotic Races in Golarion. And OF COURSE Goblins should be playable. But for our table, it make no sense as a Core Common Playable Race. There are depicted multiple time as being responsible for many many crimes and war, are the first ennemy of the AP that made Pathfinder. It is even more disturbing when the AP and the module stat in Isger, the only place where we imagine people killing them on sight. I don't mind Goblins adventurers, but they should be rare, because of their society, the human perception of the race, their tendancy to be sociopathic pyromaniac child eaters and etc... But yeah I am all for exotic race, my favorite one is Tengu for example. Just not as a Common Core Ancestry. In our Golarion, you got more Gnomes and Halflings in the Pathfinder Society than Goblins. But as usual, that is just an opinion. For me I see their presence just like the Drow in Faerun. They are an evil race that was made anti-hero race playable because they sell the setting well. And I don't like that. Fimbus is your everyday fun Drizzt Do'Urden.

- I want to be clear, what are here cons (lacking options, etc...) is our opinion on the CRB only compared to ALL PF1. So yeah we are very hopefull that the cons list will be getting even shorter and shorter over time. Because it was unfair to compare the 2, but we did because that is probably something a lot of other players, most notably those won't don't want to try PF2, will do. And I hope that the list could make them try at least the game. Because it is that good.

- The magic part is really what was in our group the main debate. We agreed on this list for the most part all of us, but not on magic. What I mean by nerf, is that with bonded accuracy and the fact that you can't improve you DCs, you can't use save or suck spell as you could in PF1. For example Hold person, at level 3, you will probably get a Will DC at 20 INT+one feat+maybe one trait or item or other feat= 17/18. Against a monster with like between +1/+6. And you will make a Coup de Grace just after the spell to finish him off in one quick combo. Now, if you try to do that on a boss or difficult monster, he will have his FP/level as a bonus on his roll, and the way bonded acc works, he will have more than 50% to save, or even critical save. But on the other hand, if he only save, he will probably got some sort of short penalty, like a Slowed condition for one round or something. (I'm not a math expert please be nice with me here). So you can never maximize your chances to make your strong combo in PF2 like you did in first edition. But you will also rarely do nothing if your combo does not work,because there will be some kind of penalty. On the pro side, healing in combat can be really strong now.

By the way the group was: Gnome Ranger with Kukris, Dwarf Alchemist Bomber, Half-Elf Divine Sorcerer and Dwarf Fighter. We got a Rogue too but he did not survive the first part of the module. I can not stress enough the fact than an Alchemist or MC Alchemist is very good in the module, and the player will have a blast. But all Classes can shine I think.

The funny part is that a lot of our group switched playstyle when making the group. Our martials fan tried casters, because they liked the fact that spell generaly do something even with a save succeded. And our casters went martials, because they liked the fact that you can try way more things with martials, with skills feats, differences between the action economy of the classes, etc... And our DM really had a blast, from playing the module as intended, but also to be able to make things from the scratch because the rules are easy. He nerfed a few combats on the scratch with a simple -1, and added a reaction to the final boss just like that. And it was flavorfull, elegant and fun!

7 people marked this as a favorite.

So a few remarks:

- About the magic items not being mandatory, I mean way less mandatory than in PF1. Your striking rune is hard coded, you will have it. But you don’t have the big six, or a few special items that were known to be really good and accessible (Ring of Sustenance is uncommon now for example, or the Aegis of Recovery don’t exist):

- You made a very good point John, I indeed dislike many things about character creation, but I really like the feeling of playing the game. Very much like 5E to be honest, as PF1 I always loved building a character but sometimes the game could turn into a slog at high level.

- When I say avoir the bloat I did not exprime myself well I think, English is not my mother tongue and I lack good vocabulary or subtlety sometimes. What I mean is that Ithink the CRB options will stay relevant, even with 4 core books along the line. The design is like the builds, more wide than tall. I think new options will add mechanical ides and concept,but will not make previous content irrelevant. Or in PF1, it has been ages since I saw a vanilla Fighter without Archetypes or weapon mastery. I think the design space here is really smart and if they don’t inflate new options it should stay that way.

- As for the Goblins, to be honest with you guys I hesitated to mention them,just like in the Playtest, because I don’t want to turn this post into Goblin War again. But as you ask Iwill share my thoughts: Goblins should be an Uncommon/Rare Ancestry that come from a setting book, not the CRB. Just like the upcoming Hobgoblins, who are perfect. For me and a lots of players I think Goblins are iconic yes, but iconic monsters. They are the enemy mascot, just like the beholders and will it hides for Faerun. We got a huge list of AP and modules introducing them as pyromaniac child-eater crazy pyromaniac pest. So there is a retcon not explained at all here.Even more the lack of rarity tag let us think that in the core assumptions of the setting, it is as common to see a Goblin adventurer as a Halflings Adventurer, and again it makes no sense. And finally for me it show the Drizzt disease of “my race is like 98% evil but not me and our four previous Goblins characters”. Chewbacca is special because he is the only alien of the team. Add two other wookie and he loose all his charm. Same for Goblins. So for us they got the Rare tag, as a houserule. You can select them but you better be ready for the roleplay consequences, and have a solide backstory.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, I forget one pro, and a very important one. I think the all game is designed to avoid bloat, and unbalanced future options. The core system is, I think, very robust to add things that don’t break what is already here.

I am looking at you Dervish Dance! You made all our Rogue, Magus and Duelist Quadiran Dancers for years!

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Glad to see people sharing their impressions too!

And yes we had a Gnome Ranger who picked the Kurkri, and he was a blast to play. Ta combo with his Hunter Quarry and the Agile kurkris made the three Attack viable. And he had an imprecise Scent and was a Bounty Hunter so strong roleplay and flavor too.

And god he tracked a lot. I don’t want to spoil, but he tracked a monster from the first encounter who fled, the boss of the part one, and a few strange creatures at the end. He used Survival a lot to start hunting prey before the fight, gaining some action economy.

Probably the strongest character of the group to be honest. And when he decided to pick animal companion, with the new mechanic that allow monsters to become pet, well I don’t want to spoil but I will just say if you play Plaguestone, have a nice DM and have animal companion, don’t pick one, just the feat, you will have good surprise ;)

37 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey guys, a year back I did this post in the Playtest section: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vbha&page=1?My-opinion-as-a-15-years-game r-after-around

It was a long feedback on the first iteration of the Playtest, and I did not try again before the game real launch. But my post had some sucess from other playtesters, and I know from Mona answer that my feedback reached Paizo.

So as we just finished this weekend Plaguestone, and we are heading next week in the AP, I just felt that it was faire and square of me to post my opinion on the game. I was not really convinced at the begining of the Playtest, and now that the game is out, I thought my experience could convince some people who shared my worries back then to try the game, and it would also be a good place for everyone to share their thoughts on the game.

Of course all this is only the thoughts of our group, and I invit all of you to participate, as long as you can stay civil and polite with each other.

So, Pathfinder 2, after Plaguestone, from an experienced gamer:


- We only got a few books for now, and of course we can't compare the huge diversity of builds that PF1 allows with Pathfinder 2 for the moment. Which means that if you are looking to do a brawler with a mechanical leg, a Psychic with a monstruous race, or an Oozemorph, the game might not be for you... yet.

- You can't be the BEST of the BEST in ONE thing like you could in PF1. You can't overcharge your Hold Personn DC, you can not Grappple all the creatures as easily that if you built for it in PF1, you can't use natural attacks shenanigans for more sneak attacks, etc... You do what you do, and you can't improve it as much as in first edition.

- As the game is just out, from the build diversity to the short life of the game, some builds are not avaible, or broken due to the lack of an errata. Mutagenist for example, Unarmed proficiencies, bulk... These things WILL get fixed, but it will take some time.

- In a lot of ways, adventurers do less things at lower level that what you can do in PF1. Because the game is made to go to level 20, you can't have as much options at level 1-5 than some builds from Pathfinder 1. For example a Magus, or a Brawler with an Archetype, or even a Alchemist with archetype can do more things at level 3 in PF1.

- Magic got nerfed, hard. It does not mean that magic is useless, and there are pros to that that i will explain later, but in general, magic got nerfed. You will not be invicible at high level, you wil not break the game at low level, and you will have very little power on your DCs. On that subject, we found the Divine list to be lackluster and boring, at low levels anyway.

- Charisma is underused, like always.

- Anathemas can be a real pain, that not to serve the story of the nuance of Golarion at all. Evil clerics, and some goods clerics, are just a pain in the party and it is a shame. These things should stay roleplay guideline, not hardcoded things that can cost you your powers.

- The D20 dice is the master of all things. If you got poor rolls, with bounded accuracy, you will be in a lot of pain. You can't maximize enough to protect you from bad rolls.

- Goblins are core, and don't have the Uncommon tag. Which make no sense at all in Golarion or in many universes. This is a just a mascott thing to sell more. You have as many chance to cross the path of a Goblin adventurer than a Halfling adventurer.

- You are your main class, in sooooo many ways. You can pick multiclass archetypes, you have some diversity from one fighter to another, but you are your class. This is not just a buffet of ability that you pick to build your perfect concept like in PF1. No, if you are a Rogue you will do Roguery things. Many things, but Roguery almost all the time...


... But your ARE your class. Even with MC archetypes, you will have the opportunity to do things that only your class can do. You will have a lots of thematic feats, and in all purpose, you will have a strong fantasy to support your concept, mechanically and in roleplay.

- The three action system is solid, versatile, and fun. You can play around action economy, and you got each turn strategic decisions to make that matter.

- The four degrees of sucess/failures is very good, easy to grasp, and allow the DM and the player to see more variations in the outcome of narration and mechanical decisions.

- The monsters are very different from one to another. They got unique and thematic abilities that make them fun to play and fight. They are not players, and don't work the same way. Wich means you can make a solo Rogue NPC boss, and give him the action economy to make him dangerous.

- From the monsters, the treasure list, the wealth for players, the tags... The game is way easier to DM. You got more "headspace" for roleplay, descriptions, because the rules are simpler and more logical.

- Martials rock. They are strong, versatile, dangerous, and they got thematic abilities.

- Magic is less frustrating than before. Because even if a monster suceed a saving throw, he might suffer partialy from the spell. You can do a blaster with elemental magic, and you will be dangerous. In many ways this translate with more diversity in choice of spells, and the outcome of spells.

- Skills and skill feat are just better than in PF1. Your skills choices are a very important part of your character, and allow for build diversity and some strong actions choice, like Intimidate, Medicine, Knowledge, Crafting, etc... Skills matter in Pathfinder 2, a lot.

- The game is more streamlined. It is very difficult to make a bad character, and there is more balance between an experienced player and a new one. The abilities boost allow you to make the character you want, and to have 18 in your primary stat, no matter your race. They also give you the opportunity to do things that suck before, like a Fighter good in knowledge or the party face.

- You got way lesser trap or must-have options than in PF1. Some are better in general, of course, but by a little margin.

- The way the game works, your level matter a lot. You will be better against lower level threats, and your Wizard will kick the **** out of thugs with his staff. But a Dragon will be way more dangerous, because he got a better level than you, so he will be harder to hit, and will critical hit a lot. Your level, your experience, MATTER a LOT. You can feel the increase in power at each level, constantly. You path to glory is hard, but you can FEEL that an Orc who is a serious threat at level one, become something you can butcher at level 3.

- You are less dependent on items and treasure, and your build is the base of your powers.

- You got more place for roleplay. You want to have a good idea to get some circumstance bonus, and the three action system allow the DM to give life to your decisions. You will propably try more various things in PF2 when it is your turn to play.

- Hero points means less deaths, and maybe more succes in clutch moments, that define what it is to be an hero.

- You don't go tall, but wide. You increase your toolbox as you level up, and what could have been a terrible flaw yesterday become something you are good at.

- Without Attack of Opportunity, you got way more mobility in fights.

- Small Race can go in melee and bring the pain.

- This is the perfect spot between the gamey Pathfinder 1 and the story telling 5E. You nailed it perfectly Paizo.

To conclude, we ha da blast in Plaguestone. Pathfinder 2 is strong, fun, driven by story and strategic choice. It offer improtant decision making choices, a huge build diversity from only one book, is easier to DM, and is the perfect spot for our group. I am glad, as a fan and a customer, that Paizo listened to our feedback, and decided to refocus the game on what a RPG is suppose to be: a narrative shared by people who make cool and strong characters.

Finally I want to point out that the game is not just an evolution of Pathfinder 1. It is something else. You got some strong connections, like Golarion, huge numbers of options, the vocabulary, but it is a new game. Which respond to the standards of the industry, and in our humble opinion, to what make a good game.

Thanks Paizo, continue the good work!

Thanks for the insight, you rule it pretty much how I imagined it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay guys so I want some insight on how you use the roleplay description of some weapons, because you got sometimes roleplay on one side but rules on their one side.: For example, striking someone with a hatchet in melee and then throwing it at somebody should allow you to use Sweep, but it does not work with the roleplay description. The same could be said about a Returning Hatchet thrown on différent people in the same round. Or for any weapon thrown as an improvised weapon with similar abilities.

In that case wha do you have to apply, the roleplay description or the mechanical advantage?

As for the other questions:

1. When a property of a weapon like Sweep says “this weapon”, does it means this precise same hatchet or the weapon hatchet, as an another one? I want to be sure, I would think this the the same precise weapon but English is not my mother tongue so maybe I miss a few things here.

2. If a thrown weapon is in the melee weapon table, it means it does not work with a feat that asks you tu use a ranged weapon, even if this melee weapon got a range property? Like the Ranged Reprisal from the Champion?

3. If a thrown weapon is a melee weapon, despite its range, does it mean that you can use them with feats that require melee weapons, and throw them? Like the Twin Takedown of the Ranger?

4. Finally do you think that your weapon have to meet the prerequisite (being a thrown weapon) of the property rune Returning given by the 3rd level ability Divine Ally- Blade Ally of the Champion? I really don’t know because the general rule is you have to put returning on a thrown weapon, but on the other hand specific overrides general and the ability does not say you have to meet the prerequisite of the rune.

Yes you guessed right I want to build a thrower :D But even so, in general, I really think that Thrown weapons are in a strange spot and I just want some insight on how people deal with it.

mrspaghetti wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:

Do you think that you apply the Fatal trait of the Pike weapon (or any trait that could apply for that matter?) to the Hand of the Apprentice?

Because it make sense for some of them, but for other like a propulsive weapon or a thrown weapon, by the rules it would add STR over the INT bonus. So I can see it working for some weapon, and not for others, and so I think that it probably does not work. Imagine a Hand with Lance as you moved 10ft before on a mount, it would not make any sense RAI, but RAW if Hand apply the weapon traits, you would gain the bonus from joust.

Any opinions?

Hand of the Apprentice is specifically for melee weapons, not propulsive/thrown weapons.

Regarding the lance jousting trait, that sounds like silliness that obviously is not intended and should not be allowed by any sensible GM, IMO.

So you would allow the fatal trait to work with Hand? And would allow a Sweep trait from two Hand of the Apprentice in the same round?

Just curious.

Do you think that you apply the Fatal trait of the Pike weapon (or any trait that could apply for that matter?) to the Hand of the Apprentice?

Because it make sense for some of them, but for other like a propulsive weapon or a thrown weapon, by the rules it would add STR over the INT bonus. So I can see it working for some weapon, and not for others, and so I think that it probably does not work. Imagine a Hand with Lance as you moved 10ft before on a mount, it would not make any sense RAI, but RAW if Hand apply the weapon traits, you would gain the bonus from joust.

Any opinions?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

Do you need them errata’d for your GM to accept them ? Some of the ones you mentioned are from mouths of the developers and transcribed into here (or could be found on twitch)

So hopefully that would be enough ?

I didn’t think the proficiency issue came up for several level so you are probably safe to start on that one...

Yes this is exactly why we could use them, the most proeminent one being the inventory bulk. Our GMlike official material only, regarding this kind of things.

We happily ignored weight for a decade of d20, so now that we have bulk he's tracking our poor low strength character like a nessian hellhound.

1 to 50 of 262 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>