No one else finds it awkward and undesirable that the most efficient way for a sorcerer to utilize their blood magic powers is to go out of class as quickly as possible with their class feats to get to 3 focus points and then go back and get feats like anoint ally and your other blood magic feats? (Again the sorcerer is the obvious outlier here, most classes that want to use focus spells often fall into the same, but less pronounced boat) this isn’t even addressing things like the magus, it’s just talking about how your total number of focus points isn’t tied power to your class or level so boosting that can take many levels in class has this “hack” bypass that isn’t well balanced or thought through.
It feels like players are really just saying they want to be able to get and use more focus points than the classes designed for and are content with the duct tape and super glue fix of everyone can recover all FP instead of really fixing the issue by giving classes that really want them faster access to focus points.
All classes (including martials) should realistically have 3 focus points and use those focus points to pay for abilities. Paizo decided not to go that route and keeps not going that route because their focus is on limiting what a player can do to maintain "balance".
You are attacking the wrong issue. You see classes waste resources just to get more focus points. The solution is to give more focus points so people don't have to spend feats for that, your solution is to make focus point recovery weaker so there is less incentive to get focus points.
Aka the solution you propose is "everyone is having a nice thing, so we should make it worse and only give some classes a better version".
Do not compare what works in a video game or a book with what works in a pen and paper game. People have tried mana based or resourceless spell casting for decades and it almost always fails because its either too clunky or unbalanced. Heck the original Kineticist was Paizo's attempt at it and half the people hated it because it was designed to cost HP or extra action.
It doesn't work when trying to attach it to an already existing vancian casting system. There's plenty of TTRPGs that are resourceless or use MP and work perfectly fine.
Hence why I said almost always. There are people who make it work. They are the exceptions not the rule.
I want things to fit the fantasy paradigm rather than use excessive gamist mechanics. I don't mind balance, but I don't want martials with daily powers or such when their fighting should just be skills they can endlessly use.
I want casters to have real power with limits being what holds them back from taking over the world. I think daily slots is the best way to do this. Though I do hope they move to all spontaneous casters.
Then toss in a few classes like the Kineticist or the 5E warlock for a different flavor for those that like those type of mechanics.
I feel wizards and casters in general should stand out as more powerful in these types of games just like they do in most fantasy books. I know this is a game and that power should never reach the power difference in 3E/PF2 every again, but definitely maintain the high level casters are very powerful and scary capable of destroying cities and doing crazy stuff. That should not be something they can do endlessly.
Most fantasy doesn't have caster using anything even approximating vancian magic. Frankly magic in most fantasy is like dragon's dogma, entirely resourceless, and if you ask people online they really feel that game captures what it is to be a powerful spellcaster better than anything else. It doesn't translate into a tabletop game, but spellcasting in fantasy means either resourceless or mana/spellpoints for most people.
I would even go as far as to say that most fantasy books don't have spellcasters that much more powerful than martials. A lot try to make it grounded, make magic subtle or come at a huge cost that is narrative in nature and doesn't translate to a game like PF2E. How many stories have evil wizards bested by some half naked dude with a sword anyways? (It's a lot!) I feel as though your narrative of what magic should be in these games comes from what wizards ended up being in 3.X and not what they are in fantasy as a whole, which is inconsistent, complex and hardly ever as powerful...
Do not compare what works in a video game or a book with what works in a pen and paper game. People have tried mana based or resourceless spell casting for decades and it almost always fails because its either too clunky or unbalanced. Heck the original Kineticist was Paizo's attempt at it and half the people hated it because it was designed to cost HP or extra action.
Similarly, there are very few stories where the "heroes are half naked" they almost always have a full set of magic equipment usually made specifically to defeat the bad guy (usually crafted by a powerful magic craftman). The only one that readily comes to mind is He-man and that whole universe is predicated on the sword being super OP.
Similarly most fantasy books don't bother about the exact rules for magic because they don't have to. Its why so many writers end up contradicting themselves and writing thenselves into impossible situations. In both cases of video game and books, what you see is that the number of spells is vastly smaller than you have in RPGs. With characters focusing on a handfull of spells.
That is not even taking account that people misinterpret "vancian" as meaning only prepared casters, when its both prepared and spontaneous casters. The entire system is actually really "I have only so much power in a day how do I use it?" Spontaneous says "I will memorize these spells so I can always cast them". Prepared says "I don't need to memorize these spells, I will just prepare the ones I want ahead of time and use them when I need it".
Finally, PF2e removed most ability for a character to deal damage to objects/terrain. So no, a PF2E caster is not destroying a city because everything is effectively damage immune unless the GM decides to specifically allow it. Think of anything that a caster can do and Paizo built in it at least 3 different ways to nerf it.
I have no idea why people keep thinking that focus spells are derived from 4e. The origin of focus has always been the spell-like abilities of DnD3.5/PF1e. The only difference being that PF1e had each ability have its own pool of x+modifier instead of a shared limit of 3. The change being done to heavily limit how many abilites can be used, but also to simplify things for people who disliked resource tracking. Reducing resource tracking is also why "round per days" abilities were converted to anything else, why casters stopped getting bonus spells for having high casting stat, why divine font went from 1+cha to 4, etc.
4e's contribution is the idea that everything uses the same pool and the hyper codification of abilities. This hyper codification is what makes so many of PF2e's ability not stack because "the ability is not codified to work like that". For example: Quick draw realistically could be "free action: at any point during your turn you may draw a weapon", allowing it to be used in the middle of another action; However the actual text is "1 action: draw a weapon and strike", making it so it cannot be combined at all. This makes the game feel less like "I am roleplaying with some rules" and more like "I am roleplaying with a board game".
Back to the subject of this thread. The old way was bad and convoluted because it was designed specifically to make it harder for casters. It was another of their thousand cuts designed to limit caster's power. The strong casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, & Sorcerer) did not care what so ever about the limit while everyone else struggled. The remaster version is an improvement, but they massively butched the remaster of some classes making those classes receive little benefit from the change.
Making focus points worse is not going to fix the issue that some classes are for one reason or another effectively abandoned if not outright despised by Paizo. Nor will it change that the strong classes will continue to be broken because they are loved by Paizo. As of today: Wizard has 62 feats, Psychic has 47, Sorcerer has 68, and Bard has 88.
I would love to see a thread working through some of the details of a homebrew attributeless system. I think we could all learn a lot from that exercise.
I agree that is something that should go on another thread.
Definitely with you on this one. Don't feel it'd be right for an unchained book, but a remaster of Kingdom Building that ties into Battlecry!'s new combat in a future adventure path is something I'd greatly desire.
Do you mean the rebuilding of the Kingmaker rules should not be in an Unchained book or the merging of the rules between the subsystems? I would argue that a rebuild of the Kingmaker rules is exactly within the realm of an Unchained book. The merging of the subsystems is probably too big of an additional lift.
It's because Unchained books are broad strokes across the core of the game. Unfortunately, Kingmaking is not a core issue, but a corner case that's by technicality an exclusive to a single adventure path, and is only really gonna be touched on outside of Kingmaker in a home-setting capacity, unless Paizo uses it more.
I really want kingmaking to be remade, but I don't think Unchained is the place Paizo would want to put it. I'd like it to be there, but it's frankly just not where it goes. It'd have better place in either a new adventure path that makes use of it, a remake of Kingmaker, or a core book that's expected to come alongside one of these last two examples, but I don't think they'd put it in an unchained book. Takes up too many pages that can go into solving a lot of core problems (77 pages; Pathfinder Unchained was 250 pages and Starfinder Enhanced was 200 pages, to put it into perspective), for a system that frankly a very small population of players will ever get the chance to touch. And with each new adventure path released, that proportion just gets smaller
Well as only "kingdom building" I agree that it wouldn't fit. However, if the system was reworked so kingdom building, downtime, etc all worked together I think it would fit. While at it, could also change the influence system so that it too works seemlessly between individual people and large organizations. Even more so if the rules are made generic enough that you could use it to run guilds, factions, armies, etc.
I feel its way easier to axe a gameplay mechanic that really isn't part of the world itself than something thats more tangible like a whole species.
Yes lore changes hurt, but lore is less important to us as we make a lot of it up as we go along. It's the name changes that increase mental load really hurt. Force Barage anyone?
exequiel759 wrote:
Its also important to note that TTRPGs as a whole are leaning more towards simplification nowadays rather than having complex systems that require system mastery to learn and use
Simplfication is good, removing the dross is important. Lets do that.
You are still missing that there are different people here. At the risk of stereotyping; Engineers, IT, Physics and Maths geeks were the core player base for a long time. They want a different game from the general public. Don't kill this game by trying to make it the same as everything else.
Thank you, I don't care if other games are moving in a direction. This thread is about PF2e and what an unchained book might contain. Why should this game become like those games when it can go its own way and iterate on its own systems? Why should it matter for an unchained book that should be about rebalancing current options and providing alternative subsystems?
Speaking of alternate subsystem. I just remembered, it would be great if kingdom building and mythic could get some rework.
Vancian casting is good. Case and point: People like sorcerer but dislike wizard. Why? Because sorcerer has better abilities.
Both spontaneous and prepared casting in PF2e is vancian, however PF2e made it so there is no benefit to being a prepared caster by nerfing everything that made it good.
How to fix it in unchained: A prepared caster may modify 1 spell in each of their spell ranks to have a spellshape that they know as they prepare. The spell's action cost do not increase. Ex: A level 2 caster can add 1 spellshape to a rank 1 spell, A level 4 caster can add 1 spellshape to a rank 2 spell and 1 spellshape to a rank 1 spell. The benefit here is that by preparing the caster is able to save up actions during combat that the spontaneous caster cannot.
This leads to a fix to an unchained metamagic thesis wizard by letting them modify 1 extra spell per rank. Which also highlights "wizard is the academic of casters".
Comparing Amiri to Valeros is something Unicorn asked, it was not my point or my main point. My main point is that attributes differentiate characters because some characters are smarter, some characters are stronger, some characters are more agile, etc. Any issue with attributes is not caused by the attributes but because the system doesn't let them work to their full extent.
Want a better showing of attributes? See the no level to progression alternate system (There attributes matter, skill progression is not skewed, Int as a score actually matters, static item DC work out better, etc.). See when a GM lowers the enemy levels, so more characters are able to function. Most of the issues with "must min max" stems from monster stats being too high and/or adding the full level out stripping any other bonus. So those would be more important thing to change and play around with than "remove attribute".
A more important change would be changing the way item DCs work so that things don't stop working after 2 levels. A more important change is making it so you don't need max upgrade on your weapon/armor on level. Making it so items actually do things that are fun. Reducing needless action taxes (why isn't the 1st recall knowldge in a turn free?). Reducing needless niche protection (so many feats that should be accessible to multiple classes but aren't). Fixing the skill progression so its smoother.
She's a barbarian and has a PF2e sheet, Valeros does not have a sheet and would stand to reason he would go for similar stat distribution he previously had which was slightly lower than her.
Regardless the usefulness is not between two character that are close, but between two characters that are apart. Ex: Tristian (+0) and Amiri (+5).
Just to add some extra context: Both Amiri and Valeros do have sheets, actually. From the Society premade character sheets. Both Amiri and Valeros have Strength +4. (Amiri also has the same stat spread in Kingmaker's Companion Guide as the Society Sheets)
Amiri: 4/2/2/0/0/1
Valeros: 4/2/2/1/0/0
Physical stats match, the main difference is Amiri is more charismatic while Valeros is smarter.
Ah okay, a case of AONPRD not having the sheet then, got it. They have the kingmaker sheets.
You say "lets remove attributes and cut to the part people actually want". That's the issue, YOU have an idea of what YOU want, but not everyone will have that same idea. One of the few problems that PF2e is how much illusion of choice there is and your "solution" is to just force the choice instead of actually solving the issue.
If you read this thread you'll see the other problems you mention have been mentioned as well. This isn't a thread just about the removal of attributes. Plus, its not just me that wants attributes to at least be revised in a future edition, if you look at this and other similar threads like this in the past. I'd argue that, at the very least, most people agree that in their current iteration attribute have problems that need to be adressed, even if not everybody agrees on the solution.
Did you miss when I said I have not posted here in a while? What those other threads say have no bearing on my opinions in this thread, which is specifically about an "Unchained". I am here disagreeing about any such changes. Not to mention that 2-3 people does not mean "most people".
I would say most people have other issues with the game and those issues are being used as a reason to attack the existence if attributes. Just like the manufactured issues with vancian casting are used as justification to remove it.
What is the difference between Str +1, +2, etc? Well what is the difference between barely lifting and actually doing weight lifting exercise? Yes Valeros is weaker than Amiri.
Not in PF2. Valeros is not weaker than Amiri anymore. Specifically,
Strength is not a very useful tool for defining what defines a character. It is a requirement for doing the things that 30+% of characters want to do and the score just needs to be as high as possible for all of those characters. For the other % of characters it is either useless, or might have a specific value that is kind of useful, but the actual number doesn't say anything interesting about your character
She's a barbarian and has a PF2e sheet, Valeros does not have a sheet and would stand to reason he would go for similar stat distribution he previously had which was slightly lower than her.
Regardless the usefulness is not between two character that are close, but between two characters that are apart. Ex: Tristian (+0) and Amiri (+5).
The entire point of having attributes and skills is that just because you have an aptitude for a skill does not mean you are good at it. This is the same for the variation on skills, we have acrobatics and athletics because "being able to jump and balance" does not mean "being able to swim and climb". Even lores/recall knowledge as it is exists because knowing about something does not mean you know about something totally unrelated.
Let's remember back in D&D 3.5 Athletics and Acrobatics were split into Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Jump, and Tumble. Similarly, the 5 current RK skills were split into Arcana, Architecture and engineering, Dungeoneering, Geography, History, Local, Nature, Nobility and royalty, Religion, and The planes. If there's something thats been a constant in each subsequent new iteration of either D&D or Pathfinder is that skills get condensed for the sake of simplicity. Skills don't cover specific uses or narrow specializations, they represent a wide range of actions under a similar theme. That's also why we went from infinite+ Craft skills in earlier editions to just the single Crafting skill in PF2e as well. Somebody that's good at making swords isn't immediately skilled to make warships, but the system simplifies this because having separate skills for just makes system bloat and creates options nobody is going to use.
The only actions that could potentially make an overpowered universal Athetlics+Acrobatics skill would if it still governed Grapple, Shove, Trip, and Disarm, which could easily be decoupled into their own thing again like they used to be in earlier editions and merge climb and jump into Acrobatics.
Temperans wrote:
Removing attributes is not going to fix the underlying issue
Nobody here is arguing removing attributes would solve every problem.
Even if everything else gets solved, if attributes still work like they currently do I don't really see a reason to keep them. They aren't even the random number you got to...
Except I never said condensing was bad, I said that condensing more than now is bad. Which you proved by saying "lets merge these two, and then split all these other things". There is only so much that you can merge before things become bad for the game.
You say "lets remove attributes and cut to the part people actually want". That's the issue, YOU have an idea of what YOU want, but not everyone will have that same idea. One of the few problems that PF2e is how much illusion of choice there is and your "solution" is to just force the choice instead of actually solving the issue. "Attributes do nothing, so we should remove them", that is not an improvement; That is just moving the goal post because then its just going to be,"well people only use these skills so we should remove everything else" or "well spells are too complicated we should just have a generic template". Its death by a thousand cuts (its also the reason why the few problems PF2e has exist).
Craft in older editions was designed so you had to make a build around it yes. Nobody argued about that, I only talked about the condensation of it because you brought up "Blacksmith lore to craft weapon/armor" (which a blacksmith does not make armor).
People did have a problem with spellcraft, its why we have 4 version now. Spelcraft used to cover everything magical, it got separated as part of the consolidated skill system and merged into knowledge local, nature, religion, arcana. Its not talked about in PF2e because they got rid of it, so its not relevant.
What is the difference between Str +1, +2, etc? Well what is the difference between barely lifting and actually doing weight lifting exercise? Yes Valeros is weaker than Amiri. Size-to-strength is really hard to judge in a world of magic, should it affect your character image? Well that's something for every table/player to determine.
As for "well what if Str just determines bulk, Int languages, etc?" That just makes it so you can say "well see attributes do nothing so we should remove them".
The entire point of having attributes and skills is that just because you have an aptitude for a skill does not mean you are good at it. This is the same for the variation on skills, we have acrobatics and athletics because "being able to jump and balance" does not mean "being able to swim and climb". Even lores/recall knowledge as it is exists because knowing about something does not mean you know about something totally unrelated.
Saying that attributes are the issue is ignoring the HUGE elephant in the room that is: Paizo in trying to maintain the thin edge balance and niche protection has actively made it so there is little to no choice. Why can't you use Str to Intimidate? Because Paizo decided that you can't. Why is recalling knowledge so akward? Because Paizo decided that it will cost an action and be extremely limited. Why are skill feats so underwhelming? Because Paizo decided that an otherwise basic thing should be a high level feat.
Removing attributes is not going to fix the underlying issue, its just going to make the game less "Pathfinder". Removing skills so they are "condensed" is not going to make the game more convenient, just harder to write for. In both cases it defeats the purpose of "consdensing skills to express my character better" because now a whole host of characters would be entirely non-sensical: "oh you have high athletics how come you can't balance on a tight rope?", "oh you studied wild life? Then how come you don't know how to camp?", "Oh, you look scary, why can't you give an eloquent speech?", etc.
————
* P.S. Lore vs Craft is a good example. Originally craft had to be specified (Ex: Craft alchemy vs Craft armor). Well craft got condensed in PF2e to make it "easier", but now "well I want armorer lore to make only armor". Condensing and removing rules does not always help. Unless your goal is to make a rules light game, but then as I have stated in my last post: Why are you trying to make "Pathfinder" that instead of going to another game?
I have not posted in a while but I do have to say it because I don't like the lack of representation for this view:
The goal of the "unchained" book was not to fundamentally change the game. It was to improve the game by introducing new/alternate rules for aspects that some people didn't like and that Paizo felt they could fix. The idea of fundamentally changing the game into something that is completely different than what it is does not "improve" the game, it just makes it different for the sake of being different.
Similarly, the goal of an edition change is not to fundamentally change all aspects of a game. Its to improve on it using the years of design and player feedback. I see people asking for 3rd edition to be this fundamentally different game that is closer to a rules light game, but then that's no longer "Pathfinder". For years people who didn't vibe with PF2e were told "then go play another game", but when edition change is discussed one of the most prevalent responses (that gets little push back) is "the game should be totaly different". It just seems odd to me to want to turn a rules medium game that already feels halfway to a board game, into a rules light game that is just a board game with improv.
It's hilarious really. The game has been active for about 6 years and for those 6 years there have always been complaints about wizards. The devs outright admitted that they balance wizard based assuming that they perfectly prepare "silver bullet spells", and that got defended. The game got remastered and while all other classes got at least some buffs, the wizard was the only class that only got nerfed. Hundreds of feats have been released and yet of the original 12 classes the wizard has only 54 feats, the alchemist has 67, and everyone else has more than 90 feats.
Here is this thread about making the wizard into the "fighter of arcane" a worthwhile goal. But its bogged down by a discussion on how the wizard isn't bad you just have to play it perfectly. Having the fewest spells known is not bad because you can pay gold to get what other classes get for free. It would be too strong to give wizards multiple thesis, meanwhile other casters are able to mix and match their subclasses. There was actual discussion on how a 5ft emanation that costs a focus point for +1 AC is okay, when you have bards giving +1 AC, +1 Fort, +1 Reflex, +1 Will, and Resistance 1-10 to all physical damage in a 60ft radius at no cost.
Yes the goal of the thread is great, but it will never happen. For the class to be good it needs to go back to what made it good in the first place, but that will never happen. Not when you can have bards having 10th level spells and multiple 0 cost 60ft bardic performances but a wizard daring to switch out his spells in 10 minutes or wanting to focus on one set of spells is somehow considered "too strong".
***************
I don't know why I am even posting, I only came back because I heard about the necromancer (oh look something else that they took away from wizards) and that playtest feels just as undercooked as the wizard.
I have not posted here in a long time. But I will agree, the class should be reworked to be Conjurer and not Necromancer. Heck if they are willing to remaster the "summoner" that should change name to something else and have this one be the Summoner.
The class as it is currently designed does a lot of work saying its dealing with "necromancy", but the mechanics do not reflect that. The class right now is an exercise in telling us what it supposedly is, but showing us something that is very different. I get that people do want a dedicated necromancer, I also want one: But this class does not feel like a Necromancer.
* P.S. Saying "well we will never get a necromancer otherwise" is not a good reason to miss name a class. If they released Kineticist and made it a spell slot caster people would have rioted because that is not what they want from a Kineticist. So why are people settling for a really bad facsimile now when it comes to this "Necromancer" that looks no better than a Swarmcaller or yet another Elementalist?
Trick Magic Item actually makes the scroll believe it is in synch. It then unlocks its magical energies and the spell is cast.
This implies that "magic" is some kind of (semi-)intelligent entity. Not sure I buy that.
Last comment before leaving the forum.
Trick magic used to be a charisma only skill (baring specific things). There was always a joke about carefully caressing wands into working properly. Also intelligent items are a thing.
So yes "magic" is semi intelligent, but not an entity. It is a semi intelligent aspect of reality just like the Monad.
Why do people always bring up the slot spells to complain and always forget that these other, renewable, spells have to be taken into account too ?
... Because one of the key complaints is that having your extremely limited daily resource abilities be so fundamentally unreliable (especially in their design niche of targeting powerful solo enemies) feels really bad?
I don't really understand the question because the answer is so obvious.
Its page twelve of making that same argument and the other side won't even acknowledge that as being the issue.
I gave up, but I wish you luck. Maybe you'll get a better result.
After 4+ years of this balance point not changing the continued complaining of some comes off as extremely bitter and extremely confusing bc the effort is ultimately wasted. I mean, why not direct that energy towards the eventual pf3 playtest; It's not gonna get you anything now. God knows if it legitimately gives you this much stress and anger then you're better served playing the systems that don't do this. Pf1e and dnd5e are right there giving you the casters you want. Throughout this game's entire run the attack benchmarks between casters and martials has not changed, will not change, and never had any design intentions of changing from the designers. The best you got was an item to switch to saves. To continue to complain for changes that demonstrably will not come seems to me either lunacy or a deliberate desire to heckle the people who made the thing you don't like as well as the people who enjoy the thing you don't like. It can't be any genuine expectation of change, can it?
So your take is that people should not complain about bad game design and just take whatever bad thing a developer adds. Are you also one that likes it when a dev adds a bunch of time wasters to justify micro transactions?
They say hope dies last, but you know what I am tired of this same argument being used every single time. You like your bad mechanics and want an echo chamber? Fine keep them. Congrats you won, one less person asking the devs to fix their mistakes.
Best of wishes to Paizo, but I'm done trying argue for a game that I enjoy to be made better while treated as if I was a second class citizen.
Some people just want to use 1 type of spell and those people are punished because "well you should had picked something different". That is bad design no matter how much you try to justify it.
If something has a worse chance to take effect than normal the expectation is that it has a much better effect to compensate. But spell attacks do not do this. Instead they are mediocre effects while also being more difficult to land.
This is not about being better than martials as some people keep trying to say. Its about 1/day abilities not being balanced properly for being 1/day.
Players that only want to cast one type of spell need a special class built to do that (like the kineticist) because full casters always have access to way more spells they can cast. It is unreasonable to expect one class to accommodate such specialization and breadth together.
You should not need a whole new class just for this. It should just work.
Also no, the game expects you to have at most 4 of the highest spell level (up to 9th) and at most 2 10th level. 4 times a day I can have a 50/50 to be mediocre is bad no matter how much you try to justify it with "if you have this very specific situation its okay".
Some people just want to use 1 type of spell and those people are punished because "well you should had picked something different". That is bad design no matter how much you try to justify it.
If something has a worse chance to take effect than normal the expectation is that it has a much better effect to compensate. But spell attacks do not do this. Instead they are mediocre effects while also being more difficult to land.
This is not about being better than martials as some people keep trying to say. Its about 1/day abilities not being balanced properly for being 1/day.
Slot based spell attack are not worth it.
So players don't get them except for very specific things.
So the devs don't make more.
So players don't get more.
Yeah there are few spells when the thing has needed help from the start and even when they introduced the class that revolved around it they didn't add significantly more.
Edit: No, Temp, you don't need Crossbow Crackshot, which is a bad fear because you have to reload the same turn you shoot to get the bonus. You want the Sniping Duo dedication. which gives you a circumstance bonus that will eventually outscale the old crossbow ace, lets you ignore lesser cover, and still benefit from backstabber.
Just going to say that still isn't quite the same. Sniping Duo locks you outnof other archetypes and require that the ally hits to get the benefit.
Yes it scales to +3 eventually. But Crossbow Ace was damage now and always.
Pathfinder guns are breach loaders with paper cartridges according to guns and gears
Looked it up and I am not seeing that anywhere. Arquebuses are muzzle loaders, flintlocks are muzzle loaders, etc. The only ones that seem like breech loaders are the repeating weapons.
While I initially didn't love the slight damage nerf compared to CRB crossbow ace vs remaster crossbow ace with arbelest, there's one really good benefit. The new crossbow ace looks pretty skippable to me. It looks like the sniper's covered reload but is generally worse because it lacks HideYou can snag it if you're interested, but can also skip it now if you don't feel like investing in deception or constantly taking cover.
And that frees you up to take other feats. I was initially thinking that would be Monster Hunter or Animal Companion to diversify your build, but then I noticed... gravity weapon is right there, and will likely put the Remaster Ranger ahead of the old Ranger. Old ranger could snag Gravity Weapon, too, technically, but then they are delaying Hunter's Aim at 2 or Running Reload at 4. And getting gravity bow early sounds like a nice choice given it sound like we have new warden spells coming, so growing your focus pool will likely be wise.
This change also means crossbow switch hitters can be a thing, which was basically just for bows pre-remaster. Overall, this change feels really good once you skip crossbow ace.
You got an interesting point, now Crossbow Ace isn't a must have feat anymore for crossbow rangers anymore. Yet this option also feels more weak than before when compared to the alternative (Flurry + Bow).
So I still don't see this see this being beneficial in general. I also wanted that this feat works with firearms too.
At last it can now combine with Crossbow Crack Shot so if you are making a remastered crossbow range you could consider to take Gunslinger dedication.
I'm not sure what you mean. This feat does work with firearms, and I don't see how gravity weapon + arbelest is any worse than crossbow ace + crossbow was, and don't follow the logic to be worse relative to a flurry ranger with hunted show and a shortbow. Besides the one action to activate...
Let me correct you a bit.
Pre-remaster:
Crossbow with Crossbow Ace deals 1d10+2 at 120ft on every shot.
With Gravity Weapon and Precise shot its 1d10+3+1d8 at 120ft on the first shot (assuming it hits).
Post-remaster:
Crossbow deals 1d8 at 120ft.
With Gravity Weapon its 1d8+1 at 120ft.
Arbalest deals 1d10+Backstabber at 110ft.
With Gravity Weapon its 1d10+1+Backstabber+1d8 at 110ft on the first shot (assuming it hits).
If you have to get Gunslinger Archetype to get Crossbow Crack Shot that is 3 feats to do what you could previously do with 2.
So in short to do what you could do previously you now have to spend more feats. Or you have to keep making the enemy flat-footed on every round and use the new weapon (which cannot be gotten at level 1 and has a shorter range). The one good crossbow playstyle is now worse for the sake of making a new playstyle that is more inconsistent with no real benefit.
From wikipedia: " A skilled arbalestier (arbalester) could loose two bolts per minute". That's one bolt every 5 combat rounds. Reload 12? :-)
And they dealt a whole lot more damage, and ignored armor, and ignored tough hides.
An arbalest would not deal more damage than a halberd or great club, both of which also deal d10s. They do get to add str, but the arbalest gets backstaber, and the average str for a soldier is probably around +2.
It also would not ignore armor or thick hides, arbalests have been used sense the 12th century, and plate mail was invented in the 14th century. Getting hit with an arbalest while in armor would not be a good time, but nor was getting hit with a great club or halberd
Temperans wrote:
While 1800s muskets (period accurate for golarion) were 1/minute and were even stronger than crossbows.
But yeah that aint happening in PF2.
Yes, because due to differences in Golarions development, they favored paper cartridges, which are much weaker but fire much faster. For a cartridge based system, pathfinder has it fairly right.
I do hope we get muzzleloading guns in PF as a form of martial focus spell (can't be loaded in combat, but gives you one very powerful attack), but thats nether here nor there
The comparison is versus a bow of low enough weight that you don't even need a str score to use. Why are you bringing in melee weapons?
Also I have no idea what you are talking about with the cartridges. Pathfinder guns are muzzleloaders and the real world has used paper cartridges for centuries. They were less used in war because they are a hassle and costly to maintain under those conditions. The reason why Pathfinder has guns fire quickly is because its more fun to make attacks every round and they certainly wont give players a realistic guns because they want bows to be the best ranged weapons.
Yeah I think something must have lost in translation because most of this seems to be meh.
Crossbows had too many feat taxes so the solition was to: Make the main feat worse and mandate it to require deception, add a forced item choice that is in some ways worse, add a new feat tax at level 16, and give crossbows the crit specification that should had been given to bows... Who decided any of this was a good idea?
Putting warden spells in the main class but not snare crafting seems like a repeat of not placing warden spells in the intial release. Now snares won't be part of Rangers and it will cause issues just like warden spells caused issues.
It feels like we are being told that its an upgrade, when it feels and looks more like a side grade.
I love how I never said "spell attack need to be the best" and somehow that is what people are responding to.
Or how about where I never said that wizards need to be the best at everything. Yet once again people acting as if I said that.
Oh would you look at that, limited number of spells per day. What's that I can only 4 spell slots and after that they are gone, finished, gone? Ah yes much versatility when I pick 4 damage spell because I want to make an offensive caster. Much versatility when I have a ~40-50% chance of doing nothing with an ability that is only 4 times a day and no better than a Fighter hitting twice. Oh right I have to spend twice as many 1/day abilities for it to have reads again oh that's right a ~45-55% how impressive for a 20th level character that you are lucky if you see it once every 4 years.
No no I get it, I get it. We have to let the person who only swong their weapon around be able to be the bestest ever at using their infinite use weapons. Now if only the thing you were using was not a weapon and could only be done 4 times a day.... oh wait. I forgot that person swingin a weapon can also cast utility/buff magic, make items, buff/debuff everyone around them, be very agile, punish bad positioning, and have decent defenses.
But you know what carry on talking about having your cake and eating it. I'll be over here watching as this thing called "MaG1k" is roasted and carved out to feed some poor hobos who seem to be in need of some healing.
People really are hyperfocusing on one thing in a very unhealthy way. I mean I get it when people become upset about their favourites changing and it's a bit of a bummer if we don't get a good electricity damage option somewhere, but hell, quite a few of you are acting like the Magus' entire being revolved around Shocking Grasp.
Meanwhile I'm over here looking at the focus point changes and wondering why I would ever touch my slots (and often my cantrips) for attacks every again. Pretty much as Michael said, though probably not with quite this in mind. For the "great" cost of a second level feat (Psychic Dedication), I get a focus spell that does almost the same damage as a highest level SG plus a pushback for shenanigans/damage mitigation on top. That I can spam every fight without even looking at my slots. Instead I can use my slots for problems I cannot simply hit harder or simply hit even harder in other ways. Meaning overall my Magus will become objectively stronger than the pre-change variant relying on Shocking Grasp ever could have been.
And people are complaining???????
The complain is because their "solution" highlights all the issues that spell attacks had and they kept ignoring, which they might potentially. Even removed spell attacks as an option in the first place.
If you are allowed to have 3 spells every 30 minutes that deal as much damage as a 9th level spell which you can only cast 2 to 4 times A DAY then the entire argument that "this must be weak because balance" fall apart like tissue paper.
[I think the remaster removes that conflict, for non-holy PCs anyway. No more "I totally count as good aligned for the purposes of getting free paladin reaction stabs but also can torture prisoners for the greater good" rogues, for instance. The main thing that might get a little gross is that stuff like Divine Wrath can fall upon the innocent now.
I'd honestly have preferred that Good/Holy characters kept the old alignment damage rules and evil characters didn't. I understand why they didn't do that from a mechanical perspective (symmetry is much easier to write, mechanically) and from an in-play perspective (nobody wants to have their divine lances bounce off bears and fire elementals).
The real problem is that with alignment there's no distinction in neutrality between "innocent baby", "hungry animal", and "hardened mercenary who will work for bad guys but isn't actually evil". They all just get lumped into "neutral." Because the pre-remaster alignment damage rules (for Good damage at least) were designed around neutral creatures that were all pure innocent Neutral babies. Not rampaging Neutral fire elementals, psychotic proteans, booty-hungry pirates, or angry bears.
Tl;dr alignment was narrow enough that you couldn't assume all the monsters the PCs fought were Evil, but it was also sufficiently broad that there were whole classes of enemies (elementals, monitors, wild animals, bandits) that fell under the "pure innocent child" umbrella of neutrality when they really should not have.
Technically Divine Wrath could always hurt innocents because innocent could mean neutral, as you point out.
I also don't think Holy creatures being immune to Holy damage would have solved your problem. While I believe almost all Holy people will be good, most good people will not be Holy. This might be the most significant change from alignment for the lore. One could be Good just by doing good deeds and acting as a good person. Holy requires divine intervention. You could be the...
I think the correct way it should had been treated is that it triggered weakness, bypassed resistance, and/or was resisted. Specific effects could add bonus damage that only affected some creatures, but those would be the exceptions not the rule.
This may be a bit off-topic but something that was quite hard to put into words has been rubbing me the wrong way about alignment for years and the changes with Remaster have helped highlight what that is.
** spoiler omitted **...
Simple everything is made from magic, but that does not mean that anything can manipulate (use) magic.
Tiny rant to continue your rant:
This is were the extraordinary, supernatural, spell, and spell-like tags came in. Extraordinary was very magical, but it was from pure exertions of your body (think adrenalin). Supernatural was definetly magic, but it was very instinctual. Spells were active control of magic in a way that was measured and forced. Spell-like was very much a spell, but done instinctually.
The new essences cause issue because the setting was not originally written with them in mind at all. A Druid was divine because they prayed to nature for their effects, while the Witch was Arcane because they studied how to use magic for their effects. The alignment were just a byproduct of how you acted and thought, not part of some war that you may not even be interested in. While Positive (Vitality) and Negative (Void) just fealt broader as heat vs entropy, radiation vs containment, matter vs antimatter, Antigravity vs gravity.
I do rely on my cantrips for spellstrike. After level 5 I'll generally only prepare 1 attack roll spell
Well, as you level, other options open up. You can get Imaginary Weapon at 6 from Psychic dedication. You can get Fused Staff at 8 to power Spellstrikes with staff charges, or Standby Spell at 8 to not slot a Spellstrike at all.
And when you're preparing 1 attack roll spell, that's 25% of your spell slots.
Yep the same number of high level spells as the full casters get. Funny that.
It is better, but that is still not addressing the issue of spell attacks.
Its like saying "This chicken is undercooked" and then instead of fixing it they go "okay fine we are removing all chicken from our menu and only selling ham". Yeah there is no longer undercooked chicken, but you it was done in the worst way possible.
Thunderstrike being good does not diminish the fact that spell attacks are either badly designed and/or under supported.
Being vegan and reading this analogy is amusing to say the least
Here is an example just for you:
"Hey there is dirt in my vegan meal" and they go "okay fine we are removing all vegan meals, we now only sell tomato slices".
It isn’t a question of whether casters with item bonuses to spell attack roll spells would be out damaging martials. The question is whether spell attack roll spells just became the unquestioned best way for casters to do single target damage in the game.
One clear step in replacing shocking grasp with thunderstrike is that the development team is more interested in having casters play the saving throw game than find ways to maximize spell attack roll spells. But any further speculation on that really needs to wait until we see the rest of the spells in the remastery.
So why shouldn't the SINGLE target spell be the biggest SINGLE target effect?
If you are spending an entire spell slot to target a single target it better be better than something designed to target a group. But that is not how they have set things up and thus all the complaints. Them switching to all spells being saves doesn't solve the issue, just tries to go around it. Heck all spells becoming save based proves that Shadow Signet was just an action tax, while also making that item as currently written entirely useless.
But yes any further speculation on that part has to wait until the remaster rules are out.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Simple as that. Spell casters need to be bad at something and martials good at something. Unless you want to give all these other effects spells do to martials and recreate d&d 5e where everyone multiclasses into a monstrous hybrid that does everything with no weaknesses and team synergies and roles do not exist. I don't know about you but I have no interest in 5e style games where niche protection doesn't exist. I like my team game, I like the role of casters and I like my cool spells. You are at a crossroads. Become good at the only thing martials really have, single target damage, and lose out on all the cool shit spells do, or everyone gets everything and we stop having a team game
Or ofc, accept the balance as it...
So you like the cutrent situation because it suits your tastes of "people being forced into a role". I hate the current situation because it goes against everything that Pathfinder has stood for until now.
You are bringing in 5e but this is not 5e its Pathfinder and you know what Pathfinder has? Fighters casting spells while the Wizard is wielding a sword and the Cleric is shooting guns and there is a Guy (Mesmerist) that is just making death glares. Who does the most single target damage is meaningless when what matter is that you are able to pick your role and be good at it.
Do you think that shooter games are not teamwork because everyone has to has to use the same gun? How about sports where everyone has to use the same skill sets? Niche protection is not a matter of "teamwork", its all just gatekeeping for thr sake of gatekeeping.
It isn’t a question of whether casters with item bonuses to spell attack roll spells would be out damaging martials. The question is whether spell attack roll spells just became the unquestioned best way for casters to do single target damage in the game.
One clear step in replacing shocking grasp with thunderstrike is that the development team is more interested in having casters play the saving throw game than find ways to maximize spell attack roll spells. But any further speculation on that really needs to wait until we see the rest of the spells in the remastery.
So why shouldn't the SINGLE target spell be the biggest SINGLE target effect?
If you are spending an entire spell slot to target a single target it better be better than something designed to target a group. But that is not how they have set things up and thus all the complaints. Them switching to all spells being saves doesn't solve the issue, just tries to go around it. Heck all spells becoming save based proves that Shadow Signet was just an action tax, while also making that item as currently written entirely useless.
But yes any further speculation on that part has to wait until the remaster rules are out.
Thunderstrike is more damage than chain lightning…so, mission accomplished? I don’t understand the rest of the argument. “I want spells that do as much damage as possible to a single target” already exists.
It is better, but that is still not addressing the issue of spell attacks.
Its like saying "This chicken is undercooked" and then instead of fixing it they go "okay fine we are removing all chicken from our menu and only selling ham". Yeah there is no longer undercooked chicken, but you it was done in the worst way possible.
Thunderstrike being good does not diminish the fact that spell attacks are either badly designed and/or under supported.
PF2 Magus waw designed with using max level spells for spellstrike. Its why invented wavecasting instead of just giving them "Warpriest" casting (which support buffs a lot more).
* P.S. Just in case, note that I don't like the fact Magus is so focused on just spellstrikes. But it is still a fact that is what they do in this edition.
Having multiple planar layers to a demiplane would be a huge game changer, I think. Some would definitely be on the smaller side while others would still be sizeable but probably never on the level of continental or making my own world.
And there would definitely be some with hidden, semi-obtuse entry conditions that I'd make purely as puzzles or to reward exploration or just be a kooky old wizard.
It seems to me that an extra layer on a demiplane is pretty much the same thing as a demiplane in the first place and I would be inclined to allow the same means of creation.
Your quite right I'm sure I remember layers being a planar trait e.g. abyss or elysium but when I looked at them it isn't there. Oh well I allowed it for this topic so we'll let it stand for this thread to avoid moving goalposts.
For those replying like I said this is not per the create demiplane or geneisis spells this is apply any of the planar traits you like in e.g. erratic time or static structure plus layers. Just be sure to say what size you want and why those traits would have you take that choice.
This is honestly "easy" to achieve it just takes time and money.
When you make a demiplane you get a set area and casting the spell within the demiplane can either add or extend the duration. If you cast the spell 3 times to make a line and let the middle section expire you now have 2 demiplanes that are "in series". Then casting Greater Create Demiplane you can add portals between your planes, thus making a "layered" demiplane. With enough castings you can theoretically surround an inner demiplane with increasingly larger demiplanes or create intricate connections.
The alternative is even easier but has a number of issues is using the Structured feature of the Create Demiplane spell. You can choose something like say "tower" to make your demiplane layered, but you will have less control over what every layer has.
Holy and Unholy are more about intent than Good and Evil were, but are still roughly homologous since Holy is about "selflessness" and "wanting to help people" while Unholy is more about "selfishness" and "cruelty".
So like a Holy Evil thing might be something that wants to help people very badly, it just has seriously misguided notions about "what exactly that involves."
An Unholy Good thing might be someone who reliably helps end threats to communities, because the pay is good and the work (i.e. killing) is fun.
I actually believe there might be mortals with this kind of corner cases. I think some people would love them. And GMs can always houserule.
But the Golarion deities are another thing completely.
Now, the replacing of alignment by holy/unholy makes even the deities feel less straightjacketed. But that mostly makes a difference for people who saw alignment as a straightjacket. I did not, so for me it changes basically nothing.
Personally, I always felt that the people making alignment into a straight jacket wanted to play neutral but get the benefits of the other alignments. In that respect I guess they got their wish granted, now everyone is "neutral".
It isn’t a question of whether casters with item bonuses to spell attack roll spells would be out damaging martials. The question is whether spell attack roll spells just became the unquestioned best way for casters to do single target damage in the game.
One clear step in replacing shocking grasp with thunderstrike is that the development team is more interested in having casters play the saving throw game than find ways to maximize spell attack roll spells. But any further speculation on that really needs to wait until we see the rest of the spells in the remastery.
So why shouldn't the SINGLE target spell be the biggest SINGLE target effect?
If you are spending an entire spell slot to target a single target it better be better than something designed to target a group. But that is not how they have set things up and thus all the complaints. Them switching to all spells being saves doesn't solve the issue, just tries to go around it. Heck all spells becoming save based proves that Shadow Signet was just an action tax, while also making that item as currently written entirely useless.
But yes any further speculation on that part has to wait until the remaster rules are out.
Kind of a big red flag to tell someone to not use one of their core class features.
This is an optional feature for all familiars since the CRB. One which is worse than other abilities you can choose in it's stead. It's not a core class feature of the witch
I think the confusion was over what you're advising Witch to not use. "Don't use the new class features that make the familiar relevant in combat" is a little questionable. "Don't use the Spell Delivery familiar ability to deliver offensive spells" is reasonable advice, especially because it means having no actions to cast/sustain a hex without Cackle.
I have a lore question. How can a leshy be a grimspawn?
a significant infusion of daemonic power/magic, most likely? which could come from a variety of sources after their creation, or perhaps even have been involved in the process of creating them somehow (intentionally or otherwise).
this kind of thing comes up quite often in golarion lore, and is the main answer to questions like "how do draconic bloodline sorcerers exist?" and whatnot. the exemplar iconic was not born a nephilim, for example.
I personally think it would also be fun if occasionally leshies just end up inheriting things like that from whoever created them. like an angelkin amurrun druid creates a leshy who unexpectedly has the potential to end up as an angel bloodline sorcerer, or something.
The examplar Iconic really shouldn't be taken as a reference given how many conventions of the lore it breaks. Like you know, PC characters not being destined to be gods or have the power of gods (Mythics are demigods at most).
