Search Posts
Okay I will also give Paizo credit for SF though my group hasn’t gotten around to trying it yet because we are a bit burnt out on sci fi. One of our game nights has been a long running D6 Star Wars campaign. Starfinder is alright if you’re a fan of item levels like in the playtest starfinder has that although if you don’t like a game full of guns it might not be your thing.
My only real problem with magic items was resonance so when that disappeared I was pretty ok with everything aside from item level since it felt kinda video gamey to me, but the items themselves seemed cool.
I honestly just want the sorcerer to at the very least have auto heightening on all spells or if not that a complete rework as they are now the only reason to play one over the other caster classes is flavor. A lot of good points all worth noting thanks for a fun read, I agree the arcanist casting would be a sweet alternative.
I honestly just want the sorcerer to at the very least have auto heightening on all spells or if not that a complete rework as they are now the only reason to play one over the other caster classes is flavor.
Y'all are really pessimistic over changes you guys asked for huhActually a lot of the people who are pessimistic over the changes in this thread are the people who have been positive about the playtest generally. Me included. Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent. It’s no secret I’ve been one of the less satisfied with the playtest, I actually really enjoy the changes listed my big concern is how much it will change and how much work it will take,the Paizo staff are people as well regardless of how I feel about the final game I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being concerned. I also think there’s plenty of shots fired on both sides it’s the nature of debate however I severely doubt the forums were a dealbreaker I highly doubt Paizo would of bothered with surveys if they were just gonna go use whatever the forums listed instead.
I honestly was happy to hear the proficiency change though I did take a healthy sip of skepticism as well, I’m glad that your character has to invest to be good in something, what I now fear however is how several changes will influence the whole framework, the playtest has always had tight math so I imagine this could be a sizeable overhaul, I have had a lot of issues with the playtest but I find myself sharing @Gorbacz feeling of worry that such a big overhaul can be completed on time. In short whatever misgivings I’ve had with the system I want the final product to do well, I’m just gonna be patient before I outright make predictions on how it will turn out since the final product may look nothing like what we have now save for some core mechanics (3 actions and so on).
Well if you want to talk in extremes then why have players make characters at all? Just have the GM make them all apparently that’s the only way they can be trusted.I don’t know what kind of munchkins you play with that you feel the need to micromanage everything I got news paizo can limit options all they want people will always find a way to break a system, if the only way you can trust a player is by banning things and telling them how to play then I think you have a much bigger issue at hand.
If it requires a GM ok before I can take it I don’t want it in the core rulebook I’d rather it be in a supplement. As for players being entitled I never said there should be no rarity or limited supply I said there should be clear rules not a big GM’s discretion tag if that’s the route they want to take I personally think it should be in a DM focused book the players handbook should be for the player if I can’t play the character I want then what’s the point.As for magic gear I lean more into negotiations here as items are acquired in game not on character creation (inless starting at a higher level) or level up so I think it’s fine if I can’t find something (the caveat being if I never find anything for my character and the campaign is approaching high levels)
...Could you explain what benefit this provides? Is it only for simplicity? Assuming you can keep a party invested till at least tenth level it’s a little dishonest to talk like they get this guaranteed reliability heck it doesn’t even show any promise till at least seventh level, in the event you’re talking about assurance you don’t add bonus to that you get the number it provides, it doesn’t become remotely attractive till tenth level when you gain access to sneak savant turning a fail into a success a feat I never would of needed before because I’d be actually good at stealth. If taking ten levels before you notice any real improvement is your idea of good then sure it might be ok, but none of the players at my table could imagine slogging through ten levels of mediocrity before their character does as advertised.
Mirrored moon playing a half-elf Rogue who I made as stealthy as possible, went to scope out the lake where the sea serpent was apparently lurking I rolled a 18 for stealth on dice only to find out I’d been seen and that the serpent had rolled higher on stealth than I did. Honestly just feels like specialist characters aren’t allowed to be ‘too good’ even though they sacrifice just as many feats as every joker who invested only in combat options. The tight math in short just made all of us go the hell with it lets all roll for everything it doesn’t matter anyway. And the final thing that Paizo say will be fixed by the time the game is done is spell casters now I played a rogue from 1-20 in PF1e they were considered the second weakest class after monks and I would of rather played a 1E monk over a 2E caster, if your spell isn’t magic missile, heal or a buff then it’s bad or mediocre at best they upscaled the damage which wasn’t even the issue, the problem was that spell dc’s are so trash that most enemies shrug off spells even on their bad saves. In short we never felt awesome at best we felt mediocre at worst we would of rather played as monsters or NPC’s since they aren’t trash.
Could you explain what benefit this provides? Is it only for simplicity? I honestly to this day still don’t see the problem if I’m playing a Rogue for example and invest all of my feats, skills and other bonuses into a particular skill then I want to be bloody good at it, it’s utterly stupid to me that a character who commits at being a specialist can lose out because something else rolled 2 or 3 higher on the D20, if everything is roughly 50/50 then why roll up characters I could just flip a coin to decide everything.
It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy. In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in. Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.
And this is a good argument for why Combat Flexibility should be a feat option and not a class ability. Wizard is generally considered the hardest class to play, and fighter the easiest. There is a point to having some simple and newb-friendly classes. The fighter was literally the easiest class in PF1E, as for combat flexibilty I think it’s neat.
If classes can just pick favored bonuses then at what point do we just open all feats to each class but maybe at a different level (Like Dark Heresy). I’m in no way saying that would be bad just wondering if you think it should be limited to just stats or if you think things should move towards a sytem where classes just decide your starting options and not limit you after or if you don’t want to see this kind of freedom go any further thsn stats at character creation.
It’s almost like we had something that dealt with wounds in PF1e that kept adventures from grinding to a halt *cough* wands *cough*. Honestly if magic healing is unrealistic and cleric channels are just gonna get nerfed because heal is the only good spell in the playtest they may as well just remove all magic healing, heck just get rid of magic clearly that’s intended to only be fun for monsters unless you’re a wizard we’ll buff those since they were too boring not because data said they were significantly weaker. Honestly though it feels like you’re inherently punished for wanting magic in the playtest, paizo say that they know and will fix it by the release and hey maybe they will but based on what we have at the moment I am extremely skeptical.
Pre update 1.6 the cleric was the only caster my group would even bother with, I played a divine sorcerer which was honestly terrible, the wizard was boring which actually led to it being buffed because apparently Wizard not being boring is more important than fixing sorcerer and druid was just meh they weren’t terrible but just felt mediocre. Honestly all the casters need an overhaul as it stands my players have all said if casters are anything like they are now they’ll at best only ever play martials and at worst just not buy the game since apparently fun spellcasters and wands of cure light wounds is what was ruining the world and having to take a day off after EVERY fight is preferable guess we know why they removed age mechanics any humans in the party would die of old age by the midpoint of any campaign.
I don’t even get why anyone is surprised anymore Wizards will always be better because people basically demand it, hell the wizard literally got buffed because it wasn’t interesting not even because it was weaker, it honestly just seems like the sorcerer was designed to fail it’s got access to any spell list but the parent classes are almost always better, even their bloodline abilities don’t help much since they range from mediocre to just bad, who knows maybe they’ll turn out fine but from everything shown the sorcerer is gonna be the runt of the litter who got torn down because it dared to try and be relevant.
That's exactly the reason it shouldn't be an option. (Or at least, the argument against it.) If an option is terrible and will serve as a trap, don't bother including it. Guess a good number of class feats shouldn’t be included either then? (Looking at you power attack)
The issue with spells isn’t damage yes that got nerfed, however the real issue is saving throws throughout the playtest my group all agreed that you should always decide if a spell was worth taking if the target passed, the reason because monsters have stupidly high saving throws I don’t care how much they increase damage on spells if it’s doing half damage 80% of the time then I may as well have taken buffs or healing.
That's no different then what I was saying. Sorry I must have misread you I thought you said you’d rather change rarity as you see fit, but I must have gotten confused
...I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.House-rule? probably give the reasoning behind it to the payer.I can only speak for myself: I prefer to seeing restrictions and then finding ways to be the benevolent GM who gives players an avenue to achieving what they want that isn't normally readily available, than having to restrict access to what the player believes the rules say is unconstrained.Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then? If it’s a home game I may alter things to my preference but at a store game I will always default to rules as written so unless there’s a reason not to such as a AP specifically stating otherwise then anything listed as common would be that it prevents arguments and rules lawyering, but if I was to alter rarity it would be at the beginning of the campaign and only if the players know, openness tends to reduce problems.
I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t. Yes I’ve seen both sides with players using a lack of rules to argue and GM’s using it as a mallet on players they dislike, some call it the risk of playing in a public space but I would personally prefer a system where neither problem makes an appearance.
I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t. I’m one of several GM’s at a store the big issue with arbitrary rarity is some GM’s won’t disclose or don’t get a chance to disclose how they run their games, players then turn up with characters rolled up and are told they can’t use the character they’ve brought or worse a GM will allow the character such as a gunslinger for example and then never allow the character to find more guns because they think they should be near impossible to find, only for that same player to play that same character with a different GM and get all the guns they could want. It’s not a problem at home games where everyone knows each other but this is a new game with new rules anything that cuts down on potential rules arguments is a plus.
I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.House-rule? probably give the reasoning behind it to the payer.I can only speak for myself: I prefer to seeing restrictions and then finding ways to be the benevolent GM who gives players an avenue to achieving what they want that isn't normally readily available, than having to restrict access to what the player believes the rules say is unconstrained.Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then? I run games at a store often with people I am unfamiliar with of varying ages, I make a point to set my standards early and while in YOUR experience it’s not an issue it can be especially when you’re dealing with different kinds of people from different walks of life not everyone you meet is as happy and I’ve met more than a few players who believe that unless a book states you can’t have a spell or particular class feature or archetype then it’s good to go, items are a lot easier to argue you can just say they don’t have what they’re looking for. In short I like rules because most players read them and accept them, the minute it becomes GM fiat I open myself up to potential problems, i also believe that a set rarity sytem would be better for new GM’s since it takes the weight off them deciding what is and isn’t allowed.
House-rule? probably give the reasoning behind it to the payer.I can only speak for myself: I prefer to seeing restrictions and then finding ways to be the benevolent GM who gives players an avenue to achieving what they want that isn't normally readily available, than having to restrict access to what the player believes the rules say is unconstrained.Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then? I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.
I can only speak for myself: I prefer to seeing restrictions and then finding ways to be the benevolent GM who gives players an avenue to achieving what they want that isn't normally readily available, than having to restrict access to what the player believes the rules say is unconstrained.Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then? It’s not that complicated as a GM you inform your players what isn’t allowed at your table ahead of time, if you fail to do that and they build a character without that information then tough luck, the players shouldn’t have to play a guessing game as to what they can have, as for having a rarity list that’s also simple I want a concrete list with tables saying how those items/spells would be acquired if one is to be included, I don’t want everything that’s not listed as common to rest on the GM’s whimsy because that leads to some GM’s allowing anything anyway and others just banning things just because. A player should know ahead of schedule what they can and cannot have in a campaign last thing you want is to build a necromancer and then be told you can’t have raise dead after the fact JUST BECAUSE.
A high fantasy setting where myself and my friends could adventure and be heroes facilitated by a system that let us build almost anything, put simply we liked feeling legendary and being able to customise characters the way we want with rules to go with it all.
I feel like the question Paizo really needs to answer is "what IS a sorcerer?"* How is a divine sorc different from a cleric? How is a primal sorc different from a druid? And more importantly, why are those two sorcs the same class?I feel like the answer to this should be Bloodlines. Sorcerers really need to double down on the bloodline mechanic and make their powers really exciting and distinct. I don't think there'd be as much of a big issue of overlap with other classes if they had a real class feature beyond spellcasting. Too bad the current bloodline abilities pale in comparison to feats and the big hurdle is always going to be “Why don’t I just play the other class with the spell list I want instead?”Either they need more stuff to make them better casters or bloodline powers need to be super appealing, I imagine that one way or anothey they’ll end up either weak or overpowered depending on who you ask, the class has to actively compete with all other casters now which is a tall order.
The problem I have with this argument is if it’s not fun to play and I think “what were they thinking”The whole time why would I want to bother with the rest, I’m also tired of hearing that homebrew solutions fix a lot of problems, this is a new ruleset it needs to stand on it’s own if the only way to make it enjoyable to my players and myself is to rewrite half of it then why bother there’s already functional games out there. Also sick of hearing about how it’s new, it’s not an excuse this is meant to be an improvement compared to it predecessor, like it or not this new system has to stand next to the old one and prove it’s worth investing in because like everyone likes to remind me my old books aren’t going anywhere so I don’t need to buy the new edition. I want the game to be good but I honestly feel like this game was made for different people and is just wearing the pathfinder name tag for brand recognition.
What RPG would you play then? I'm seriously curious. The problem I have is that the cost of not being trash at things you didn’t invest in is you’re not that great at the things you optimised for, people can say “Well it’s because it’s boring if the rogue is never caught or fails a deception check’I honestly could care less when I decide to optimise towards something I want to be very good at it, but as I’ve said countless times though monsters have better skills anyway to the point that I focus on skills even less in the playtest than in 1E, with the experience I’ve had with the playtest if it doesn’t make killing the target easier or buff the party then it was a sub par choice, you may not like 1E skills but at least when you invested in them you were getting something out of them.
So while I protested initially over the "nerfing" of casters... it's much ado about not-so-much. Casters STILL have a huge selection of spells. Their lower level spells remain valid in combat, especially as weakened higher level foes will, after being softened up, be vulnerable to these lower level spells. And Cantrips will allow Casters to provide significantly greater support than a crossbow or the like, as do Wands and Staves.SO now casters just wait until the enemies are really weak and then have them make the save anyway? Spellcasting in this edition is stupid. Just get a sword cast your 1 minute buffs and hit stuff with a sword. The vast majority of playgroups never get past level 12, or at least that’s the case in 1E so saying it gets better at high levels is a pretty poor argument, especially when your spell proficiency doesn’t go up till 15th level, if you think casters being garbage until right at the end of a campaign is ‘balanced and fun’ then I can’t agree with that, either spells need to be overhauled or monster saves need to be knocked down a peg because right now if you roll a caster that isn’t a Cleric you did your party a disservice, honestly 1E was high fantasy the playtest is not, one of their goals was players being able to tell the same stories they did before too bad anything that requires a save is automatically worse than magic missile.
I play primarily martials and with the exception of Cleric wouldn’t even consider a caster in 2E, I tried a primal sorcerer and after our first combat where everything kept passing the burning hands DC I outright gave up on attack spells and just used healing and cantrips since most spells requiring a save are a joke in the playtest, blaster casters were mediocre in 1E but they’re pointless in the playtest since monsters are so overtuned.
Systems are easy to houserule, but going through every feat trying to decide on a balance point for it is much less fun. Just because a GM can use house rulings to improve a sytem it doesn’t mean the system is fine, rather the fact that the playtest requires house rulings is problematic, if the game struggles to stand on its own then it needs work, this is a new system that new GM’s will take an interest in, it’s unreasonable to expect them to house rule and fix issues on the fly, I like the games skeleton so far but a lot of the meat struggles to stick.
... The developers have already said on other threads that they won’t be changing the level scale from 1-20.
You could just house rule to give every player more feats generally, mission accomplished. No this is a playtest, if you have to house rule the game for it to work then the rules are failing to facilitate an enjoyable experience, if we have to rewrite the game for it to work then it needs to be fixed.
That said, I think some people would prefer to have a more basic option be in the game rather than giving all martials their own "magic system" as ToB does. I have only played pathfinder no 3.5 but Tome of Battle based on your description sounds like the sort of thing I’m talking about and something I should definitely look into :)
One of the playtest goals is to be able to tell the same kind of stories. To do that you need to be able to have the same kinds of characters.Making the connection between same kinds of stories and direct analogues between character builds is a loooooong stretch. One of the playtest goals stated was that the new game would feel like pathfinder, so before you say “It does you fools”You need to remember everyone valued different parts of the previous edition and a big issue a lot of players have now is that classes included in the playtest no longer have access to play styles they used to have, because of this those players feel that the goal of the new edition feeling like pathfinder has failed. Now I know a lot of builds can kind of be recreated via multiclass dedication feats but again a lot of people don’t want to HAVE to take these feats, additionally some combat feats are class locked in the new game when they weren’t previously. So yes 2E has customisation but there are players who feel that the characters they want to play aren’t available such as bow paladins, strength rogues or dex paladins to name the ones I see mentioned with the most frequency. So yes while a lot of concepts can be kind of remade in the new sytem people want to play characters and build them their own way instead of being forced to go through particular channels. And again the major cause of friction on this topic is what people consider to be the main feel of 1E, for a lot of people it’s the ability to build what you want the way you want instead of being handed cookie cutter templates you have to layer to get the desired shape, for others the main draw of 1e was versatility of actions and then there were people specifically drawn to the high fantasy which has led to some feeling like the same stories can no longer be told because magic for some people (myself included) has become a pale imitation of its former self. To summarise no one’s feelings about the feel of the playtest is inherently wrong people just want different things because the previous edition had multiple draws and some people feel like certain draws have been prioritised over others.
I feel like "never considering the opinions of anyone except possibly the 4 or so folks you share a campsite with" is the baseline player character experience. I think that’s because most groups can’t be bothered caring about what non essential NPC’s think, if it doesn’t push the story or create an interesting story then why should they care, that’s just my theory though.
I’m not sure if this is aimed at me but the fact is certain topics and what some players consider to be problems have been addressed while others haven’t, I do all the surveys and want to believe it’s going to help, but there are others who are wondering why some issues have been publicly addressed while others have not, I don’t want to hover I was merely saying why I think some people are unhappy no need to get prickly Thank you for a calm response I agree some people go a touch overboard on both sides, I myself am not a fan of the current state of spellcasters, however while I have not been happy with the playtest there is a lot here in the current framework I do like, I also understand what you’re saying everyone’s experience is different I was simply stating why I think some are unhappy. Thanks for the response I’m glad you’re having fun :)
Chaotic good is doing what you believe is right regardless of the opinions of others, neutral good is doing what you believe is right for the MOST people meaning that you may break the rules if you HAVE to.
That feel when you ask why martials can’t be buffed instead of casters getting gutted twice and they ignore it and only focus on the rest of your post largely changing the tone and message of the post. Unfortunately the increased mobility hasn’t done much anyway, it’s the same pattern of doing two attacks you just finish with a move and then they chase you and swing back, heck several monsters can move and attack in the same action resulting in standing in place like 1E anyway.
I think if you don't trust Paizo to take your feedback and turn it into a workable ruleset without you looking over their shoulder, why would you have any faith in their published products going forward? The vast majority of those will not be playtested, after all. I’m not sure if this is aimed at me but the fact is certain topics and what some players consider to be problems have been addressed while others haven’t, I do all the surveys and want to believe it’s going to help, but there are others who are wondering why some issues have been publicly addressed while others have not, I don’t want to hover I was merely saying why I think some people are unhappy no need to get prickly
did we get the survey reault then? I can dig the four corners the argument that your beliefs need to be to an extreme is interesting, not gonna lie though anything that isn’t lawful good would make me happy I’ve always preferred neutral good where I try to do the most good not what is good AND lawful. After all goodness and lawfulness aren’t always the same thing.
Well technically they *can* change the fundamentals of the system during the playtest, but I'm worried that people who gave them money to get the playtest book believing it would be used for about 1 year wouldn't be very happy to learn that it's no longer the case I fully agree with you I bought a book but would be fine with an overhaul, but I can easily understand a lot of people not wanting to learn a revamped sytem and only have PDF’s it’s a tricky balance.
That’s still a concern because it is effectively the same as saying “Trust us you’ll like what comes next we’re certain we can fix and replace things without making any mistakes”I’m not being sarcastic either if that happens and they nail it then sweet but I think a lot of people’s anxiety is that they keep saying they have issue with certain things (Spell casters, resonance, the inclusion or exclusion of particular ancestries) and they are worried they aren’t being heard. Again I’m not saying people are being ignored but there is a percentage of players who have had problems with one or more of the examples I listed in brackets that have recieved little to no PUBLIC attention from paizo, again these issues could be receiving heaps of attention behind closed doors. In short I think a lot of dissatisfied playtesters just want confirmation that their concerns are heard.
That feel when you ask why martials can’t be buffed instead of casters getting gutted twice and they ignore it and only focus on the rest of your post largely changing the tone and message of the post. Seriously every time I ask it’s always ignored it’s like people have this silent belief that in this new edition someone has to be disappointed, I want a game where everyone feels like they matter and during the playtest myself and the rest of my group didn’t feel like our characters mattered, you can say what you want about balance but if balance means punishing people for daring to like one play style over another then we’d rather play a sytem like 1E or 5e D&d where the balance is a little wonky but we have fun playing the classes we want, the 5e sorcerer is probably the second weakest class in 5e yet I had more fun using it than I did in the whole playtest, the PF1 core rogue is one of the weakest classes and I’ve played one from level 1 through to 20 because despite being weaker I felt unique and fun. I honestly feel like nerfing things because of 1E is a poor decision, instead of tearing down casters martials should be built up, to hell with ‘realism’ it’s a fantasy game where you fight monsters if casters get spells that do amazing things let martials do equally extraordinary physical things, because if the design model moving forward is nerf anything problematic then what happens when martials overshadow casters will third edition make casters gods again while relegating martials to mediocrity again? Or give martials supernatural effects like what Stygian Slayers had, if a lack of magic is what makes martials terrible give them supernatural abilities not tied to spells like grit points or a ki pool, they not only give martials options but allow for more powerful effects since you’re paying a cost be it grit, ki or any resource the game designers feel to be appropriate.
In my group we also found that the game scaling basically demands that you optimise your characters, Which is funny when they said they wanted the game to be nicer to new players and we still have low level trap feats like half the paladin oath feats, don’t get me wong I LOVE the flavor but oath of the dragonslayer makes no g$! d$%n sense on a lowlevel character, it’s like when a ranger in 1E takes favored enemy dragon at level 1 everyone just rolls their eyes because they know the only dragon you ever hunted was an iguana that grew really big.
When I sign up for PFS scenarios at level 5 and above, I will sometimes opt out if there are no casters in the group.Are you serious? In the 200ish tables I've sat at PFS at all levels of play is utterly dominated by weapon combat - maybe not pure martials, but people who "do combat" by hitting things with a weapon. Ok I bothered to read all your back and forth, in first edition I played primarily martials I only learned casters when I started playing with newer people so they could play a simpler martial characters, so before I get ahead of myself yes there was martial/caster disparity and we agree that’s a problem, what we disagree on is the solution, I decided to try a sorcerer out since I never got to play one in 1st edition another player chose Wizard since he’d only ever played a cleric and no other caster in 1E, we both dropped our highest level slots against a ‘level appropriate’ enemy only for it to critically pass both saves, now some people think casters had too much power and options so I can get behind reducing either output or the amount of casting but in this instance both have been hit, any spell that requires a save is bad which hilariously has led to magic missile being the damage go to in the playtest, what I have always advocated for is not the gutting of casters but the improvement of the other classes. The big argument I hear is if you improve martials instead of nerfing casters it becomes ‘too anime’ or ‘that’s unrealistic’Who cares? It’s a high fantasy game, any world where a guy can turn invisible by playing a flute has room for a guy who can do equally insane physical acts, why can’t this be considered why do either casters or martials have to be weak? Honestly just seems like a lot of people who want to watch the other side get punished for some hidden slight against them where 1E was the delivery device. To summarise I think casters having less spells is fine, but they should still feel powerful, right now you can’t even really be the ‘lore keeper’ since most characters are just as good as you at a skills unless they’re untrained, additionally I see no reason martials have to subscribe to reality, if martials being a bit too ‘anime’ is worse than half the players not wanting to play I think there’s a bigger problem that needs to be addressed.
In all fairness I’ve been fairly negative towards the playtest I’ve done every survey that has been put out, I don’t doubt there are some who didn’t do them but there are plenty of people who haven’t enjoyed the playtest who simply want to share their experiences and concern, it’s a playtest people aren’t obligated to like it, in fact if people dislike it they should make themselves heard so Paizo knows why they’re unhappy, I could be wrong but your post feels like you’re saying enjoy what’s in front of you or don’t speak.
Fighter dedication gives a lot even when compared to the other dedication feats
|
