UncleG's page

I just had my attention pointed to my misreading of the descrpition of how the level boosts are noted, I take it back! The cantrip situation is just fine!

UncleG wrote:

A decided nerf. The playtest gave such hope, TK Projectile offering a d10 combat spell, electric arc a d6, chill touch a d 8, and all scaling comparable to other classes in capability. In the release this has all bewn castrated, d4 and d6 instead, and only one scale to 2 dice. Basicly it's back to twidling our thumbs unless the martial type pause long enough to cast a 3rd level or higher spell. back to begging the gm to start at 3rd again, sigh....

Erm, the "Heightened (+1)" means that for every level you add one damage die and cantrips automatically autolevel

"A cantrip is always automatically heightened to half your level rounded up—this is usually equal to the highest level of spell you can cast as a wizard. For example, as a 1st-level wizard, your cantrips are 1st-level spells, and as a 5th-level wizard, your cantrips are 3rd-level spells. "

Ahhhh!!! I obviously misread the description! Thank you for calling my attention to that I take it all back! :)

A decided nerf. The playtest gave such hope, TK Projectile offering a d10 combat spell, electric arc a d6, chill touch a d 8, and all scaling comparable to other classes in capability. In the release this has all bewn castrated, d4 and d6 instead, and only one scale to 2 dice. Basicly it's back to twidling our thumbs unless the martial type pause long enough to cast a 3rd level or higher spell. back to begging the gm to start at 3rd again, sigh....

Yes, wizards got nerfed. This is fine because the 3.5 Wizard ranks towards the top of classes in any RPG that really needed a nerf.

Don't play wizards much huh? Lowest hit points, little to no armor, worst saving throws, no useful weapon skills, no skills for that matter, and every GM aiming for thew wizard first. Far from needing a nerf they need some boosting to be on par with other classes. A low level wizard should be able to at least come close to damage and defense when compared to a cleric or fighter of similar level. At 2nd level a 1ed wizard does around 1d8 in a round IF they use a crossbow, a 2nd level fighter has a d10-d12 plus several bonuses from stat and feats. Once we get into the mid range and up the wizard is only powerful IF the martial characters DON'T run up and stand toe to toe with the enemy, making it a choice of doing nothing or blasting your own party in the bargain.

I don’t think it’s really as bad as some people here are exaggerating about.

1. Cantrips give casters a useful baseline they didn’t have before

STill do more damage with a crossbow.

2. Focus spells give a reusable pool during the day to do more powerful effects

Have you looked at the focus spells, most are as useless as the cantrips

3. Spells having some effect if the enemy saves doesn’t leave your class as binary where if they save their hold person you’ve wasted your turn but if they failed you won the fight

Hmmm a reduction from a minimal affect... now that's useful

4. Blasting is a powerful option because of good base damage for spells and critically failing doubling damage. It does however shift caster blaster damage to more of an AOE role. There really isn’t a battering blast build yet.

Only if your martial characters stay away from the enemy, otherwise your blasting your own party members, or sitting in the background with your thumb up your butt

5. Spells DCs all heightening even if you don’t heighten the spell makes low level spells much more useful at high levels.

marginal at best.

RPG rulesets are meant to be houseruled and I think it's a good thing for PF2E to be built with newbie GMs and players in mind.

Once new players and GMs get comfortable with core rules then they can houserule their game to their tastes.

In any case the game doesn't seem to be less lethal.

I strongly disagree. If I need to have more than one or two house rule the system needs some work. Heavily house ruled games make playing with other groups difficult, usually needing a couple sessions to learn new rules for the game you've been playing for a year. Flexibility in the core system is essential, it allows new players a chance to ease into the game without penalizing veteran players.

I couldn't agree more. The resonance system as is adds a complexity with no benefit to the play. Your Idea of one time investment is very similar to OWD Wherewolfs dedication system. Each dedication/investment, ties up a point untill you remove the item.

Here's my take. I've been playing for 45 years, GM for 40, when my players are screwing with the game play by item spamming,,, wait for it...
I STOPPED LETTING THEM FIND THOSE ITEMS!!! After all it's kind of hard to quaff your 10th potion of the day if the shop only had 4. Same applies to wands and such " you loot the enemy mage and find a wand of cure light, it was a hard fight though and there are only 10 charges left, use them wisely."

I think there has to be easier ways to fix the cure light wounds wand without causing so much collateral weirdness everywhere else because of it.

There sure is, don't hand the wands out in the first place.

I figure the desert hedgewitch can swim because she's too ornery to die like this. Swimming acumen borne out of pure spite "I spent my entire life worrying about 'not enough water' and this is how I go out? Not going to happen."

But, if you really want your character to have be utterly clueless/incompetent about something, you can always elect to not roll. Choosing to roll represents "I will put everything I have learned into accomplishing this task."

If I ignore the rules to do what I want, why have the rules?

I think they did a really good job but this community is just one ofthe most closed minded ones out there. It was formed on not wanting to move on so this was to be expected. People will adapt.

I've read through 80% of the book now and have not really noticed any glaring issues and they have to leave room for splat books later. Dont worry choices will be huge after a year or so. Enjoy having only a few books right now.

That's a bit rude. "closed minded" has nothing to do with it. It is natural to express concerns, especially for classes etc that are your favorites. If the game was as polished as you seem to believe there would be no need for a playtest.

I'v been doing this for 45 years, and I've found that if a character is a game breaker it's because the GM isn't doing his job.

Most spell casters have half, or less, the hit points and significantly lower AC than the worst non-caster in the party. Enemies tend to target the "magiky looking guy" first, result, dead caster. A GM doing his job can reign in even the most powerful character (notice I didn't say just wizard) with a few simple decisions, yet most are fine with the 4th level fighter doing 50+ points of damage per round while complaining about a 1d4+1 auto hit magic missile.

Honestly I like a lot of the changes, a lot more than three. But here goes.
LIKE

1 Actions/reactions; simple, frees up creativity in combat, lets non-fighters be more involved.

2.set progression of HP. No more dead characters from crappy HP rolls!!!!!

3.Moving skills, combat, saves, etc into a single concept for rolling(not on "proficiency" next) Makes character gen and using them streamlined.

HATE

1. Resonance; Great for non-spell casters, gives them access to more than just potions, sucks for spell casters that have already had their legs cut out from under them with spell nerfs.
2. Spell caster(wizard most of all) nerfs. Fewer spells per day, weaker spells, no skill points, not specialty skills, no weapons, no armor... Basically dead man walking.
3. Skill "proficiency" garbage; 0% customization, 0% flexibility. The TEML could be useful, but it's scaling sucks. No room for specialization. Everyone has the same skills under Crafting: everything. I go from T to E and I am now an expert in ALL CRAFTS. Didn't work in Advanced D&D, still doesn't now.

See, I would disagree. Having properly unique characters under light roleplay requires that the mechanics accommodate said characters. From where I'm sitting, PF2 requires heavy roleplay to make up for the gaps in the mechanics when it comes to playing interesting characters.

I agree.

The scaling cantrips look pretty good to me. The spell point powers much less so thus far.

Telekinetic strike is OK nut most of the rest are a bit wimpy, crossbows do better. Sorry I'm not really a Gandalf type player. Of course what they did to mage armor and shield is almost criminal. It is better to take the hit and use a feat to get armor proficiency and buy armor.

Cantrips and Spell Points bruh.

Use your Resonance.

Well,

Cantrips; only telekinetic strike does decent damage, and still less than a Cleric can do, let alone a fighter. AND it requires an attack roll, problematic for wizards.

Spell Points; max of 4 points unless you spend feats( that add anough to use it ONCE) and the list of things to uise is pathetically short.

Resonance points; magic items are now basically nerfed beyond compare, your level + char mod, wow a whopping max of 5 at first level, game breaking,,, not. Scrolls and wands ore the only thin that keeps low level casters from sitting at the rear of the party with their thumbs up their butts.

Red Griffyn wrote:

A level 1 AND level 2 spell being equivalent to a level 1 skill feat seems under-powered... for the spells.

Uh...no. Create Food feds six at level 1. Forager feds 1....until level 6. And let's not pretend a GM is going to make someone cast Create Food and Create Water.

My favorite is the Quick Climb skill. A level 7 feet, requiring a master in Athletics. On "Success" you can move at half your speed. Yeah, that measures up real well to Spider Climb which gives you 25 climb without having to make a single roll. Sure, Spider Climb only lasts 10 minutes, don't remember anyone needing to climb longer or more than once an adventuring day. But if you know you have to climb a cliff, wouldn't be problem to prepare it more than once or metamagic the duration. What's more, the caster can bestow it on someone else. Can't really do that with skills can you?

But hey, Casters dominating the game isn't a thing is it?

Hmmm, attack the caster, lowest hit pints, 1-2 hits, no more csater. Very dominating?

thejeff wrote:

I like to play casters. I think that they need to be weakened from PF1.

It's not about caster players vs martial players, each side wanting to boost their own favorites and weaken the other side's. It's about wanting a better balance between them.
Some certainly disagree about the problem and where the balance should be, but I still don't see it the way you describe it.

TheJeff gets it. Aadgarven talkin' 'bout how HE is less powerful now is, apparently, playing a very different game than I am, one where he is personally wounded by better character balance, and one where his individual need to feel powerful is more important than everyone at the table feeling like they have a fair shot at contributing to the fun.

You obviously have a unusual gaming environment. In 45 years of play Wizards have always been the first to die, last to attack and couldn't use most of their big spells because the fighter types ran up to the enemy, leaving the choice of do noting or kill party members because they're in the area of effect. Power isn't the issue, being able to play a caster, you know, casting spells?

Quote:

to as manay creatures as you damn well feel like

1) Three times per day

2) Critical success on a reflex save ends the chain

Any time you're spending a spell slot, you're ending the fight in a round. Any time you're not you're on the bench.

Hear, hear! It's all or nothing. My players won't do wizards because 90% of the time they're twiddling their thumbs, then BOOM, one fight over in 1 round. Slightly better boost to low level combat spells, and some comparable spell strengths in higher levels would help a lot. (Getting rid of thr resonance oint nonsense would help as well>)

Hmmm. Wands, Scrolls, and Staves. How does that impact the spell economy?

Not at all now that they are limited by resonance points, ALL items, potions, scrolls wands etc..., are now limited per day items.

it's a pretty steep cost and really only worth it if you plan on getting attacked a lot.

1

Plan on getting attacked a lot? Most GM's attack the wizards first, and always having the LOWEST hit points makes them very vulnerable.

I see a flaw to the skill point system. It assigns a level of learning based on class, which is not realistic to the setting. I've used a house rule alternative that works very well:

All classes get 6 base points plus their primary stat bonus in skills with that stat.
This has eliminated the constant whine about skill points.

Another idea would be to leave the point the same and give the classes trained in all skills with theire primary stat.

Erwo the Elder wrote:

I agree with most of what you say, especially the Attack of Opportunity part. It felt like it was given to the Fighter class to give them a special ability like the other classes have and completely unbalanced the game. The Attack of Opportunity from PF1 and D&D 3 has become in my book one of the most brilliant additions to the game. It forces players to be shrewd action takers. Because no one wants to give someone a free swing.

I love Perception becoming your Initiative multiplier. And taking it out of the skill...

As an OG AD&D player, I respectfully disagree re Attacks of Opportunity. It is one of the mechanics I liked least when I made the switch to d20. I feel it slows the game down and doesn’t fit thematically for many characters (is a Wizard really going stop doing cool wizardry things to shank someone as they pass by?). One of the things I love about Starfinder is the downsize of AoO. And I like that the playtest 2E makes it even less prominant. I can see the point that, if it exists at all, maybe other martial characters should have access to it. But I won’t miss it if the current rules stand.

On the other hand, I totally agree re Perception as the Inititative stat. And I also love that the GM could change that based on circumstances (you snuck into battle? Use your Stealth modifier instead).

Using AoO is optional, a player does not HAVE to take it. That said, if it's a long combat and I'm out of spells, you bet I'll take the AoO if it's there.

I do commend the developers for keeping the spells per day even for all spellcasters though. 3 per day per level, looks like I'm making tons more scrolls and wands.

Honestly failing the learn DC isd pretty minor. My concern is how the COST of learning an extra spell will play. 2 gold for a 1st level, 140 for a 6th, 7,000 for a 20th, pricey.

It's a balancing tool for Wizards (and Quick Preparation), you can't have every spell you want unless you get lucky die rolls or take the feat or wait until you're overleveled to backfill your spellbook at lower spell levels.

Balancing what? Wizards already get the lowest ht points, lowest skills, no useful armor. H*^^ they don't even get the same benefits as other spellcasters(divine). I ive the same advice to all my players, if you playu a wizard roll a 3rd level character right off, if you don't you won't last long.

Encountered a swarm of crows and several characters were blinded by scratches to their eyes. Our GM felt that we needed a cure blindness spell because "blindness" wasn't covered by cure wounds spells. I contend that because it was from a physical wound it should have healed by cure light or moderate. So should cure wounds spells heal blindness from a physical wound or not.