dnoisette's page

275 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 275 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
The fact that insofar Paizo didn't address some of the critique which was frequent on the boards (eg. the "it isn't PF1" one, the "monsters should be built like PCs" or the "casters are too weak" one and of course the "wrought treadmill, verily" one) while tackled other comments that were frequent (ancestries, out-of-combat healing, signature skills, untrained being too low) tells me that they are unwilling to change some very specific things about the game, no matter how unpopular

This. Bolded part is mine.

23 people marked this as a favorite.

Every time a playtest group gives up, it seems to be for very similar reasons, among which are:

- Monsters are pure killing-machines and their stats make no sense

- PCs don't feel heroic for their actions

- Combat takes too long and gets boring very fast

- The attack routine is always the same, because there's only one that works : get into melee>strike with melee weapon x2, rinse and repeat

- Magic is underwhelming and casters are worthless

- The game is too complicated and that complexity doesn't come with additional depth of play

Clearly, with so many different people coming out to say their farewell and listing these issues in their feedback, something needs to be done to address them if 2nd edition is ever going to be successful.

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:

Am I missing out on some drama?

It has to do with players providing feedback and the perceived reception of it by Paizo staff, judging by devs posts on these forums.

I won't say more, last time I did, my post was deleted and so was Vic's.

28 people marked this as a favorite.

My playtest group feels essentially the same.

We're still giving Chapter 4 a shot because a lot of us loved the Kingmaker AP and exploration rules but that's about it, and I don't think we will make it to Chapter 7, for similar reasons... :/

All of my players are now rolling exclusively martial characters, with 2H weapons only, and they're more or less clones of each other.
Their attack routines are the same (with the odd, "I start raging" action thrown here and there).

When Chapter 1 started, I had a Wizard, Alchemist and Sorcerer in this 5-PC party.
During Chapter 2, I had a Druid, a Wizard and a Bard.
Then Chapter 3 happened and I was left with just one Cleric (despite the rules for playtesting, since no one wanted to play a spellcaster anymore).
Now, none of my players want to play anything else than Fighter, Monk, Rogue and Ranger (with TWF or bow since the rest doesn't work at the moment).

I am DMing and I love describing PCs' actions in combat.
I'm running out of synonyms to eloquently describe a sword or axe attack and it's getting incredibly boring.

Some major changes will need to happen before we consider committing to 2nd edition at release.

I guess there's an argument for both options, honestly.
In the end, I just want Drow to make it into the game as soon as possible.
If it's an heritage feat, I'll deal with it, if it's an ancestry, no problem either. ;)

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

Mmm... Upon thinking I'd prefer Drow its own race rather than an Elf heritage. Specifically to avoid overpowered potential.

I still find Elf Ancestry feats to be some of the best. As a GM I kinda don't want 2x40 speed plus Drow to deal with. Reserve that for Elves and give Drow their own Ancestry.

I feel chances are higher for Drow PCs to end up overpowered if they are made into a separate ancestry rather than a regular elven heritage.

Drow would probably have darkvision built-in, for instance. Right now, you need to pay the "heritage feat-tax" to acquire darkvision, and so you're passing on anything else.

But if Drow becomes a regular ancestry with built-in darkvision, then PCs will have that feature and anything else they get from their heritage feat.

In addition, you assume Drow ancestry feats would be toned down and they would not have such speed options that are available to elves.

You may be right on that account but I think ancestry feats have a potential to offer way more power than boosted speed and there's nothing that says Drow ancestry feats would not turn out to be even stronger. :o

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

Here is a revolutionary idea.

Stop Taxing Spellcasters through a Feat to earn Spell Points. Just give ALL Spellcasters Spell Points out the gate, and let them use them to Recover Spells = 1 level/point spent.

You know what...I'd actually love that!

However, in that case, would you keep school/composition/bloodline powers using the same number of spells points they do now?

I can easily imagine every spellcaster saving their spellpoints for extra spell slots and powers falling on the side as a result. :o

7 people marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
Except for clerics. If you enjoy the support role then clerics are still viable.

My players agree, which is why the only remaining spellcaster in the party is a Cleric. :)

N N 959 wrote:

Go look at the shapechanging Druids. It's the same thing. They were used to being able to shape change for hours. Now, it's been reduced to a battle at time and they hate it. Duh.

It's not just the fact that a use of wildshape lasts only for 1 minute.

It's also the inability to do so much as drink a potion (let alone cast a spell) while it lasts, which forces you to pop out of your form and then burn another one again to get back into the fight when your HP are low (+ the loss of actions for doing so, 1 to end the first form, 2 to cast the new one).

Surely, considering your concerns with Rangers and the action economy loss of Hunt Target, you can sympathize.

This essentially means you can have 1-2 encounters a day before sitting on your hands (because a Druid with max STR has no more than 4 uses of wildshape per day until level 15, or level 8 with a specific selection of feats).

My one player that tried the Druid and ditched it had not even played Pathfinder 1st edition before.
He came to the game a new player, tried a Druid, then tried a Barbarian and then told me he's never playing a spellcaster again in this edition.
He had no preconceived notions about what a Druid should be, he just found it less effective than his Barbarian and later, his Paladin.

So much for your argument that "Paizo has to know that this perspective is skewed because the playtest consist of people who are mostly familiar with casters from PF1", I guess.

You think that casters have been brought down to a power level comparable to martial classes.
I think the nerfs were way worse than that and make them less valuable than just having another Fighter in the party.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

Have no fears, in the end, I am growing more and more confident from the devs' posts here that Paizo will follow your stance.

I will then stop playing, others will as well and the Pathfinder community will shift to something else while we, older greedy spellcaster players, all move on to another game.

Time only will tell if this was a smart move, from a business standpoint.
I don't think it is, because I met enough new players in my gaming career who immediately wanted to be a Wizard -without knowing if this was a powerful option or not-, but I might be wrong.

MaxAstro wrote:

I am assuming that these Heritages - IF they are in the final book; these are effectively placeholders - will absolutely have their canon names in the final book.

My impression was that they were given generic names so that lore arguments don't get in the way of mechanics arguments, which Paizo seems more focused on at the moment. I can't imagine the names will stay that terrible in the CRB, especially with the playtest already mentioning Golarion ethnicities by name.

You may be on to something.

If most names are changed to reflect what they actually describe then I will have one less issue with ancestries.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Red Griffyn wrote:
Lots of good stuff I wish I could have formulated so eloquently myself.


This is everything I want and can think of in order for spellcasters to become valuable again at any given table.

Someone mentioned in this thread that casters being no more valuable than martial characters will increase the desirability of said martials.

That's not how it is right now: non-multiclassed spellcasters are less valuable than anything else and, as a result, my playest group now consists of 4 martial characters (Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, Monk) and one multiclassed Cleric/Fighter.
Nobody wants to try a pure spellcaster again until they (hopefully) are fixed, after having played one themselves. :/

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So I guess the thing is that per 1.4 a Gnome who selects "Deep Gnome" literally is a Svirfneblin, but they don't get features even close to what made those a 24 RP race in PF1. But I don't think you are any less of a Svirfneblin if you start with 2 SLAs instead of 5 and you don't have spell resistance.

So why should PF2 Drow be fundamentally different? I mean, by all means print some elf ancestry feats about poison use or how growing up in a chaotic evil culture changes you or whatever, but I feel that if a Deep Gnome can be a Svirf then a Cave Elf can be a Drow.

Like I see no reason Duergar shouldn't be a Dwarf Heritage, honestly.

The point others and I are trying to make is the following:

Deep Gnomes are explicitly called out to be svirfneblin.
On the other hand, Cave Elves are just that: elves who dwell in caves.
They are not Drow and are not called out as such.

They could be Jinin but nothing says they may be Drow and have their distinctive physical features, for example.

You keep making this an argument about how powerful the race is, for some reason.
You seem to believe that we all want Drows to return so we can have an uber powerful ancestry to play with.

Let me tell you: give me an heritage feat for elves that says "You are a Drow, your people has dwelled underground for millenia as part of the group of elves that fled the surface as the Earthfall approached. You have distinctive dark skin, white hair and red eyes." and I'm going to take it in a heartbeat.
Even if it doesn't give me anything mechanically.
I would take it even if it meant I gained nothing from my heritage other than fluff.

I don't care about Drow being a powerful ancestry, I care about being able to roleplay an actual Drow without having to pretend it's actually a regular Elf in disguise.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

Players were asking for more stuff, but probably not like this. Really just 2 versions of each race would have been fine just to show the proof of concept. What people actually wanted was more of the feats being baked in at the start. Like the regular sky citadel/underground Dwarf could get Stonecunning, Poison resist and Unburneded all together at the start and be more like a PF1 one.

This does mean you have to come up with new low level ancestry feats that actually feel like feats, though.

This is a perfect summary of what I expected from this update, and thus the reason why I am currently very disappointed.

I can't shake off the feeling that players in 2nd edition are asked to buy back everything a race would previously give them - and at an agonizingly slow pace, as well.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
It's already bad enough that the caster proficiency bumps cost you class feats at those levels, it'd be even worse if there were additional spell DC feat taxes.

I should probably have mentioned that, for me, increased proficiency in spells should not come at the cost of a feat.

Martial classes increase their weapon proficiencies for free at odd levels (3rd, 13th), and it never costs them anything.
Why should casters pay with the loss of a feat just to be able to use their spells effectively at appropriate levels?!

Assuming increased spell proficiency no longer comes at the cost of a feat, then picking Spell Focus and its greater variant to boost one school of your choice becomes less of an issue for me. :)

Dasrak wrote:
I think what you've listed is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire spell list needs a serious second look, because a lot of spells are simply never worth using (never mind where you think magic should be, these spells simply are not worth your actions to cast). I don't think spells like mirror image would be quite so problematic if other spells were up to shape.

I know.

Unfortunately, I'm just trying to keep my expectations in check with what has a realistic chance to come to pass.
Changing some spells' effects from critical failure to failure is something that can be done easily, quickly and, hopefully, does not threaten what is apparently the new "balance point for magic".

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I could as well, but Kalindlara nailed it: I want to play as a Drow, not a Cave Elf.

I specifically asked my DM about this and his answer was: well, Cave Elves are just regular elves whith darkvision because they have lived underground, they are not Drow and they don't have their physical or magical features.
In short, no, I am not allowed to play as a Drow. :/

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, in the end, after reading 1.4 again, I have to say the following about ancestries:


I like the idea of Heritage feats. I think it's a step in the right direction but there are several issues here that need to be addressed.


- Most of the names for Heritages range from somewhat weird to openly bizarre.
For instance, if Cave Elf is meant to be Drow...why not call it Drow?
And if it's not meant to be Drow, then it's even weirder.

- Terrain variations should not be heritage feats for specific ancestries.
An Arctic Elf and Snow Goblin and exactly the same, mechanically. This is because adapting to a specific environment is not something restricted to some races, anyone can do it.
These terrain heritages should become available to all ancestries and the ones that have them should receive REAL heritage feats instead, something that pertains to their ancestry and their ancestry only.

- There is a distinct balance issue with many of the ancestry feats.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to see a lot of Barbarians (or just generally warrior-type characters) that have a Gnome best friend now.
Vivacious Conduit is way too powerful.
Same with Multitalented. I don't look forward to DMing for these characters that have two archetypes already by level 9.
I have had multiclassed characters in 1st edition but, most of time, it's just a combination of two different classes, no more.
One of my players is now rolling a Sorcerer/Ranger/Cleric.
I don't feel good about this.
At this point, it's basically just stitching different parts on a character and it makes it feel more like a golem than a real person...

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
Not what I said and I am not about to get into a forum battle with you. Refer to my post for my actual words.

I did : "you still have folks ranting at them on the forums and claiming that its just "not enough."

I'm not ranting, I'm voicing my concerns and you're dismissing them as "a rant".
I too have no further interest in discussing with you, so we're good.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

This has to do with Dwarf having been overpowered as compared to...well, basically every other Ancestry, really. At least in terms of chassis.

I just asked my players who rolled Dwarf characters about this: none of them felt particularly OP and the whole playtest group agreed that Humans was by far the best ancestry, solely on account of the power level of ancestry feats available to them.

I'm going to take your word for it since I did not try that ancestry myself. Maybe Dwarfs were indeed the best but the way it is now, they should probably roll back some of the changes to make them on par with the rest.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:

This was a very responsive patch by Paizo. The patch even addressed the concern folks had about some ancestry feats seeming weird (like a mutation or whatever). Its kinda disheartening that even when they respond to community concerns and do good work, you still have folks ranting at them on the forums and claiming that its just "not enough."

Well, for my part, I think this is great work and I want to congratulate them on a job well done. Its not perfect (nothing is) but it is a very large step in the right direction.

So, according to you, it is wrong of me to state that I am disappointed, and that, unlike you, this update is not what I hoped for?

It's called feedback for a reason: it can't always be good.

I was pretty positive about the changes from 1.3 and I am happy with the new Battle Medic and Natural Medicine, for instance, but I'm really unhappy about ancestries and I should be allowed to say so just as much as you're allowed to say you feel good about it.

Most of the heritage feats feel really bland and uninspired to me, some are even copy/pasted (Arctic Elf/Snow Goblin).

I mean, it's great that you're happy with the update but I don't see how my opinion is supposedly less valid than yours.
I'm not just offering praise so, of course, I am not allowed to voice my disappointment, I must just be "ranting".

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm terribly underwhelmed.

I now have to select the corresponding heritage feat to gain Unburdened as a Dwarf...and I get nothing more than I used to from it.

I'm sorry but "giving more at 1st level" for every ancestry was supposed to be the goal here and it's an epic failure.

I half expected the Elven heritages to all be terrain variations but I'm still completely let down.

A Snow Goblin and an Arctic Elf get the exact same bonuses. I don't see how that helps make you feel more "goblinish" or more "elvish".

Some of the new feats are incredibly OP while others are just meh.

I don't really now how else to convey what I want from ancestries.
I thought the staff had it right this time from hearing the stream but a quick look at 1.4 is enough to say they didn't get it at all.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Just a thing worth pointing out: today is a holiday for the Paizo staff, so they've asked for patience if 1.4 is late coming out today.

Does that mean the errata is coming out tomorrow or just that it might be delayed but it's still supposed to come out today?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree that Sorcerers do not feel so different from Wizards at the moment and it bothers me.
They're spontaneous casters and they have "bloodline" instead of "school" powers, but that is it.

I would like them to feel mechanically different, and not just with how they prepare spells.

Dangerous Sorcery somewhat achieves that, for example. You deal more damage with your damaging spells and only Sorcerers have this feat. This makes Sorcerer the obvious choice for blasting and gives them some sort of unique identity.

Now, I would like something similar but which does not require a feat.
I'd like Sorcerers to have something baked-in the class' primary talents to make them stand out and help differentiate them from other casters.
It's important that I stress the fact that I do not want something more powerful but rather something different.
I want it to be something that makes a player want to play a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard, not over a Wizard.

For instance, a player who is interested in having a TWF character can go with the Ranger because he likes the mechanics of Hunt Target or with the Rogue because he likes Sneack Attack better.
Whatever the player decides, their character will be very good at TWF but it will feel and play differently.

I want it to be the same with spellcasters, equal power level, just different options that makes you question what type of spellcaster you want to be.

Honestly, I feel that Sorcerers, instead of being limited in what spells they can heighten, should have had the ability to heighten them at will and without restrictions.
But that is something they would share with Bards and does not make them truly unique.

Maybe have Sorcerers interact with metamagic in unique ways?

5 people marked this as a favorite.

This is amazing!
Now I want my own 3D printer... :o

6 people marked this as a favorite.

* The following spells and powers should have their critical failure effect on a regular failure instead:

-Cloak of Colors
-Crushing Despair
-Echoing Nightmare
-Ghoulish Cravings
-Hideous Laughter
-Litany against Sloth
-Mariner's Curse
-Overwhelming Presence
-Phantasmal Killer
-Spiritual Epidemic
-Synpatic Pulse
-Unfathomable Song

*Barkskin should receive a serious buff, the DR it gives is pitiful and you gain weakness to the most common energy type on top of that?
For a 1 minute duration?!

*Buff spells in general (target "you" or other "creatures", no harmful effects) should have a duration of 1 minute per spell level, at the very least.
All of them should come with the possibility to be heightened to the next level for a 2 minutes duration or the level after that for a 3 minutes duration and so on.
In an ideal world, I'd be a 1 minute per caster level duration but it's pretty clear that's not Paizo's stance on "bringing magic to a balance point" so it's never happening.

*Mirror Image requires a small nerf: bring back the part where it says "If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss."

*Rope Trick should be a 2nd level spell, no reason why it should be a 4th level spell, especially with the rarer tag.

*Uncommon spells should not be a thing at all. All of the potentially game-breaking options have been nerfed in several ways, no reason to arbitrarily keep players from accessing them as well.

*Nerfs on utility spells should be rolled back (Prestidigitation, Feather Fall, etc.).
These do not make a player or a party overpowered by any means but not having the options we used to for these spells is a roleplaying and quality of life loss.

And the big three, for me and my players, which are required ASAP:

*Casters should gain increased proficiency in their spells at a different rate: make it expert at level 8, master at level 12 and legendary at level 16.

*Casters need to be able to boost their save DCs but I'm advocating for something more permanent than has been previously offered in this thread: bring back Spell Focus (as a feat level 4) and Greater Spell Focus (as a feat level 10) for all spellcasting classes.

*Monsters' saves are way too high at the moment, 60% to 80% chance that they will save against spells is not balanced.
They need to be brought down.

Italics here because I cannot stress that enough.

Gortle wrote:

Not if you have magical armour - which every on does - or a shield.
The AC sucks.

The issue is that Druids, inherently, will not have such a high DEX modifier and cannot get better armour than Hide.

This is because Paizo is once again enforcing the stupid "no metal armour" thing on Druids.

I agree that your statement is true once you pick up heavy armour proficiency and get your hands on some darkwood plate.
That doesn't happen before level 11 at the very earliest and, in the meantime, polymorph spells are a slight improvement over your regular AC.

Gortle wrote:
Most medium level druids will have longstrider up and already be fast enough. Sorry doesn't stack.

So, using a polymorph spell saves you from having to cast Longstrider beforehand. Seems like a boon to me since you're saving on one precious spell slot?

Gortle wrote:
No. You basically lose the ability to use most skills

You're right, I should have been clearer with that statement.

I meant that for the skills that polymorph spells boost (usually Acrobatics or Athletics), the bonus from the spell is equal to or better than what you would normally have when not wildshaped.

Gortle wrote:
Yep, but if you want the good movement like fly your combat ability will go way down.

See, that doesn't bother me too much for one reason: assuming a flying shape with one polymorph spell basically equals to saving on the need to cast Fly to begin with.

It makes sense to me that your offensive shape would then be slightly toned down but I understand why you would feel differently.

As for your additional criticisms...yes that too.
Hopefully some of these things are better at release?
I mean, these forums have made it very clear what areas need improvements.
Either we will have some of them and, if not, then we will have a different kind of answer which is: "We're not changing Druids, we like them fine this way, deal with it." :o

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freagarthach wrote:

"I've had a couple of players field non-offensive casters* with 16s in their primary stats and they've been fine in low level playtest sessions."

I would question what it means that the players "have been fine" here.

Was it that they were MVP for their party?
Was it that they felt on par with other characters?
Was is not that, but they still felt it was OK regardless because it didn't feel like a big difference between them?
Were they fine because it just means that they were able to survive the low level playtest?

People have different expectations.
One of my players is always happy so long as his character survives, even if he didn't do much in a fight, because he is so much into roleplay that he acts exactly the way he would if he were in his character's shoes and if he were, he would only be concerned with survival.

Me, I would find it unbearable to merely be able to "survive" in a fight. Once again, different expectations.
That's why I'm being cautious with the above statement.

If we assume the player above is in the right then somehow it means my expectations are necessarily wrong and I don't see what makes them less valid than anything else.

Freagarthach wrote:
"Summoning spells are really good and interesting at the mid levels. Specifically, when the druid in my Pale Mountain game dropped a fire mephit between the enemy's front and back lines and it set half of them on fire before soaking up a bunch of attacks and then exploding for even more damage. It was pretty awesome."

This situation worked for the Druid because the DM obviously went after the Fire Mephit. It would not have soaked up any damage otherwise.

I will never go after a summon when there is a bigger threat out there, especially with most of the encounters in DD2. It seems to me that most of them would back off from something that just set them on fire...
Had I been DMing, that Druid player would probably not have felt so epic.

Freagarthach wrote:
"The classes that have magic are still more powerful than the classes that don't."

That doesn't mean much by itself. I assume there is a context for this sentence but right now, I'm left wondering:

How are they more powerful?
Because they have raw power that manifests in HP damage?
Because they inflict better conditions with their spells?
Because their buff spells are necessary?
Because they have more utility outside of combat or more skills?

For me, it's a flat out NO to all of the above so I'm not sure exactly what makes spellcasting classes more powerful.
I don't know what that person meant or what they were referring to with that statement.

Freagarthach wrote:

"Spellcasters can cast two spells in a round pretty regularly. I've already seen it plenty of times in my play test sessions.

Usually, it's combining an attack spell and Shield, or casting a spell and using a power (which is basically a spell in every way except name, and is even cast by using "spell" points), and I expect I'll see plenty of true strike added to spells that require attack rolls. All without any added metamagic or magic item expense."

This one I agree with. Spellcasters can have the ability to cast more than one spell in a round.

It is, however, a very limited selection of spells that can combo in such fashion so I'm not sure it really is a big argument for the flexibility of the action economy of spellcasting classes.

Freagarthach wrote:
"So 1st and 2nd level blast slots are better than they were in PF1 because of how weaknesses work. Odds are you don't have enough cantrips to cover every elemental base, so your low level blasts can help with your coverage like you're playing Pokemon. And that is on top of their other advantages-- AoE, range, persistence, reliability."

I was nodding in partial agreement until I read the word "reliability".

Yeah, just take a look at monsters' saves and tell me about reliability... :/

Freagarthach wrote:
"And to echo something I said on another thread there are a lot of spells that are very good in lower level slots, just not damage spells. True Strike is an amazing buff and Ray of Enfeeblement is a solid debufff, both level 1 spells that don't heighten. Level 2 invisibility and mirror image are both great defensives, and Haste and level 3 Fear are an amazing buff and excellent group debuff respectively (Especially now that Frightened penalizes AC and DCs!)."

This I agree with. First positive comment I'm willing to say "yes, that is right" about it.

See, I can admit that some things work? :P (not meant to be a taunt here, don't take it personally, I'm joking but my tone does not convey past my keyboard)

Freagarthach wrote:
"From my play experience, it seems increasingly clear that, whatever it says on paper, casters only feel a bit weaker at lower levels (first couple parts of Doomsday Dawn). Sure, they may not be gods from level 7+ like in PF1, but they still feel competent and impactful once they get some additional spell slots and higher level spells...Whatever it says on paper, *actual play* does not suggest casters uniformly suck."

So, casters are weaker at low levels and then they just become on par with other classes?

That doesn't seem to support the argument that spellcasting classes are doing fine...
Besides, casters don't uniformly suck, Clerics are borderline OP when built for combat, warpriest-style.

Freagarthach wrote:
"When I've playtested casters I didn't feel bad or mediocre. And the people I've seen who have made those complaints have framed them as not being as overpowered as they were. To borrow a phrase "a loss of privilege is not discrimination". Casters were too good. Lowering their power level is not inherently over-nerfing them."

Once again, different expectations. My own are not met with the current state of arcane spells and arcane spellcasting and I feel mediocre.

From my own surveys and looking at these boards, I know that I'm clearly not alone in that statement.

The question is, does Paizo even want us for customers?
Maybe they don't, maybe this game was not meant for us and I'm not angry about it.
I'm angry about them not openly stating whether that is a real fact or not.

Time will tell, I guess. Jason Bulmahn said magic surveys would come, latter, after "other things that need to happen first".
I don't find that extremely reassuring but it's not like I can do anything more than I already have about it. :p

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
dnoisette wrote:
Paladinosaur wrote:
Was drow as a heritage mentioned?

No, it has not been mentioned yet, or I'd be throwing a party already! :D

One can hope, though.
The only thing we had about elves were "arctic elves" and "sea elves" but I'm not sure whether Mark used these as generic examples or if they are indeed two of the final heritage feats.
They seem rather bland compared to the possibility of having Drow heritage or just simply compared to Fell Gnomes, so I'm hoping these are not actual heritage feats.

Well I can't speak much to the Snow Elves, but the Aquatic Elves of yester-edition had a full-fledged Swim speed, which would be quite the addition for some campaigns (probably the ones where being an Aquatic Elf would make the most sense anyways TBTH) and will probably come up at some point in a lot of pre-made campaigns anyways.

Oh, I agree, Aquatic Elves are a very flavorful and useful addition to the game.

It's just that I would be disappointed if all elven heritage feats end up being about terrain variations. :)

Paladinosaur wrote:
Was drow as a heritage mentioned?

No, it has not been mentioned yet, or I'd be throwing a party already! :D

One can hope, though.
The only thing we had about elves were "arctic elves" and "sea elves" but I'm not sure whether Mark used these as generic examples or if they are indeed two of the final heritage feats.
They seem rather bland compared to the possibility of having Drow heritage or just simply compared to Fell Gnomes, so I'm hoping these are not actual heritage feats.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

With the new free heritages being handed out in the 1.4 update, I hope Drow are a selectable heritage.

That was my first thought upon hearing it live from the stream.

Fingers crossed until Monday!

Fell magic made it with Fell Gnomes (apparently) and this is in addition of Goblins getting in the CRB in the first place.
It shows Paizo isn't too adverse to PC options that do not immediately relate to the stereotypical adventurer.
So, maybe there's hope?

In any case, I welcome the addition of heritage feats because it means I can easily homebrew a Drow heritage if it doesn't make it into the CRB, without having to come up with a completely new ancestry in the process.

This means I am far less likely to make up something overpowered or underpowered by building on the elf chassis and simply adding a new heritage feat to the mix.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Freagarthach wrote:

Things can need improvement without being a binary waste of character or table presence. Respecting that is a part of respecting that other people have enjoyed what they felt was "meaningfully contributing."

Binary waste of character or table presence is surprisingly how one of my players just described his character in Chapter 3. Guess what class he played?

It seems to me I should be allowed to state things the way I and my players experience them. It's just as much disrespective to dismiss my opinion on account that you feel it's hyperbolic.

It's not hyperbolic for me and my group. It's exactly how we feel and I have no better way to put it.

There are positive aspects with the playtest, a ton of them (we love the new action economy, archetypes for multiclassing, the concept of having skills feats, unique monsters' abilities in the bestiary...), but none have to do with spellcasters, as far as me and my players are concerned.

We have nothing positive to say about spellcasters, except for Clerics, who are so strong right now I might even tag them OP (has a lot to do with Channel Energy effectively tripling their number of spell slots available at level 1).

I would put together a list of every spell that fails at delivering meaningful impact (to me) and explain why, but magnuskn did that way better when (s?)he started this thread.

I had my own surveys up for magic recently because I wanted to have an idea of the proportion of people that had a similar experience than my players and I and the proportion of those who didn't.

That thread was locked after about 60 people took the surveys and I must admit it doesn't exactly makes me want to try and contribute lengthy feedback anymore. :/

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Yes, well the entire concept of slots is to limit how often spells are used, and any time you have two effects doing similar things (such as dealing dmg), the limited use effect can only be balanced against an unlimited use effect by making the limited use version more powerful in some way according to just how limited it is.

For example, with dealing damage, spells (not including cantrips) are heavily limited against melee attacks, this means that it will only really work if spells are spike damage compared to melee, or area damage at similar or lower dmg compared to melee. Another way limited magic can be balanced against melee is by making spells easier to hit with. Of course, this limit of spells per day only works if the gm prevents the players from resting after every fight.

But the same holds true for other effects. If melee can inhibit via stun or trip whenever, then limited spells should have better versions, simply because you are using a limited resource compared to an unlimited one.

Personally, I don't this per day style, but if they use it, they need to understand it.

I'm pretty sure they have.

The BIG issue here is that spells only have the effect you describe on a critical success (or require the enemy to critically fail their save).

At the same time, it's virtually impossible for this to happen because of monsters' uber saves and PCs lack of ability to boost their spell DCs.

In the end, Paizo has done a wonderful job at making it look like you can still contribute meaningfully with your limited spells...while ensuring that this can never happen, because, apparently, spellcasters should not be given a chance to do something out of the ordinary with their very limited number of spells per day.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I really hope Drow a core heritage.

(I will be ignoring all naysayers on this.)

I've spent the last hours (ever since watching the stream, in truth) researching on how to summon a devil and make a pact with them for this to happen. :P

*just joking of course*

Seriously though, I will be extremely disappointed if Fell Gnomes and Goblins are in but Drows are left out because...reasons?
I'm getting the nagging feeling that elven heritages will end up being a bland variation of City Elf, Wood Elf, Arctic Elf and Desert Elf and now Monday can't come fast enough. :o

Wolfism wrote:
There was a post in the survey blog post from one of the designers, Jason I think, said they're going to do an entire separate survey on magic. They are waiting because if they do to many surveys at once they get less answers, but it is coming.

I know, I was the one who asked about it. :)

It took 2 months to get that answer and I still don't know when they'll be coming, hence the reason why I made my own in the meantime.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Penn wrote:

So you want to be a full spellcaster with one of the better spell lists in the game (Heal and Fireball both) and also a respectable frontline fighter at the same time? No, they make you have to switch back and forth, you can't have both at once.

That seems reasonable to me.

Not being able to heal yourself up when needed -if Wildshaped- by drinking a common mundane healing potion is not reasonable.

You seem to come from the assumption that I want the Druid to just be awesome and have it all.
That is not the case.
I just want Druids to have the ability to get through more than 2 encounters a day before they turn to less than average Fighters.

It's not about being able to buff yourself like there's no tomorrow while you're wildshaped, it's about being able to stay in the fight without burning 2 wildshape uses per spell.

Otherwise, you can keep the rules as they are, forget about Natural Spell altogether and give me more uses of Wildshape per day.

This is still a huge loss in terms of action economy and DPR but, at least, it allows me to play a Wildshaped Druid that can actually, you know, wildshape reliably when they get in combat situations...

shroudb wrote:

On average, every single martial needs a non attack 3rd action because 3rd action attacks should be literally the worst thing you can do in a round.

Alright then, Fighters with only 2 attacks each round still outdamage Barbarians on the account of their increased accuracy, have better AC, can spend their 3rd action demoralizing the enemy, shoving them, etc.

Your character is not pulling their weight.
Your survivability is now on par with a regular martial character but you're not offering better damage or more utility.

In that case, what is the purpose of your character?
I'm with Gaterie here.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
dnoisette wrote:
I'm guessing his opinion is quite unpopular at Paizo because the intent was pretty obviously to have Wizards wake up under PF2E rules and realize their magical connection has been severely impaired.
I suspect that it's more a difference in how "fulfill his role and do what he does just as well as he could in the first edition" is seen. I think a different metric is being used for "just as well" than we're using. That and I'm not sure we're on the same page on "role" either.

"Just as well" means just that: with the exact same end results.

I find it hard to justify going with another metric, with that phrasing.

Now, in order to achieve the same end results with a spell than you did in 1st edition, you have to hope the enemy will critically fail, which is 5% of the time...
Phantasmal Killer is a great example of that.

Lyee wrote:

Here's a spellcaster-helping idea: Refreshing spell slots in 'short rests'

It pushes casters towards a more-frequent, less-flashy position than PF1, but is a very achievable change. How's it feel to people in this thread?

This is an interesting proposal.

I'm of the mind that spellcasters should have more spell slots, period, but this is an alternative that Paizo might actually consider because "spellcasters can't have anything for free".

This helps a lot with buff spells having a low duration because you'll be able to use more of them per day.

However, the core issues with spellcasters at the moment is that most spells have very little effect when the enemy saves and they save ALMOST ALL THE TIME.

Giving you more spell slots just gives you the ability to try and fail more times per day. Not great.

Until monsters' saves are fixed and some of the nerfs rolled back so that each spell actually has a significant impact, more spell slots simply won't help much.

Gaterie wrote:

The attack you're losing has 5% chance to deal regular damage, and 95% chance to do nothing. Seriously, who cares?

I use Roll20 for online play sessions and so I happen to have chat history with all of my dice rolls recorded.

One of five of my 3rd attack rolls would hit last session and that includes 3 natural 20s.
Yes, I'm lucky like that and it tends to happen all the time.
I am aware not everyone will feel the same but, for me, a 3rd attack is valuable because, if it hits, it's probably going to crit as well. :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

I have hopes that James Jacobs may influence the PF2E devs a bit, because on the Roll For Combat podcast he was on, he said that in his ideal vision a caster who goes to sleep under PF1E rules and wakes up under PF2E rules could fulfill his role and do what he does just as well as he could in the first edition. Which is... not the case at this moment.

I'm guessing his opinion is quite unpopular at Paizo because the intent was pretty obviously to have Wizards wake up under PF2E rules and realize their magical connection has been severely impaired.

Your link does not seem to be working for me, however?

Weirdo wrote:
I think you could add extra limitations to Natural Spell to make it balanced. For example, you might have to pick a specific number of spells to be able to cast in wild shape (eg you could Heal while wildshaped, but not act as a fully functional caster). It could also be a metamagic effect, requiring extra actions and leaving you unable to use other metamagic at the same time.

Or you can have Natural Spell allow for Somatic Casting only.

Most spells will require Verbal Casting as well so this would effectively let Wildshaped Druids cast Heal, but with the requirement that it has to be touch range and they can't cast other spells at all because they are restricted to Somatic Casting anyway.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pad300 wrote:
I suspect there will not be a natural spell in this edition - all the combat transformation spells have the text "Your battle form prevents casting spells" (or equivalent language for Avatar). Presumably this means that the developers see casting while shapeshifted to be unbalancing...

I disagree with them on that point but I think you got it right.

In that case, Wildshaped Druids should at least be able to drink potions when they require (much like any other regular martial character), or anything else really, because their action economy totally breaks as soon as they start taking hits in combat which happens...all the time.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

I'm not sure you understand how vigor works.

1st round, you rage.

That's 13 temp hp at 1st round
Second and 3rd round you vigor.

Ah, so that's what you were doing. Using an action for Vigor each turn.

You are still losing an attack each round just so you can keep up in terms of defense or play tank (whatever that means, since a good DM will simply ignore a tanky character and move on to bashing someone else whenever they want - and no, your damage being subpar to that of a Fighter will not make you a threat to deal with urgently).

I'm amazed.

shroudb wrote:

P. S.

If you instead want great AC as well, go animal skin+bracers with high dex and a shield instead of vigor for your 3rd action (you have a D10 "no hands" weapon and a d8 agile simultaneously with your shield for damage). Bracers are equal to a leather, bracers with animal skin are equal to studded but unlimited Dex bonus. Meaning that if you start at 14-16 dex which is more than reasonable, you can still have the "7 armor bonus" even while raging. (although personally I would only do that on a rogue/monk MC barb where dex is main stat for the sweet +7 dex bonus to AC while wearing "studded" for +9 to AC vs other people's +7)

Animal Skin only comes online at level 6.

Barbarians are not proficient with shields so now I'm spending a general feat, wasting an action and reaction each turn that I should have been dealing more damage so I don't die.

Besides, with that DEX modifier you're going with, you probably have either:
- poor CON modifier and lower amount of temporary HP + lower amount of DR
- poor STR modifier and lower accuracy + lower damage

Yeah, looking at these options, I'm pretty convinced Barbarians were not intended to be the ultimate tank in this game.

They have mechanics to survive with their low defense and supposedly do a lot of damage in the meantime.

Unfortunately, the action economy of Rage, the round you spend fatigued and the lack of better proficiency in your weapons make it so the last statement (do a lot of damage) doesn't work right now.

Draco18s wrote:


How do you rage while raging? Rage does not have the Rage trait (and does have the Concentrate trait).

You're right, I had not even considered the fact that you can't end your rage prematurely on a whim just so you can start raging again.

In fact, I had not even thought of doing that until I tried to understand how shroudb could get these numbers to begin with.
Only possible explanation to me was raging again each round...which is impossible.

This adds even more weight to my analysis: no, Barbarians will never be tankier than Fighters, extra temporary HP do not make up for lower AC and the fatigued condition when rage ends.

NemisCassander wrote:
dnoisette: Possibly. Again, I'm not imputing any nefarious intent on the devs.

I'm not either. I'm saying it's hard enough when you know what mistakes you should avoid making to not make them in the first place and so I understand why the surveys are biased: because Paizo staff is, in the end, humans. :D

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

At 9+ you gain around 29 hp/4 rounds easily.

That's on average 7hp/round

You only gain temporary HP when you start Raging.

With 18 CON, at level 9, you gain 13 HP and that's it.

If you want more, you're gonna have to keep reapplying your Rage every round and that is one big a** DPS loss like no other.
What's the point of having extra damage per hit if you lose the opportunity to attack once each round?

Greg.Everham wrote:
Barbarian also has access to Renewed Vigor as a level 8 class feat. It lets you trade an action for Temp HP = 1/2 level + Con. At level 8, when you get it, that should end up being 8 HP for a single action. That's roughly on part with a Fighter raising his shield against a monster that is likely to hit you no matter what (equal level or higher). It's not a terrible bump to the Barbarian's HP pool and augments that "29 every four rounds" rather nicely.

Renewed Vigor will grant you 8 HP, according to my previous example (level 9, 18 CON).

You can't use it more than once during your off-rage round because temporary HP are no longer cumulative.
It also has the interesting side effect of further increasing your penalty to AC, because you're taking an action.

I'm not saying Barbarians can't soak up damage.
But they can't be tankier than Fighters.

Or rather, they can be, if you want to reapply your Rage every round.
In that case, Fighters win the DPR race by a large margin and their higher AC means they're not much worse at surviving the fight anyway.

The damage resistance helps but level 9 is halfway through your character's career. You have to survive (and hopefully have fun with) the first 8 levels before you get there.

I remain unconvinced. :/

I feel it's important that I emphasize the following: I'm not advocating for Barbarians to become better at taking damage.

I want them to become better at dealing damage and I think that extra tiers of weapon proficiency throughout a character's career would go a long way in helping that happen.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
dnoisette wrote:

Why is Natural Spell not in the CRB?

I'm not a developer but my personal opinion is because wild shaped druids casting spells are overpowered in PF1. They can be built as combat monsters or (generally in elemental form) they can be casters with several huge advantages over other casters.

Besides, they have to have SOME cool things for the later splat books :-)

I understand the intent and I'm pretty sure that was it as well.

However, this turns out to be overly punitive in play.

I have a great example with one of my players who had shapeshifted into a wolf at level 4. He took two bad hits in a row in a single round and was left with 3 HP.
He could not cast his Heal spell and get back to the fight without having to burn one extra use of his Wild Shape pool.
At level 4, he only has 3 uses in total per day.

So fine, Druids should not be able to cast while transformed because balance.
I find that extremely arguable, but alright, that's how it is.

The issue is that they can't drink a potion either.
They can't even rely on mundane healing or Battle Medic because it is a fine manipulate action.

I find that is a big deal because, for my player, it meant he had a choice of not being able to shapeshift at all for the remainder of the day...or he could just go down this time and hope someone will have him drink a potion or he makes his Fort save. :/

Not exactly the kind of choices one should have to make.
When a Fighter sacrifices an attack to drink a potion, he loses DPS on that turn, he does not sacrifice his ability to attack for the rest of the day!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
NemisCassander wrote:

I will say, though, from someone with a background in how to write (and analyze) survey questions, the devs need to seriously work on writing their survey questions. Without imputing nefarious intent, it is very clear (to me, at least) the expected response to most of these questions, and I would guess that the survey results are biased because of this.

That was extremely obvious in the earliest surveys, especially the one about classes. It still shows in these most recent surveys and it's quite clear what you're expected to answer relative to each subject.

Each question feels more like wanting validation than objective feedback.

For example, you can answer that you would prefer not to have a single proficiency system for all different game elements.
It's great that this is an option.
However, the rest of this section in the survey will only ask questions that are relevant if and only if you agreed that you want to have a single proficiency system for all game elements in the first place.
If you don't want that, none of the other questions will let the devs know how you would like something else implemented.

These last two surveys are better honestly.
Yes, the bias still shows and it's often not possible to clearly choose an answer that truly represents your opinion but I can see that a lot of efforts went into including a wider ranger of options and possible feedback, which I am truly happy about.

Not everyone has a background in statistics and I can understand it being a difficult job to produce a solid and unbiased survey.
I had so much trouble with that by the end of my graduate studies that I deliberately chose a subject that would allow me to go with qualitative surveys, which are much more opened and investigative! (something totally impossible to do when you have more than 20 respondents per interviewer BTW)

Zarkias wrote:

Thanks for your answers.

@Zioalca: What about AC non magical bonuses from armors ? Do they add to AC written on polymorph spells ?

I don't think so. Each polymorph spell sets a fixed value for your AC and the only way to influence that is to use the Druid's Vestments.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:


There will be a survey targeting spells and magic specifically.

We are trying not to release too many all at once because we get a lot less responses when we do.

It's very good to finally know for sure that this will happen, thank you.

Data Lore wrote:
Its funny how folks get so riled up over this stuff.

Waiting 2 months for an answer will do that to some people and I am totally willing to acknowledge that I am not a very patient individual. :)

Zarkias wrote:

-> Is there any non special material (like darkwood) heavy armor that isn't made of metal ?

Could it be legit to call for full plate made of turtle shell or other exotic material that doesn't give gameplay benefits out of not been made of metal ?

I've been looking for that as well.

RAW, it does seem like Darkwood is your only possible choice if you want heavy armor that a Druid can wear withut incurring penalties.

RAI, I'm not certain because p.177 does state "Most suits of armor and weapons are made from ordinary, commonly available materials like iron, leather, steel, and wood."

I could see someone using this to justify that their heavy armor is made from chitin or stone (dwarf plate anybody?) and thus is not metal armor.
It says "most suits", not "all suits" after all. And I certainly don't think stone or bark would qualify for the denomination of rare, special material.

My own DM ruled that all heavy armors are made of metal and I can only have Darkwood heavy armor for my Druid.

This is an issue because the price is quite prohibitive and items made from special materials do not have a level tag.
Maybe a Darkwood plate is a level 8 item and I could have picked it up much earlier for my regular treasure but, at the moment, I have no idea.

Which makes me want to ask the following:

-> What is the corresponding item level for an item made of each one of the special materials presented in the CRB?

Surely, it won't take much extra space to add item level for each special material in the final version.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Alright, I'm hoping a dev will come by this thread to clarify their position, even though I know chances are it won't happen.

Why is Natural Spell not in the CRB?
Was it an omission?
Was it intentional to remove this feat and make it so wildshaping Druids can never cast spells without sacrificing two of their uses of Wildshape in the process?

Is there any chance this feat will make it in the final version?

Wildshape only has minutes duration. You can only effectively use it in combat situations but if you want to cast a spell, you have to give up your current form AND recast it afterwards?

If you have 4 uses of Wildshape per day, this essentially means that casting a spell in each encounter means you can have no more than...2 each day.

If that was the intent, it's broken. Why add mundane healing if some classes are still going to have 5-minutes adventuring days?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

For starters, with medium armor being equal to heavy now, and the way ability boosts work, a barbarian will be more tanky than a fighter due to getting quite a bit of temp HP every 4 rounds. Add that vigor is now a very nice "3rd action" and DR and a vision starts forming.

A Barbarian will never be tankier than a Fighter.

I repeat, never.

Fighters are not supposed to boost their Dexterity, they're meant to keep it low and enjoy the benefits of better proficiency with heavy armor than any other class in the game (except Paladins).

If a Fighter wants to use medium armor (they do get expert proficiency after all) they can. They have enough room to start with 14 DEX, 14 CON, 18 STR and 12/14 in whatever else you like.

A Barbarian has no such possibility. They can never wear better than medium armor but it will take them a lot of time to catch with the max DEX modifier they're supposed to have to work with medium armor.

This is because Barbarians must start with 18 STR and 16 CON. Sure, you can start with just 14 CON and push DEX to 14, why not after all?

Except you always lose 1 AC when raging and up to 4 AC when the rage goes way! You'll never have the AC of a Fighter, even if you try your best at it.

You'll have more HP. Up to 3 extra HP per level, and your temporary HP. Barbarians don't mitigate damage with armor, they do so with their health pool.

If you build for very high CON, you can have an impressive number of HP and temporary HP.
The bad news is, monsters hit for a lot of damage and will usually take all of your temporary HP in one hit.

Fighters tank damage with armor, Barbarians tank damage with their HP and yes, that makes them weaker.
I can't let you say they're much tankier, that's just wrong.

At level 6, a Dwarf Fighter with 16 CON has 88 HP.
A Dwarf Barbarian with 18 CON has 106 HP.
When the Barbarian rages, he gains 10 temporary HP.

The Barbarian has 28 more HP than a Fighter when raging.

The Manticore, a 6th level monster, attacks for average 16 HP on a hit.

You won't even mitigate two full hits with your temporary HP.

The Fighter has 16 DEX and is wearing medium armor, say a +1 breastplate.
That's 24 AC, 22 TAC.
The Barbarian only has 14 DEX, otherwise they couldn't also have 18 CON.
They're also wearing a +1 breastplate, for a total of 23 AC, 21 TAC.

Except when raging, this goes down to 22 AC, 20 TAC.
On a turn that rage runs out, it goes as low as 19 AC, 17 TAC.

See where I'm going with this?

You're at least 10% more likely to get hit every attack and you don't even have enough HP to soak up more than one attack in full before you're on equal ground with the Fighter.

No, Barbarians are not tankier than Fighters.
They're different, because HP and not armor is their defense.
But they're not better and never will be.

1 to 50 of 275 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>