ikarinokami's page

I don't see the problem. if you want and advanced weapon, be a fighter.

It's like being a fighter pilot and then complaining that you aren't issued to use a scar.

Needing the fighter dedication to use an advanced weapon effectively seems to me to be the right cost.

regardless of whether or not they are worth it. from a lore and ambiance of the world it makes perfect sense to me and is in line the with rest of the design present in the game.

I read this whole, thread, and I just didn't see the point of it. The language in the rule is very clear.

In PF2 you have a higher % change to crit fail than to crit succeed. and?

That's not a flaw, that's a clear intended choice, pretty clear by the unambiguous written rules.

there are some games like Shadowrun where there no critical successes and only critical failures.

If I had to guess, I would say magic the four stages of saving throws is the main reason for the asymmetrical design.

the game can be 90% combat or it can be 90% out of combat, i have played in games that were either and neither, so you need to rate how classes function in both situations.

of course, before you start your campaign you should ask the GM what style of campaign they are going to running, so you can choose and plan your class.

ikarinokami wrote:

Unicore wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

if you were going to do it, I would keep it relatively simple

first you make two divisions. combat vs non-combat

you break down combat into damage, control, tanking debuffing, buffing

non-combat gets broken down into utility

you can then rate classes how well they do each, by assigning 5 to be best

and go from there.

5 the best
4 not the best but more than adequate
3 avg = doable under the right circumstances
2 poor
1 fighting the system

I think it is a mistake to divide the game into combat/non-combat for this analysis.

Part of what is going to skew all of this is if the developers created the classes to be balanced around 4 distinct phases of the game, intending a character to participate in all four (as established in the roleplaying the X), and yet players are lumping 3 of them together and not really comparing what the class is stated to do but against general expectations that are being imported largely from other games.

As for the alchemist, I think that it is interesting that the class is apparently stated to be able to throw bombs and provide support to allies in the form of elixirs from level one apparently, but that mutagens are not really designed to considered until higher levels. Having not played a higher level alchemist, but having a fair bit of experience as a player and GM with level 1 alchemists, it doesn't seem feasible to trying to bomb and do much with Elixirs until level 5ish, or at least, even being a bomber through multiple combats a day seems to require hitting level 4 or 5, much less having anything left in the tank for other abilities. Thus a lot of alchemists I see that people have fun with, end up focusing entirely on elixirs and a crossbow for most of lower levels.

Also, intending Mutagens not really to be effective until higher levels seems counter to the design of having a class path that focuses on it from level 1. These 2 things together seems

...

I don't agree actually, I think a lot of casters get a lot from archetyping because to be honest a lot of their class feats are terrible to borderline useful to very situational useful

ikarinokami wrote:

if you were going to do it, I would keep it relatively simple

first you make two divisions. combat vs non-combat

you break down combat into damage, control, tanking debuffing, buffing

non-combat gets broken down into utility

you can then rate classes how well they do each, by assigning 5 to be best

and go from there.

5 the best
4 not the best but more than adequate
3 avg = doable under the right circumstances
2 poor
1 fighting the system

I think it is a mistake to divide the game into combat/non-combat for this analysis.

Part of what is going to skew all of this is if the developers created the classes to be balanced around 4 distinct phases of the game, intending a character to participate in all four (as established in the roleplaying the X), and yet players are lumping 3 of them together and not really comparing what the class is stated to do but against general expectations that are being imported largely from other games.

As for the alchemist, I think that it is interesting that the class is apparently stated to be able to throw bombs and provide support to allies in the form of elixirs from level one apparently, but that mutagens are not really designed to considered until higher levels. Having not played a higher level alchemist, but having a fair bit of experience as a player and GM with level 1 alchemists, it doesn't seem feasible to trying to bomb and do much with Elixirs until level 5ish, or at least, even being a bomber through multiple combats a day seems to require hitting level 4 or 5, much less having anything left in the tank for other abilities. Thus a lot of alchemists I see that people have fun with, end up focusing entirely on elixirs and a crossbow for most of lower levels.

Also, intending Mutagens not really to be effective until higher levels seems counter to the design of having a class path that focuses on it from level 1. These 2 things together seems likely to result in a fair bit of player frustration...

you have to divide combat vs non-combat or you are going to get an accurate picture. it's just a fact that rogue and investigator have the most potential utility outside of combat.

one of the beauties of PF2 is that you as a fighter for instance can sacrifice some of your combat prowess and gain a lot of utility through the archetype system.

Every ranking system has to include the caveat that it is only covering the base classes staying base class. because the truth of the matter is most classes with the exception of clerics at healing, fighters at fighting and rogue as mastering all skills, they can be as good as most other classes at the same role with some investment

if you were going to do it, I would keep it relatively simple

first you make two divisions. combat vs non-combat

you break down combat into damage, control, tanking debuffing, buffing

non-combat gets broken down into utility

you can then rate classes how well they do each, by assigning 5 to be best

and go from there.

5 the best
4 not the best but more than adequate
3 avg = doable under the right circumstances
2 poor
1 fighting the system

to be honest, I don't it can work in Pathfinder 2. I envision what you are

talking about as someone like Sypha from Castlevania anime on Netflix.

You could however pull the concept off in in Shadowrun 5.

Reading this thread, has to made clear to me that the designers like Michael Jordan took it personal that lists like these existed and were relevant for PF1 and decided they were not going to be a thing for PF2.

PF2 addresses some of the linear/quadratic issues by reigning in spell slots and high level powers... but I mean in terms of narrative capabilities and horizontal expansion, a high level caster still blows a fighter out of the water.

The biggest change is that the Fighter is now the undisputed king of Fighting and baseline skill options for most classes have improved.

It's much harder for a spellcaster to invalidate a martial... and in extremely combat focused games fighters will probably dominate, but especially at high levels some of those fundamental problems still exist, because spellcasters still expand outward much more than noncasters.

I don't think i agree with this. clerics are amazing, but I don't think magic is overall that amazing save for like wish. personally I think rogues and investigators with master and legendary skills can do way more than spells.

magic has very much become MMO magic. it's not underpowered, but it's very balanced, it's good for certain things like clearing out hordes of trash, or making it easier for the fighters and barbs to do their things. Casters even with the uncommon spells don't pose much of threat to the game narrative. high level rogues, now they do, some of those legendary skill feats are flat out crazy good.

How are they just like the Sorcerer?

Their verbal components are replaced depending on your Key Ability Score, they get to augment their cantrips to be more powerful in the cost of spells per day. And they can enter a Psyche in order to use their Amp'd cantrips more or cash in a spell slot to do tons of additional damage.

NONE of that speaks Sorcerer to me. Not thematically nor mechanically. However psionics were done in other editions of D&D, that doesn't HAVE to be the way they are represented in PF2E.

it didn't have to the same way. for instance. they could have made focus spells works like powers. give them the concentration trait, and then add class feats that modify then.

there is a ton of design space. they didn't need to literally repeat and remake the sorcerer.

I've ever been so disappointed in Paizo. When the first edition psychic came out, the psychic was that way because Paizo didn't want to step on Dreamscarred press toes who had done an amazing job with psionics, I understand and respect that however that reason does not exist anymore.

The new psychic is just a rebadged sorcerer, there is nothing about it that says psionic. it does nothing to even try to mimic how in general psionics/psychics are portrayed, instead it is literally just another spontaneous spellcaster whose lore makes no sense. they cast spells with their minds, is that in any way different how from literally every other spellcaster in pathfinder 2 works? d

Come on guys do better. if you are going to do psionics/psychics, do it right.

there should be the basic powers - telekinesis, telepathy, pyrokinesis, etc.

the ability to sustain etc. typically psychic stuff.

why are we getting just another version of the sorcerer? sigh

wisdom not being represented makes no sense to me, I think willpower and intuition {both hallmarks of wisdom in pathfidner} have been more of a hallmark of physic power than intelligence ever has.

Charisma I get, I have read of a ton of sci/fi and i'm hard press to think logical psions, most have been what i would called charisma or will/intuition based.

the logical physic is such an odd and bizarre concept to me.

If that was a vague way of asking for Power Points then no, they use spell slots like every other caster.

it doesn't have to be power points, just not another sorcerer with different flavor text.

I hope the Psychic is more unique this time and not just a repurposed sorcerer. although highly unlikely I hope it uses different mechanics from other spell casting classes, and isn't just another spell casting class with a different flavor.

I agree with you OP, the "occult" bard has never made any sense to me either. personally I would have preferred that bardic magic be it's own thing tied to artistry but I understand the logistics of why that did not happen.

inner sea gods does list a demeter like goodness of the harvest, if i recall. ill check my book later

differnt PC levels in a party in PF1 isnt a big deal, but its just not a good idea in PF2 just because of how the math works. its doable i suppose but you definitely will have to fudge a lot as GM if you want to keep it compelling for all the characters.

The rephrase the question, can the alignment of a diety in Pathfinder 2's world ever shift? Can an LE or CE good be converted to neutrality or even good either via their own changing view of the universe and their role in it or by external factors such as rhetoric delivered by a sufficient charismatic mortal? If they can be redeemed do we then punish them for the evil they've caused? If they can't can we condemn them for something fundamental to their very nature?

This is to say is an Asmodeus who cannot be redeemed actual evil if he has no choice in the matter? For that matter can one be good when they only do good acts because they are literally under a supernatural and immutable compulsion to do so? If Asmodeus could be so compelled to do good against his will even if it caused him mental anguish to so go against his nature would compeling him to do so be a good act?

Your Asmodeous point assumes that asmodeus doesn't enjoy being evil and in fact chooses to be evil. You can only redeem something who want's to be redeemed and see's a value in being redeem.

Asmodeus just isnt a good example.

A better example would be an angel, however they have examples of angels being both corrupted by evil and those choosing to be evil.

the super hero/ Lone Wolf/ Anime/Manga OP MC

I very much enjoy the "4 ability boosts" system. Not really seeing the "sameness" that people are talking about. Sure, if you go all in on your class's main thing then pump up the save stats, things can look kind of similar. Although even then, you have 12+ stat differences characters' stats (str vs int on a fighter and wizard, for instance)

But the second you start looking for cool stuff you stat array can start looking very different. Multiclassing, using skill feats like Bon Mot, not maximizing your main stat... you can end up with a lot of differences and everyone feeling like they could use more boosts.

And you definitely *can* leaves stats at 10 if you so choose, or slack of on some of your save stats because a couple points here or there aren't going to break you.

I have to disagree, i love second, but stats are the same.

99% of cases are the same.
you increase whatever your main stat is, plus wis, con, and dex

it's too costly to do otherwise. since each plus is so valuable, you need to take advantage of every opportunity to max your save.

Critically failing almost any save, is baaaaad. in this game regardless of what character you are tying to create, basic survivability always has to be at the forefront in second edition.

investigator is probably the answer.

the party shouldn't take a cleric or champion of Gorum to a negotiation for a peace or a avoid a fight. negotiations that lead to either non lethal combat or perhaps a duel to lessen casualties is fine.

Indirect magic and underhanded tactics is actually a very tricky questions.

charm spells and debuffs seem very much the definition of underhanded tactics to me.

indirect spells seem to me to be spells that control the environment.

Gorum based on these, seems really more to be a God of the Duel/Battle like Ares, Rather than a God of War in the same vein of Athena, or Odin.

He seems very much a man o man o kind of God rather than a tactical kind of God.

I don't think this will turn into a pf1 vs pf2 two thing at all. the question is a fair question.

I think the niche is that PF2 is TTRPG that's comes the closest to capturing the tropes in how most party based high fantasy novels are actually written.

Very rarely are bosses one shoted. The difficulty of challenges seem to scale even though the heroes themselves are getting more powerful.

One of the wierd things ive always found about both pathfinder novels and D&D novels, is I always felt, the games never play out the way the novels do.

The simple answer is you have cleric.

i think religeon is the most narratively compelling myself,

ikarinokami wrote:

Casters suck because the Vancian system is awful, I am still stunned and amazed that the majority of players voted to keep that system.

PF1e must have had really sucky casters, seeing they used Vancian casting.

Especially the PF1e wizard. That was as Vancian casting as you could get. That class must have really really really sucked.

Spells were overpowered in ways the made vancian system work in 3/0/3.5.pF1. for prepared casters.

"control" spells as just one example in PF1 often covered multiple situations in and out of combat.

As long as a wizard in PF1 memorized a core of certain spells you were covered.

Just look through the PF2 spells and compare them to the PF1 spells. spells are nerfed both horizontally and vertically.

the problem is that there weren't more spells like Heal that are properly integrating into the system. and that with the overall nerfing of spells, Paizo should have exercised GM fiat and realized that it's players were just mistaken for wanting to keep the vancian magic system.

I assume metamagic where suppose to be that "third option" but for the most part they are terrible and underwhelming.

Yes its a factor but there are alternative non Vancian classes.

Casters suck, because they have watered down the spells, and spell DCs too much.

this is true the spells feel very MMO'ish to me, but i understand why they did it, and I don't have a problem with it. it works just fine with a Sorc because you are generally specializing in one facet so it works out ok. Clerics are fine because of healing font.

those vancian classes though are just terrible, because they are too many situations where I can't do anything, or I am forced to memorize the same spell, which defeats the purpose of me playing a wizard in the first place.

I absolutely think if I as a wizard could cast the spells that I needed when I needed it, the class would be 100% better, regardless of the overall nerf to spells.

Casters suck because the Vancian system is awful, I am still stunned and amazed that the majority of players voted to keep that system.

I'm not sure I agree with the fighter being the "best" martial.

Rogues are amazing, skills are so good in PF2.

Champions are amazing they can do such great thing. Every martial ive seen in action in this version of the game has been tremendous.

It's wizard who I think sucks. I know people love the Vancian magic system and that's why it was kept because most people voted for it, but I think it's awful and the worst thing about the game, and I can't wait to see the alternative magic systems in Secrets of magic.

arcanist doesn't make sense, since they already said that masters of magic will include non vancian magic system options, unless they are more classes than summoner and magus in the book.

Gunslinger and occult classes make the most sense, because they bring with
them lore that is a major part of PF1 but not yet included in PF2.

I think mysterious stranger should be an arctype because you can find them being also every type of class in literature and popular culture, from rogues, fighters, archers, soldiers, mages, gun slingers, it doesn't make any sense to me to make it's own class, rather it seems tailor made for the archetype system.

The Raven Black wrote:

I do not see her as Evil so far. She might even be Good. I see her somewhat similar to Han Solo, who did associate with Jabba the Hutt.

Han starts out on that CN/CE line and his arc is that he transitions squarely into CG though. Alignment changes are fairly common in other media, where a character learns something, earns redemption, turns heel, gets their comeuppance, etc.; but characters in elfgames tend to be somewhat ethically static. Like there are games out there where you can start out evil, and in the course of your campaign fail to "learn your lesson" as you neither earn redemption nor reap what you have sown.

Preretcon yes, however han is definatly CG after George Lucas's recton scene.

gunslinger and occult classes would be my guess.

Love
Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer

Kinda cool
Oracle

Don't care
Bard
Witch
Wizard

Barachiel Shina wrote:

MMOs don't do this crap. Final Fantasy XI was still release expansions even far after the success of FFXIV. And they still continue to support and update the game.

While MMOs have been inspired by and borrowed from TTRPGs, it's time the TTRPG businesses take a thing or two from MMOs.

Erm, what? Live service video games stop support and make the game inaccessible all the time for a number of different reasons. FF XI's continued existence is pretty abnormal, given that XIV and WOW both had "blow up the world and start a new one" storylines in which the old content became inaccessible.

MMO's dont really do that , EQ after 20 years just had an expansion, even though eq 2 exists.

it's like that for most MMO's so the poster is not incorrect about, it's pretty much standard.

however the economics involved don't make it in my opinion a fair comparison.

Temperans wrote:

Martials in PF1 are not 100% worse, that is something spouted by people who cant see eveything martials can do. Usually because they are too busy comparing them to Casters.

Yes a martial is a 100% worse in PF1 to a well built wizard, druid or cleric. There is no debate at all to this.

I do not agree with this. play pathfinder 10 years. and fighters and barbarians blew up for encounters and caused more headaches than any caster. This is not to say that casters when built properly werent also broken.

there were quite a few classes in PF1 that when built properly overwhelm the game. Casters have been nerfed, but martials were also nerfed a great deal.

The issue i think is that vancian magic does not fit well into PF2 game system.

I think when the promised non vancian system of magic gets released in mysteries of magic, people will like wizards a lot better.

literally any two martial combo is a can't miss

past that I like cleric/druid
cleric/life oracle
druid/storm oracle
cleric/angel/psycpomp/undead sorc
druid/elemental sorc

Atalius wrote:

As much as I love the Bard I wish they would have made the Witch a better debuffer, and a Bard the better buffer.

I don't get this. It seems to me that the bard is the best buffer in the game already by a wide margin, and the witch has several powerful debuff options.

How exactly are they not already fulfilling the roles described?

The point is that the bard is best buffer and the best debuffer as oppose to the bard being the best buffer and the witch being the best debuffer.

Oh no, clerics and druids don’t get everything for free. /s

Some characters get free items at creation, everyone has to pay for more items. Clerics and druids get a nice number of free spells known at creation, everyone has to pay for more spells known.

it has nothing to do with free. its about the logical consistency and coherence of the rules and the lore.

ikarinokami wrote:

the whole thing makes no sense to me anymore. Clerics and druids get their spells by faith in either in divine or the natural. powers and knowledge that is granted. Adding this wrinkle raises all sorts of structural questions. So spell knowledge becomes separate from faith. I am almost never in favor of house rules, this is one where were I will ignore an official rule because it doesn't make any sense.

Don't Uncommon spells raise the same structural questions already?

I don't like it, but I can easily justify it mechanically, by saying that your Deity has decided that you not be granted knowledge of this spell.

It's much harder in terms for druids, so I've never applied it to druids, as it doesn't make any sense with regards to druids, because nature is not personified in the same way as Gods in pathfinder.

the whole thing makes no sense to me anymore. Clerics and druids get their spells by faith in either in divine or the natural. powers and knowledge that is granted. Adding this wrinkle raises all sorts of structural questions. So spell knowledge becomes separate from faith. I am almost never in favor of house rules, this is one where were I will ignore an official rule because it doesn't make any sense.

Really? That is how you viewed an idea of your character's physical power? I don't even consider it much. I mainly don't want stuff that doesn't make much sense at all like balloon minions.

Some of the stuff in RPG games makes little sense. A living person, no matter how tough, falls into acid or lava and they're life should be mostly over even if they somehow live.

Not sure how you can use any of that as a touchstone for physical power given every PC suffers only transitory damage from events and creatures that would cause permanent, long-term damage or death in any real physical sense.

not making sense is not the same as operating under a different set of rules.

As someone who used to work in law enforcement, I can tell you with 100% accuracy that few people can recall what another was wearing unless they take the specific step to remember it. And even then not very accurately.

this is 100% true. esp of color, that tends to be off. witnesses just generally remember the type of clothing more than anything else.

ikarinokami wrote:

the perplexing part about the spell is that its occult/primal which makes zero sense. it should be arcane/primal. literally the last kind of spell it should be given its description is occult.

How does occult not make sense?

Respectfully, I disagree.

because occult is mind/sprit. this spell affects neither. this spell purely alters the material/matter thus it's properly an arcane/primal spell. it's completely random that it's on the occult list.

the perplexing part about the spell is that its occult/primal which makes zero sense. it should be arcane/primal. literally the last kind of spell it should be given its description is occult.

I would say performance. with a bonus for either high intelligence or wisdom depending on what the person is trying to write and style they want to do it in.

the four essences also help when deciding on what list a spell should be. I would expect we will learn more about them in secrets of magic, since that book is suppose to be a combination of lore and crunch.

it's ok. it's only once per combat. the main problem is that it's not focus fire. even in PF2 focus fire is always the best. Basically this is good for weakening or killing mooks. is it actually any better than chain lightning or other level approiate AOE spell.

It's a nice toy, but no where close to being overpowered.

I still see old canards like "but fantasy" popping up for explaining battle medicine. Which is discouraging, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the very nature of the suspension of disbelief. But I digress.

Of bigger concern should be the fundamental false equivalence between one side saying "I think it works this way, but it is unclear." and the other side saying I know it works this way, it is clear."

Those aren't comparable (albeit opposed) positions. Only one side continues to insist that their interpretation is "clearly" correct, in spite of 800+ posts across multiple threads indicating otherwise.

I'd also find this whole discussion much less toxic if one side didn't keep accusing the other of arguing in bad faith simply because they "don't like the rules." But I'm not holding my breath on that front.

100% agree with you, and for a long it's this preception that fantasy has no rules or internal logic or adherence to a set principles or boundaries was the reason fantasy was never taken seriously for a long time. One of the most importants parts of any fantasy creation to be taken seriously is that it adheres and follow its own internal logic or the entire endevour becomes silly.

they probably need to make the manipulate trait context dependent.