Adventurer

ikarinokami's page

934 posts. Alias of christopher myco.


RSS

1 to 50 of 934 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I would guess

paladins have to be sanctified.

Redeemers can be either

and liberators can be either.


Synesthesia not being in the core rule book is interesting. I wonder if it just has a new name


Calliope5431 wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

With the remaster adding elemental tags to a handful of formerly generic utility spells, there's definitely some improvements to the list that are kind of nice to have.

I think it still largely suffers the same problem as before though where so much of the list is taken straight from Primal and Arcane that it doesn't feel like it offers anything novel.

It ends up mostly defined by the things you lose rather than what you gain, since what you gain is just a couple more elemental blasts (which you were already good at).

I feel like Elementalist would be much more interesting if any class could take it.

Elementalist Bard or Cleric would still be a big downgrade, but at least it would be a novel way to play the class. Whereas the most notable thing about the Elementalist Druid is that you don't have Slow or Heal anymore.

For something a little bit rant-ier:
** spoiler omitted **

I don't think it was an intentional oversight, I don't think most people know that you need an atmosphere to produce lightning. Hopefully in the remaster they will rectify the oversight as with cone of cold.

Yeah I agree.

I suppose elementalist does get sets of spells that arcane and primal don't get together. Like volcanic eruption and beheading buzz saw. The former is primal, the latter arcane.

But losing healing, haste, and slow is pretty painful.

Would it be overpowered if you just added all spells of an elemental trait to the divine list as suggested above, do people think?

It really wouldn't make sense for most elemental spells to be on either the divine or occult list. The rule does makes perfect sense.

it's really more about the class feats not making enough for what you give up.

if you want to be an elemental spell caster being a just a plain wizard, sorc or druid is more effective.

if you want to be a purely elemental blaster, I think the kinicist is a superior option.

currently the archetype is just a role-playing option, there really isn't any mechanical benefit at all for picking the archtype.

 


Squiggit wrote:

With the remaster adding elemental tags to a handful of formerly generic utility spells, there's definitely some improvements to the list that are kind of nice to have.

I think it still largely suffers the same problem as before though where so much of the list is taken straight from Primal and Arcane that it doesn't feel like it offers anything novel.

It ends up mostly defined by the things you lose rather than what you gain, since what you gain is just a couple more elemental blasts (which you were already good at).

I feel like Elementalist would be much more interesting if any class could take it.

Elementalist Bard or Cleric would still be a big downgrade, but at least it would be a novel way to play the class. Whereas the most notable thing about the Elementalist Druid is that you don't have Slow or Heal anymore.

For something a little bit rant-ier:
** spoiler omitted **

I don't think it was an intentional oversight, I don't think most people know that you need an atmosphere to produce lightning. Hopefully in the remaster they will rectify the oversight as with cone of cold.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

another shortcoming

no spells with only the electric trait, like chain lightning. lighting spells should have both the air and electricity traits.
unless there are using another medium for example copper wiring, all lightning spells in this game should have the air trait.


Calliope5431 wrote:
So what do people think? It seems weaker than any previous list (other than the old elementalist one), but are there any tricks you can pull with it? Is it pure blaster?

The elementalism list is sub optimal, the problem is that all those spells appear on the primal or arcane list, both of which are far superior to the elementalism list.

You are picking the elementalist archetype for the feats, which are not great, but it has flavor. not every character play has to be optimal, the list is weaker than either arcane or primal, but it is still very functional.

if a divine or occult only caster like a bard or cleric could take it, that would be interesting, because those classes can't get most of those spells on that list, it would interesting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Eldritch Yodel wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
If it is Asmodeus, was he wise enough to put contingency clauses in all his contracts, or was he arrogant enough to believe he was invincible.

What deity would plan for his own demise? He certainly would not want to make things easier for the survivors if something did happen to him.

Of course, a natural thought would be whether consistency with the Starfinder setting would require the removal of Torag and/or Rovagug, as they are the only two deities specifically absent from that setting. But I have always assumed that they went wherever Golarion did and thus are most likely still alive.

Or can dead deities be brought back to life? The loss of power by some of the core deities in Starfinder could be the result of a temporary death.

you can use Thor as much as you want, but you can't put him in the costume that marvel created, that is copyright infringement. But you can use and all the lore around, that he is the god of thunder, all of it, because none of that was created by marvel. the hammer was not created by marvel, but the costume is, however.

This is not the same as Asmodeus, Asmodeus is flat out too close to the D&D version. t. they are both devils, which he is not in the lore, he is not the king of hell either in the lore, he is the king of demons in the lore, a deity, in the lore he does not rule over hell, nor is hell defined as having nine layers, he is not defined as being at war with demons in the lore, in fact in the lore he is the king of demons, every single one of those elements arose in D&D.

You can say that you don't think they are close, but the case law says otherwise.

Whilst you have a point, I think some of your specific examples aren't amazing. To go through them one by one:

"He is not a devil in lore": it's important to keep in mind that "devil" is usually referring to a single figure not a collective, so following this logic literally any Christian demons apart...

1. You have to remember that Wotc would not be trying to win, they want to say that's close enough that a trial is needed. Trials are super expensive. History is littered with successful companies that went bankrupt even though they won the trial. That is common where one party has vastly more resources that the other party.

2. copyright law is different from other torts. The end goal of most torts is just to make things equal. it's very difficult to in most cases to get punitive damages. Copyright is an exception, copyright tends to be about deterrence, the remedies tend to be punitive. which is why they almost always settle if you can make it past the motion to dismiss.

So, the question isn't whether or not Asmodeus is the same, but whether or not the question is close enough that need a trial to decide. Is he worth the risk to keep him in your game in his current incarnation.

You have to remember that one of the best defenses is that your idea was unintentionally similar, that you that you came up with it independently and never heard of the other idea that it was just an accident that they ended up similar. However, pathfinder started as a OGL game based on Dungeon & Dragons so any court is going to be skeptical of that line of defense and the bar is going to be really high, which almost certainly means a trial.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
If it is Asmodeus, was he wise enough to put contingency clauses in all his contracts, or was he arrogant enough to believe he was invincible.

What deity would plan for his own demise? He certainly would not want to make things easier for the survivors if something did happen to him.

Of course, a natural thought would be whether consistency with the Starfinder setting would require the removal of Torag and/or Rovagug, as they are the only two deities specifically absent from that setting. But I have always assumed that they went wherever Golarion did and thus are most likely still alive.

Or can dead deities be brought back to life? The loss of power by some of the core deities in Starfinder could be the result of a temporary death.

you can use Thor as much as you want, but you can't put him in the costume that marvel created, that is copyright infringement. But you can use and all the lore around, that he is the god of thunder, all of it, because none of that was created by marvel. the hammer was not created by marvel, but the costume is, however.

This is not the same as Asmodeus, Asmodeus is flat out too close to the D&D version. t. they are both devils, which he is not in the lore, he is not the king of hell either in the lore, he is the king of demons in the lore, a deity, in the lore he does not rule over hell, nor is hell defined as having nine layers, he is not defined as being at war with demons in the lore, in fact in the lore he is the king of demons, every single one of those elements arose in D&D.

You can say that you don't think they are close, but the case law says otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Saying that hasbro owns Asmodeus is hilarious. Its like saying that Hasbro owns the term "mana" because Magic the Gathering has mana.

Hasbro does not own Asmodeus, and they certainly do not own Paizo's version of Asmodeus. No amount of court shopping is going to change that because Asmodeus is in the public domain. It would be like Disney claiming any reference to Norse gods is theirs because they own Marvel's Thor, not even Disney can't win that one.

Also given the stuff they have mentioned the gos they will get rid off is going to be the one that the dev team itself likes the the least. Not some random god based on how one country is going to react. My bet is that they kill Nethys to justify making magic weaker.

I believe you are mistaken on this subject.

firstly, it's not about ownership, it's about using someone's else creation or idea for your own benefit without permission.

secondly Thor and Asmodeus are not similarly situated. the reason you can use Thor, or vampires or gorgons or fairies, is because a majority of their lore is public domain. (note however that if you had a Thor that had the exact same costume as the marvel character, then you could be sued, because the costume itself is unique to the marvel superhero)

Nowhere in the real-world mythology is Asmodeus classified race belonging to a "devil" race, nor does it say he rules a 9 nine layered hell or eventually becomes a deity, that is all invention of D&D. Asmodeus as he appears in both pathfinder and Dungeon and Dragons bares little if any real resemblance to the Asmodeus that appears in the Tobitt or Talmud.

second since pathfinder originated as an OGL game, Parizo cannot claim that any similarity is accidental.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:


making them better would mean casters no longer had any lesser magic options.
Lesser magic options is what cantrips, focus spells, and lower-level slots are for.

that's not really true, there are quite a few focus spells that are extremely powerful.

Lower-level spells slots are not really a lesser option. Slow, Haste, true strike, invisibly, mirror image, Heroism etc, there are tons of spells options that are amazing with "lower" spell slots.

Notice how you only mentioned buff spells with the sole exception of Slow which has a specially good effect on success but not incapacitate.

Damaage effects and incapacitation effects in low spell level slots are out right unusable.

seriously, what would even be the point of playing a martials if low level spells slots could do comparable damage of a martial plus buff, and heal and slow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:


making them better would mean casters no longer had any lesser magic options.
Lesser magic options is what cantrips, focus spells, and lower-level slots are for.

that's not really true, there are quite a few focus spells that are extremely powerful.

Lower-level spells slots are not really a lesser option. Slow, Haste, true strike, invisibly, mirror image, Heroism etc, there are tons of spells options that are amazing with "lower" spell slots.


spells attacks are currently the equivalent of a back weapon or side arm. it's not supposed to be as good as your make thing.

making them better would mean casters no longer had any lesser magic options.

It would be ok, if they were only allowed to use those kinds of spells. which is sort of the point of kineticist.

otherwise in my opinion it would reduce every martial to just being a meat shield, and just completely render moot any of the low ac martial classes.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Creative Burst wrote:
It is important to remember that will Asmodeus is the most D&D of the core 20 he still comes from Abrahamic religions and is in the public domain. He has some accept of Satan being the leader of Hell in D&D. That not enough to make him unique enough to be a problem for Paizo, as Satan stand in are a dime a dozen.

The matter is whether Paizo's Asmodeus is sufficiently different from WotC's Asmodeus that WotC suing Paizo in court over IP would be utterly absurd and not worth the effort.

The idea is not winning the action by the way. It is of just going to court and crashing your opponent's finances.

WotC/Hasbro could do that over basically anything Paizo does, relevance be damned, so I don't see how relevance is helpful in determining whether they can be sued or not over it.

it does matter. if someone sues you frivolously (in this case probably asking for damages and a preliminary injunction) you can file an answer asking for pre-trial motion to dismiss. if you are the suing party, this is a worst case scenario, you want to avoid this at all cost). the goal of the remaster is that if wotc were to file a suit, Pazio could answer and be granted pre-trial motion to dismiss.

Asmodeus is too close to be granted a pre-trial motion to dismiss. He would require a trial, and at that point it doesn't matter, because the point of the suit is not to win, but to make your opponent spend money in defense in this case. (there are exceptions eg Apple v. Epic)

So yes revalence 100% matter, that why there is a remaster project.


Sanityfaerie wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
That would actually give him some protection however He is a liability because his pathfinder incarnation is almost identical to his D&D incarnation.
It's really not, though. The 5e version is all about trickery and illusions and lies. The PF2 version is all about contracts and actually holding to them (while makign them as lopsided in your own favor as you can), and not showing mercy to your enemies and buying into established hierarchies. The only thing they really have in common is the fact that both versions are at the top of the stack in hell, and that actually came from the original texts.

It's still too close. the only way to win is not fight, which is this case means you win a motion to dismiss.

Asmodeus is too close; you could never get granted a motion to dismiss.

captain marvel/shazam was considered close to superman.

I will be shocked if we see Asmodeus as part of the core 20 deities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AestheticDialectic wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

You're not making much sense. I will continue to ignore essences. They mean nothing to me. Designers decide what is in a spell list. The lists should be balanced so they are effective for a class using them without regard for roleplay reasoning.

Not even sure why you're making the idea essences seem like it's that important to PF2 working. They aren't. Main thing is making the lists balanced, interesting, and useful.

Essences are supposed to describe exactly that. It was originally supposed to be a balancing component that reduced some of the universality of casters, especially the wizard, for balance purposes. However it frequently came up that arcane kept getting spells added that don't fit specifically so the wizard could have them. If they stuck with this balancing principle much more strictly the arcane list would have even fewer spells than it does now

Those extra arcane spells that were added didn't have anything to do with balance. They were added because of tradition. because someone went this spell should be on the arcane list not because of balance, but because a wizard should have this, which is not the same as balance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

I don't care for the essence thing myself. I ignore it.

Just make cool spells for the wizard to use to get things done. Its magic forces being manipulated towards the wizard's goals. His list should be nearly unlimited.

that's like deciding to build a building but just ignore the math.

It's literally the opposite of everything Pathfinder 2 wants to be.

How does that analogy even apply? The spell lists are set. The essences don't matter for the spell lists at all. Some designer tossed on spells to lists, which is why the occult list is all over the place.

PF2 and the essences have nothing to do with each other. Just some cosmetic change of little relevance as proven by the spell lists having lots of crossover and being all over the place.

You can completely ignore essence concept and it has no effect on what PF2 is "trying to be" other than a playable, balanced game.

it is central to PF2. because they decided they weren't going to make spells list by classes anymore.

Imperfections in an enterprise does not in itself render it invalid.

divine is well done
primal is well done.

occult and arcane could use some work. hopefully they use the remaster as an opportunity to clean it up a bit.


Deriven Firelion wrote:

I don't care for the essence thing myself. I ignore it.

Just make cool spells for the wizard to use to get things done. Its magic forces being manipulated towards the wizard's goals. His list should be nearly unlimited.

that's like deciding to build a building but just ignore the math.

It's literally the opposite of everything Pathfinder 2 wants to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sorrei wrote:
AestheticDialectic wrote:
I kind of wanna add with my idea here is something not wizard related, but still arcane related for this thread, which is a Cleric of Nethys should probably get arcane spells and perhaps even more. Something about clerics I always found disappointing is that the divine list, and in 1e the cleric list, is such a narrow range of spells that doesn't particularly fit most dieties or rather doesn't give enough. I think it would be cool if a cleric of Nethys could do something like the imperial sorcerer where you get a little spell book and in that can be spells from the arcane or perhaps any tradition. Whatever the limit should be. I think it would be pretty neat

Which could be solved with the Trait Idea :p

If Certain Deities give access to certain Traits in addition maybe to base cleric ones.

Of course like most of my Idea they would be potential stuff for a 3rd Edition in terms of scope.

But in general yes more thematic fitting Spells for CLerics would be nice.

But that's sort of what they didn't want to do, which was make spells list for specific classes anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

they could just make Necromancer an archetype. and with the new spell proficiency rules, it wouldn't matter if most of the spells were on either the primal or divine list, since a wizard with a necromancer archetype would get to legendary proficiency with those spells just the same.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
Sorrei wrote:

That Arcane and Necromancy are traditionally connected is not surprising considering the very iconic Lich is the result of Arcane Magic and research.

And from the Four tradition given Arcane still fits the best.
Maybe in a other Edition it will get handled differently ^^

but they shouldn't be connected in 2e though. most necromancy spells should be life/spirit (divine list).

This is why I said essences are a distraction and a hinderance. Necromancy fits perfectly to arcane, specially with the lore where necromancers were arcane casters.

It is only after you arbitratily add in essences (which where invented in PF2) that necromancy stops sounding like an arcane thing.

This is where we disagree. It doesn't fit the arcane list, it fits the D&D concept of what a wizard should be.

Ultimately the problem with the arcane list and occult list. is that are both marred by baggage being carried from the Dungeon and Dragons concepts of what wizards and bards should do instead of what the arcane and occult list being bases on the essences) .

the essences makes perfect sense, but the problem is there are designers who still want to play a D&D wizard or bard.

I do hope with the remaster that they lean into their own creation more, and pare down both the occult and arcane list to be in line with their own world structure instead of past ideas from a system they are trying to break free from.


Sorrei wrote:

That Arcane and Necromancy are traditionally connected is not surprising considering the very iconic Lich is the result of Arcane Magic and research.

And from the Four tradition given Arcane still fits the best.
Maybe in a other Edition it will get handled differently ^^

but they shouldn't be connected in 2e though. most necromancy spells should be life/spirit (divine list).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:

the designers followed the essences for divine and primal,

and just threw them out the windows for arcane and occult.

My point stands. Essences are a distraction and a hinderance. Its easy to describe Divine and Primal because those are just healing and nature. But Arcane and Occult are literal synonyms (a concern that was raised in the playtest).

But that's not what happened. Mark said what happened. The arcane list was very much {mind and material} when it started, but people kept adding spells that didn't fit because they wanted the wizard to have those specific spells. That's not a failure of the essences, that a failure of the designers not adhering to their mandate.


roquepo wrote:
Unlike Arcane, It is hard to "fix" Divine with just 3 extra spells.

the divine list is awesome. it does exactly what you think it should. it's like hating on a shotgun because it can't kill someone at over 300 yards.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Arcane is the widest list, but it also has the most filler spells.

Divine has the fewest spells, but its also the most focused for better or worse.

Occult has the most useful spells, and the best focus spells.

Primal has the most unique spell, and the second most versatile behind occult.

*************

All the "essences" thing is BS that I think both distracts and hinders what the spell lists can do.

The issue with Arcane is not that its too wide or "does not fit the essences". Its that too many of the spells that were good in it have been removed, restricted, or given to other casters. Then filled with well filler.

The issue with Divine is not that its too shallow. Its that it was saddled with a rule that should never have been in the game to begin with: Alignment should had always dealt full damage and you deal more/less damage based on weakness/resistance like every other damage type.

Primal is okay actually. Their biggest issue is the whole spell attack and polymorph thing.

The issue with Occult is that it steals most of what was good about Arcane, and then gets rid of all the bad parts. Not to mention that the occult classes straight up get better focus spells on average than everyone else. I swear the devs are biased towards making Bards and Occult spell list better because its just not natural: Occult really should be in the position Divine is currently in, but with weird and strange spells instead of "this is the healing list".

the designers followed the essences for divine and primal,

and just threw them out the windows for arcane and occult.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

If Asmodeus is indeed a liability that is because it's grounded in real-world religious mythology and history and could potentially be considered "offensive" to some real human cultures or people, not because of anything to do with HASBRO, they in no way own the name or the way he is presented in Paizo materials, be it in description or in illustrations, they have LESS footing to stand on with a legal case or filing that they "own" big-A than they would for trying to say they own the concept of Satyrs as they're depicted in RPGs and popular media.

lamashtu and most of the named devils and demons are from real world/myth and religion.

That would actually give him some protection however He is a liability because his pathfinder incarnation is almost identical to his D&D incarnation.

there once was a company called Aureal. An amazing company, they got sued for patent infringement by Creative. Aureal won easily, however the lawsuit bankrupted the company, Creative came in brought the company and buried all the patents.

The whole point of the ORC license is to avoid this situation. Leaving Asmodeus seems awfully risky and counterproductive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember mark talking about how a lot of spells don't belong on the arcane list, but people kept adding spells that didn't really belong on it, because they wanted the wizard to have it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dhaise wrote:

"Hey we got to get rid of a god due to OGL- Lets focus on event around him/her/them" feels kind of overdoing it from the company that handwaved away Drow and other offenders.

I want a strong narrative reason, not line items.

we shouldn't compare puddles to ponds just because they both are bodies of water.

handwaving Drow away is lot easier than handwaving one of the main villains and pillars of your game setting.

Asmodeus is a liability. and trying to avoid using him again in future setting books would be crazy, way easier just to kill him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love the divine list, because it makes sense.

the Primal list is very true to the origins also.

Both the arcane and occult list have a bunch of headscratchers.


it's almost guaranteed to be Asmodeus. Even though he is from real world mythology/religion his current incarnation is too close to the OGL, so he probably has to die, and this does give them an opportunity to make the lost omens hell more distinct from the D&D hell.


Killing a good God is the best option. killing an evil deity is whatever, there is some infighting they get replaced, no one is really upset, it's boring.

Killing Sarenrae who is my favorite deity would be the best literary choice with Iomedae a close second.

or you could do it Norse way and kill a god that is beloved by all (mostly), either desna or shelyn

if you want to go for absolute chaos, pharasma would be the best option but that would conflict with previous "cannon" that she is supposed to be the last being that dies in this universe. Asmodeus is a sort of a good second choice, but the problem is that he's evil, and so the chaos is just going to be limited to hell, I suppose we could get cheliax involved.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
truthfully as a video game company there is no reason to make p2e over p1e. in my opinion strictly as a computer game where there is no DM and the computer keeps track of all options, I think pf1e is superior to pf2e.
Owlcat games, in particular Wrath, painfully suffered from the very same problem PF1 itself suffers: system mastery and ivory tower game design = your "freedom to build characters from thousands of options" gets reduced to 20 builds that work which you copy-paste from the Internet, if you want to have a reasonably enjoyable experience and not struggle by trying to play a multiclass Rogue/Sorcerer or whatever else that doesn't work in PF1.

It depends, if you play the game on some of the extreme difficulty then yes you are excluding some less-than-optimal ideas.

and core is definitely not baseline.

this is why i think pf1e makes such a great CRPG system there a lot of room, you can play the game very basic, or can go very deep. the same options don't really exist with pf2e which has a much smaller palette to choose from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

truthfully as a video game company there is no reason to make p2e over p1e. in my opinion strictly as a computer game where there is no DM and the computer keeps track of all options, I think pf1e is superior to pf2e.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Solasta, the problem in my opinion is that 5e is too simple, it's just hard in my opinion to make an interesting combat focused CRPG from that system. once you get to level 5 it feels like you've maxed out the system.

I think owlcat would do an amazing job with P2E, I wouldn't be surprised if they make a P2E game eventually.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


Temperans wrote:
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


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 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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ezekieru wrote:

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.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

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


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 to 50 of 934 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>