puksone's page

87 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have never seen anyone ever saying dpr is everything and is the only important metric...but a lot of people arguing dpr isn't everything.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BellyBeard wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
Fighter is good at shoving when (s)he doesn’t have to roll a 19 to get a success. Of course, it would not have been as dramatic if she focused on getting every advantage for maxing our athletics, but that would have required the player focusing on a different aspect of the game than the player wanted to. On the other hand, our sorcerer just uses a scroll to change and shove our opponent where it needed to be in order to do adequate damage.
This is the issue with all these threads. The martial can always build to be good at a particular thing, but they cannot be best at all the things at once. One thread it's a giant instinct barbarian with Whirlwind strike, the next its a free hand debuff fighter with a range of weapon crit effects. But neither character will do the other's roll well at all (AoE VS debuff). And many come online around level 13-14, when casters have already been filling the role for 10 levels. Casters allow the versatility of someone who can do it all, but with large restrictions based on preparedness and daily slot limits.

Depends on the martial. It's really not hard for a dmg focused fighter to get some control/debuff Feats. AoE is something else.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Narxiso wrote:

It seems that many people also forget that every debuff the fighter gets, the wizard or any other caster can as well. Spells are just easier to use and more efficient for them. Have we also forgotten that just like every other class, spell casters are not only limited to their class’ chassis: there are skill debuffs as well. Also, if we’re going to list every debuff that a martial can do, then I only think it’s fair to list out every damage type, utility, and buff that casters can do as well.

Atalius wrote:
nicholas storm wrote:

Pretty sure if you took a party with 1 martial, 1 rogue, 1 cleric, 1 wizard and replaced the wizard with another martial, party 2 would be superior.

I think you may be right, our party consists of a barbarian, a wild order druid/fighter MC, a ruffian rogue and a Bard and it works.
If that’s true then your party has not played with a range of enemy types, hazards, and otherwise. We have a sorcerer in our group, and if he was not around, we would not have been able to get through Book 2 of Age of Ashes without either kissing a lot of time or the death of multiple characters, mine included. There were traps, hazards, diseases, as well as multiple creatures that only he could handle, and there were creatures that negated nearly all my character’s damage and that none of our strength focused characters could handle, while the sorcerer just changed into a dinosaur and shoved it into a hazard that killed it.

Maybe not a good example...the fighter is awesome in shoving.

We don't have a sorc or wiz in the group and just do fine.
Pf2 really allows a lot of different group compositions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hate the big weapon thing. It feels like a trashy anime.

I think the giant instinct is not particular strong vs bosses. The terrible ac combined with no accuracy bonus (like rangers or fighters have) isn't great.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Animal Barbar with monk dedication and toughness.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Alves wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
he compare 2-action spell with a barbarian doing 1 actions
You do know Swipe is a two action ability, right?

I LOL'ed in real life. xD

He probably don't know Mellored.

Mellored has plenty of credit in my book, and I would be very careful to disagree with him because he usually knows what he is talking about.

Alaryth wrote:
People around here should try to calm a bit. This is a complex affair, and all this heat on the conversation really don't help it.

I'm trying to get the thread back on track, but people are so defensive about this discussion that they keep attacking me for doing research and placing the results I found so far in an article. They feel personally offended that I am not saying that the designers are stupid and that spell casters now suck. =X

But let's hope we can gather a group of people more inclined to help doing hard work, gathering data, making calculations, and discussing results so we can improve on this topic and on the overall theory behind PF2E system.

Dude, you really should learn how to handle discussions,when you want to public articles.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Huh, and here everyone said wizards were bad at necromancy this edition...

Deriven Firelion wrote:
I wish they hadn't made wizards so boring while nerfing magic this much. Bard and cleric magic was nerfed as well, but they seem far more fun to play.
Couldn't disagree more. 2e wizards are a lot more fun than 1e wizards, especially at low levels.

Why?? Couldn't disagree more.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Great Pick Fighter + Weapon Surge + Power Attack. Should be something like 7d12+8 for a crit at level 4. For Weapon Surge you need to Mc into cleric or champion.

Obviously you don't have a lot of focus points.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's the point here? DPR analysis is not useless but not useful?

DPR or "theorycrafting" in general gives a pretty good insight into the system. PF2e is not rocket science. You want to play a damage focused character? Look into the damage charts. The end.

I don't get it...in every dpr thread someone is comming and meantions "it has nothing to do with the real game". DPR doesn't mean an overall better character and no one said the opposit. But you can compare builds for 1/2/3 actions, vs. flat-footed, vs. low/high ac and so on.

So, what's a better metric for damage output?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, you don't miss something. Summons are just freaking bad.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't really figure out an interessting fighter build. All that grab and shove stuff doesn't seem too appealing for me.

What are funny fighter builds with/without MC?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like with PF2E there will be a bunch of new problems. Some things work better and a lot (really a lot) is even worse. I don't care about game stability when I have unappealing and boring class powers and feats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A playable wizard.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lausth wrote:
Cast no spells in first two encounters?Right.Definitely the most fun experience i can imagine.

And that is the point why nerfing spells per day is just stupid. You play a wizard? What do you want to do? Casting freaking spells!

I don't want to hold back all the time the good spells for a potential huge fight. It's just boring. I don't understand the design choice behind it. It's obvious that the old spells per day system has some flaws. Even in PF1 it could be boring to play a low level wizard doing most fights absolutely nothing.

Now high level spells don't even have a huge impact. I don't want the overpowered wizard of PF1 back. I just want a wizard that is fun to play.

14 people marked this as a favorite.

I was pretty hyped when I saw the first blog posts and then extremly disappointed after reading the playtest rulebook.

Even so there are some promising rule changes, I don't see me playing it over a long period. Main reason are the terrible design choices regarding the classes. Look at feats like warded touch! Is that a sexy feat? Hell no. Now I have ancestry feats, skill feats, class feats and general feats. But none of those feats are designed cool or awesome (or matter).

Looking through the book... I don't want to play any of those classes. Playing PF1 i can't decide what I want to play, because there is so much cool stuff.

Balance and game stability is important but not the main goal to achive. The main goal (for me at least) is to have classes/races/feats that are fun to play and feel good.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
the David wrote:

This is so simple.

PC goes out adventuring, wizard cohort stays behind, working on magic items.
PC comes back, finds wizard dead and magic items are stolen.
Thief fights the party with those magic items.

Or, alternatively, drop his leadership score. That schould teach him.

this is so wrong. dont abuse your power as a gm. the players will just loose their fun to play the game.

dont hate the players hate the game. as a gm u have to balance the game by your own. but not by punishing the players.