|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To try to use some numbers here to explain, suppose that there is a 0 to 10 scale of what you can do in an encounter, where 5 is about what you would do as a reasonable share of a 4-person team and 10 is "I can solo everything, you are coming to watch." If non-metamagic blasting was 4 in PF1, metamagic blasting was 6, hyperoptimized blasting was 9, and the strongest nonblasting caster shenanigans was 10, and we curb that "other shenanigans" category, then if blasting in PF2 competed with "hyperoptimized blasting" from PF1, it would be the new caster problem child.Those numbers seem way high to me!
I played in a party that had a hyperoptimized blockbuster blaster (crossblooded sorcerer 1/admixture wizard X with Magical Lineage for Fireball and all the metamagic feats) and I'd say they were around a 6.5 on that scale. The blaster sorcereress in my current Runelords game is non-optimized and probably a 1...
What are other people's experience with this? How would you rank PF1 blasters on the 0-10 scale?
edit: I wasn't counting Dazing Spell in the above assessment, as I don't really considering it blasting at that point. If you add Dazing Spell in then "blasting" becomes insanely more powerful, but I'm more wondering about actual damage-dealing blasting.
I would count break them out as follows
Low level (1-4rth) 2-3
Mid level (5-8th) 8
High level (9th-13th) 5
Very high level (14th - 18th) 3
Epic (19th +) 2
So yeah, they start off poor, become very strong, then slide back down to being poor again. Its a shame because blast spells are the easiest thing to mitigate. They are energy damage so spells can resist them and they are attacking the best resource that PC's have which is maximum hit points per level. Don't know if monsters hit points will be inflated as well. If I was a fighter I would much rather be hit by a lightning bolt in PF2 than a hold person spell simply because at 5th level I would have 50 hit points and an additional 6-10 for ancestry plus constitution bonuses. I feel I have a much better chance even if I fail my reflex save vs failing a will save since bother are poor saves for my fighter under PF1 rules.
For people concerned about damage output, we /really/ can't judge that without knowing how enemies are usually built in PF2 and what their HP and saves look like. Moreover, this is probably something they're already aware of as a concern and likely to be a focus of one of the playtest missions / surveys. I would fully expect them to be soliciting information about how the math works out and if Fireball, for instance, needs to have d8's instead of d6's and/or if it needs +3d per spell level instead of only +2d.
But let's take level 7 in PF1. Scorching ray is my third-highest level of spell for my non-invested blaster. A metamagic user could be using empowered. Against a singleton CR 9 monster (either a solo Hard encounter or the lion's share of an Epic encounter with some easy minions), 28/115 is very nearly 1/4 of its health just from that. And I'm extremely likely to hit most enemies with a single non-metamagic third highest level spell.
I would disagree with this rosey picture of the unboosted scorching ray.
First, let's address accuracy. That 7th level wizard has only +3 BAB, and even with a 16 dexterity score that only gives his ray spells +6 to hit. The statistical average for touch AC for CR 9 monsters is 12(source) which gives a 75% accuracy. I would not qualify that as "extremely" high. After considering that 75% accuracy, the expected damage from scorching ray is 21 DPR.
If we look at ourbenchmarks, that puts this damage in the green. In other words, it would be a good number for an at-will ability. Because it expends daily resources, we expect a bit more from it. It's still better than most blasting spells, but without investment I wouldn't exactly call it good. Of course, maybe years of system mastery have made me a build snob with high standards :-P
Against four level 5 enemies (either a Hard encounter, or most of an Epic encounter that adds more enemies that you just couldn't fit into the area), a fireball deals 24.5 of their 55 HP with a save for half they will probably fail. Even on a successful save that's around 1/4 of their HP, again in one round from one spell.
I've still got my Monte Carlo simulator, so let's run that. I'll presume +6 reflex saves and 55 hit points, 7d6 PF1 fireball with 19 DC, and 6d6 PF2 fireball with DC 20
PF1:
Turn 1: 0% killed
Turn 2: 5.4% killed
Turn 3: 58.5% killed
Turn 4: 94.2% killed
Turn 5: 99.8% killed
PF2 save rules:
Turn 1: 1% killed
Turn 2: 17.7% killed
Turn 3: 53.4% killed
Turn 4: 84.7% killed
Turn 5: 96.8% killed
Unsurprisingly, the PF2 version is getting more early kills due to crits (the damage dice between the PF1 version and PF2 version haven't diverged much yet), but also leaves more stragglers. I actually do think these numbers are unambiguously in PF2's favor, since I think getting kills early is much more important than cleaning up stragglers, but in both cases it's pretty underwhelming. In particular that's a pretty low chance of getting kills on the 2nd turn; against four enemies, a 17.7% chance to kill the individuals nets only about a 55% chance of killing even one of them after two blasts. And to be honest, if I can land two blasts with my second-highest spell slots on a group of four enemies for two rounds in a row, I do expect to consistently get at least some kills.
For people concerned about damage output, we /really/ can't judge that without knowing how enemies are usually built in PF2 and what their HP and saves look like.
That doesn't mean we can't be concerned based on the information we do have. There would need to be a pretty radical departure in terms of the durability of typical monsters to bring these numbers even close to their PF1 counterparts, and we have no reason to believe there will be such a massive difference.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Mark. If you are really going to make blast spells this weak and pump up martial attacks that strongly by giving out three attacks at first level you can count me out of PF2. Please, drop the 4E designers and their dislike of the iconic spells. I don't want a fire weave or fire burst spell using a higher level slot to do what fireball has always done. Get with the program and allow casters to do other things besides the save or suck/die and group utility belt. Its really starting to get old.
He has basically said they're doing what you're asking for, so your tone seems pretty out of place. Maybe you need to chill a bit.
|
We don't even know what the expected martial damage output looks like. I expect 2H weapons will be brought down closer to the 1H weapons, like in 5e, given that sword & board is supposed to make its comeback.
Also, if an AoE attack reliably killed half the enemies at first casting, it would be overpowered. Two PCs with that ability would simply wipe the board in one round. Personally, I consider softening up half a dozen enemies so that they'll need 1–2 martial strikes to go down rather than 2–3 a worthwhile contribution to a fight.
It depends on what you are fighting; a GM can always throw harder stuff (like APL+5 encounters mentioned elsewhere in the thread, which adventure guidelines say to never do but a GM can get away with easily in PF1 if the group is hyperoptimized enough). My scale is based on monster baselines and the sort of encounters you'd expect to find in a published adventure. Having played that same (or similar) hyperoptimized damaging build in PF1, against standard opposition, the only thing other party members were useful for was a meat shield and occasional assistance if something blocks all my damage types.
My experience is the same. I built a blaster sorcerer for Kingmaker (admittedly a nova-friendly AP), and the GM, who played the adventure as is, asked me to change the character, at behest of the group, because combat ended at my (very high) initiative. I did consistently no less than 75% of the group damage.
I think a lot of people brought prejudice VS blast from 3.5, but in PD, traits that reduce metamagic cost, sorcerer bloodlines, and metanagic in general, make it really powerful, although it needs some specific builds
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my current 5e campaign, there are a lot of encounters with, say, ten weaker enemies. In this situation, fireballs are devastating.
Anything that makes fireball strong enough to be a significant threat to a single enemy is likely to make them way too strong against larger numbers of enemies.
I'd argue that 'blasting' needs to include spells that do more damage, but over a much smaller area. It's the only real way to balance them for a variety of encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think PF2 is going that route, with lighting bolt doing more dmg but less area than fireball
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing Mark has pointed out that I feel the discussion is neglecting - if you pump basic blasting too much, NPC blasters become TPK machines in groups. A 6th level wizard throwing 6d6 damage as a fireball is pretty weak - 4 6th level NPC wizards throwing 24d6 worth of fireball per round against a level 10 party is insane damage. An experienced GM knows what they are doing when they create such an encounter, but a new GM who decides to make "evil magic college" as an adventure might be surprised at how well "weak" blaster tactics work when there is redundancy.
I almost TPKed a mythic party with brimoraks in Wrath of the Righteous when they got absolutely hammered with first round fireballs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3 Actions also matter.
Verbal only spells can be cast 3x round. If we have a verbal cantrip, you can safely add that damage to your 2 action fireball.
Being area of effect isn't going to save it, because poor damage in an area of effect is still poor damage. It means the fighter still has to come in and finish off what you started, and if that's the end-game then why didn't you just cast spells to assist the fighter in the first place?
I would argue that setting the fighter up for a round of great cleave hilarity IS assisting them. Possibly even more than a haste spell would have done.
With cantrips scaling with level, I would assume we're getting single target blast spells that are on par with weapon attacks after all their bonuses. Never mind 5E and its lessons, Starfinder characters and the Kineticist both replace iterative attacks with one or two big blasts per round.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a balance perspective I really don't think that casters should be doing comparable damage to martials with their blast spells. Casters own the narrative space, have utility and buff spells, control spells and best of all spells that allow for no saving throw or SR that just work.
From a player's perspective blasting is fun but having a caster that is only (or mostly) a blaster is a dull experience in repetition. Casters should be powerful but the power should come from the proper application of spells in the right situation and not simply by dumping more dice on the table.
I know that players that love blasters will probably disagree but this is where I stand.
From a balance perspective I really don't think that casters should be doing comparable damage to martials with their blast spells. Casters own the narrative space, have utility and buff spells, control spells and best of all spells that allow for no saving throw or SR that just work.
From a player's perspective blasting is fun but having a caster that is only (or mostly) a blaster is a dull experience in repetition. Casters should be powerful but the power should come from the proper application of spells in the right situation and not simply by dumping more dice on the table.
I know that players that love blasters will probably disagree but this is where I stand.
/fistbump
From a balance perspective I really don't think that casters should be doing comparable damage to martials with their blast spells. Casters own the narrative space, have utility and buff spells, control spells and best of all spells that allow for no saving throw or SR that just work.
From a player's perspective blasting is fun but having a caster that is only (or mostly) a blaster is a dull experience in repetition. Casters should be powerful but the power should come from the proper application of spells in the right situation and not simply by dumping more dice on the table.
I know that players that love blasters will probably disagree but this is where I stand.
I think this is an absolutely fair perspective. I would just like it if they had more of a middle ground between enabling blasting as something fun and relevant and keeping the martial niche safe. Narrowing the range of any specific caster into something more like Spheres of Power might be a good approach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is an absolutely fair perspective. I would just like it if they had more of a middle ground between enabling blasting as something fun and relevant and keeping the martial niche safe. Narrowing the range of any specific caster into something more like Spheres of Power might be a good approach.From a balance perspective I really don't think that casters should be doing comparable damage to martials with their blast spells. Casters own the narrative space, have utility and buff spells, control spells and best of all spells that allow for no saving throw or SR that just work.
From a player's perspective blasting is fun but having a caster that is only (or mostly) a blaster is a dull experience in repetition. Casters should be powerful but the power should come from the proper application of spells in the right situation and not simply by dumping more dice on the table.
I know that players that love blasters will probably disagree but this is where I stand.
Why have we all agreed to settle on 'simple damage' as the martial's niche?
I can agree with this basic premise at very low levels [although not even then really, combat maneuvers should be very powerful battlefield control and there's no reason specific martials couldn't obtain powerful buff and debuff abilities outside the realm of magic] but as levels rise the martials niche should be expanding [which is a bit of poor humor on PF1's part, seeing as the extant system enforces ever greater narrowing down of niche by piling feats onto the same concept to remain relevant.]
Yeah, that's also a fair point. Personally, I love me some Path of War for broadening Martial options, but not everyone does. It is tough to balance.
From a player's perspective blasting is fun but having a caster that is only (or mostly) a blaster is a dull experience in repetition. Casters should be powerful but the power should come from the proper application of spells in the right situation and not simply by dumping more dice on the table.
I know that players that love blasters will probably disagree but this is where I stand.
I certainly disagree. There's room for both blasters and god-moders in an RPG, and the design space is wide enough to allow someone that spends their feats on blasting should be as good as a martial that spends their feats on whacking the heads of idiots with swords.
|
|
As I mentioned before, I believe PF2 is going to take a hint from 5e with lower DPR and higher average HP to avoid OTK or DPR races and give defensive tools more importance than right now in PF1.
5E does not do that well at all for casters. Its a lot of spamming cantrips because the damage spells do not hold up while the control spells are extremely powerful. The only thing that balances out the control powers is the concentration effect which is an extremely poor balancing mechanic in my humble opinion
|
|
From a balance perspective I really don't think that casters should be doing comparable damage to martials with their blast spells. Casters own the narrative space, have utility and buff spells, control spells and best of all spells that allow for no saving throw or SR that just work.
From a player's perspective blasting is fun but having a caster that is only (or mostly) a blaster is a dull experience in repetition. Casters should be powerful but the power should come from the proper application of spells in the right situation and not simply by dumping more dice on the table.
I know that players that love blasters will probably disagree but this is where I stand.
I disagree with your statement. Most of the ire towards mages comes from the God mage effect where control spells layered with buff spells makes combats extemely dull. The ability to one shot a monster through save or suck and save or die spells is NOT very entertaining. So much so that the save or suck spells tend to allow saves every round to shake off the effects.
Blasting is not a dull or boring option to me. Its a lot of fun and more evocative of magic. Its not fun for my friends if I end every fight with the correct spell. They have no problem if I blast a few giants to soften them up before hand with a fireball. They get really annoyed if Hold Monster takes out the BBEG and they are left to just wipe up the mooks.
I hope for something similar in PF2.
I hope not! One of the reasons I play with the Pathfinder system is because I'm willing to accept a little brokenness for the awesome and open-ended magic it offers. I like that Wizards can do amazing things, and I'm very hopeful to see martials get their own cool tricks to close the gap a little more. The solution is to make everyone a little broken, because it's fun to break stuff.
I hope for something similar in PF2.I hope not! One of the reasons I play with the Pathfinder system is because I'm willing to accept a little brokenness for the awesome and open-ended magic it offers. I like that Wizards can do amazing things, and I'm very hopeful to see martials get their own cool tricks to close the gap a little more. The solution is to make everyone a little broken, because it's fun to break stuff.
This topic popped up in another thread. I most certainly do not think breaking things is fun. I do appreciate that low level offers a closer balanced game (E6-8) and higher level offers gonzo supers. That probably wasnt intentional design, but it suits multiple playstyles. Each edition tries to go one way or the other. Im not sure thats the right goal any longer.
On topic, I think blasting has to on the weaker side so that other styles are not made obsolete. In 5E, cantrip spam and blasting rues the day. Its really boring and I hope PF2 can be a little more diverse and tactical. Im glad for the experience because now I know what to look for in PF2 playtest. Guess we will see how it all turns out.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope for something similar in PF2.I hope not! One of the reasons I play with the Pathfinder system is because I'm willing to accept a little brokenness for the awesome and open-ended magic it offers. I like that Wizards can do amazing things, and I'm very hopeful to see martials get their own cool tricks to close the gap a little more. The solution is to make everyone a little broken, because it's fun to break stuff.
All disagreements about the current state of things aside, I tend to agree with this.
Certain truly broken combos (Simulacrum Wish Factories and the like) need to go the way of the dodo to prevent the world stopping making sense, but 'broken' in the sense of 'optimized and capable of accomplishing lots of stuff'? That's cool and we definitely want to see plenty of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Certain truly broken combos (Simulacrum Wish Factories and the like)
There's definitely a point where it becomes too much, I agree. However, I don't think the examples given above (buffing, summoning, flight, and invisibility) come close to crossing any such line.
Heck, I'm even fine with Planar Binding and would prefer to handle its consequences narratively rather than mechanically.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's definitely a point where it becomes too much, I agree. However, I don't think the examples given above (buffing, summoning, flight, and invisibility) come close to crossing any such line.
Heck, I'm even fine with Planar Binding and would prefer to handle its consequences narratively rather than mechanically.
Oh, agreed on both counts.
I just saw that come up in another thread and wanted to make it clear that my desire for characters to be powerful does come with a line in regards to what I feel is too far.
If I had my druthers, I would have liked to see damaging spells scale with level in the same way cantrips do and have level 1 spells slightly outdamage cantrips or just have them deal the same amount of damage as cantrips but have the have different utility (such as dealing damage a different elemental type or over a different area).
Perhaps this could be implemented in the current system if certain low spells acted as one-action modifications for certain cantrips (for instance, you could have a spell called "boosted freezing ray" that just adds one or two d6 to your freezing ray). That way a character could meaningfully "specialize" their lower level spells into blasting even later into the game.
Ah, if you're talking about spending a spell slot to effectively raise the spell level of a cantrip, I'd be okay with that. Seems like a decent way to still make those 1st and 2nd level slots useful for attack if you don't need them for utility or buffing.
More or less exactly that. It could be handled by adding 1-action spells to the spell lists or by allowing certain classes or archetypes or whatever expend spell slots to boost cantrips to a certain extent. Which option is better probably depends on how ubiquitous this kind of mechanic "should" be.
Monte Carlo
NERD!!! Use a linear congruential generator, like the rest of us, simple folks. :P
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monte CarloNERD!!! Use a linear congruential generator, like the rest of us, simple folks. :P
I don't know; Markov Chain Monte Carlo can be pretty fun, especially the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Not that this is likely exactly what Dasrak used, but it's a great way to take a random walk through a really dense feature space with a probability distribution and is thus crucial in a lot of Bayesian analysis.
NERD!!!
Proudly :-)
|
|
Hey Mark. If you are really going to make blast spells this weak and pump up martial attacks that strongly by giving out three attacks at first level you can count me out of PF2. Please, drop the 4E designers and their dislike of the iconic spells. I don't want a fire weave or fire burst spell using a higher level slot to do what fireball has always done. Get with the program and allow casters to do other things besides the save or suck/die and group utility belt. Its really starting to get old.He has basically said they're doing what you're asking for, so your tone seems pretty out of place. Maybe you need to chill a bit.
I am very unsure of this due to the low number of spells per level and especially how I have seen magic missile portrayed in the playtest. I see that spell being useless after about 3rd level compared to how cantrips are written up. Just because I can upcast by using a higher level slot to do more damage with a fireball does not mean the spell has not been nerfed, especially when I can use a 5th level slot from PF1 to cast a 15D6 fireball. It seems like a huge nerf
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that balances out the control powers is the concentration effect which is an extremely poor balancing mechanic in my humble opinionI think they may have added it to too many spells, but Concentration is one of the best things to come out of 5th Ed, IME, elegant way to stop the ridiculous buffing, and invisible, flying, summoning wizards. I hope for something similar in PF2.
I hate the concentration mechanic in D&D 5E because it narrows what you can do dramatically. It makes no sense with established D&D lore of how spells work and is just a nerf bat for casters. So the monster gets a save every round AND I have to concentrate to keep it going? Lame....
A better idea would have been to only allow a number of buffs in effect equal to your casting modifier. Its dumb that I cannot have both Prot from Evil, Fly & Hold Monster up at the same time. Esdpecially with the absolute lack of high level spells the concentration mechanic should not be in the game. I mean, come on, the cleric was always the party buffer in each edition of D&D. Along with healing that was always her focus
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am very unsure of this due to the low number of spells per level and especially how I have seen magic missile portrayed in the playtest. I see that spell being useless after about 3rd level compared to how cantrips are written up. Just because I can upcast by using a higher level slot to do more damage with a fireball does not mean the spell has not been nerfed, especially when I can use a 5th level slot from PF1 to cast a 15D6 fireball. It seems like a huge nerfHey Mark. If you are really going to make blast spells this weak and pump up martial attacks that strongly by giving out three attacks at first level you can count me out of PF2. Please, drop the 4E designers and their dislike of the iconic spells. I don't want a fire weave or fire burst spell using a higher level slot to do what fireball has always done. Get with the program and allow casters to do other things besides the save or suck/die and group utility belt. Its really starting to get old.He has basically said they're doing what you're asking for, so your tone seems pretty out of place. Maybe you need to chill a bit.
A lot of that is going to depend on how high enemy health is and how likely and/or fight-ending 2E save-or-suck effects will be. You also should think about how your attack cantrips are going to scale and what that is going to do to your average damage-a-round in general; It is entirely possible that a 2E wizard can deal more damage in two rounds with a lvl 5 spell and a cantrip than a 1E wizard could so in a world where you are only dropping one or two nuke spells in a given fight, the wizard's damage may be increased overall.
I will also note that in 2E, spell saves scale with your class level rather than your spell level so a monster will be more likely to fail a save against the fireball you cast at level 15 to begin with (and may even crit fail).
On a related note, you are also going to need to take into account how enemies' reflex saves are going to scale in 2E as opposed to how they scale in 1E especially given the fact that saves will effect a fireball's damage over 3 margins: crit-success to success (0 to 1/2 damage), success to failure (1/2 to full damage), and failure to crit failure (full to x2 damage).
Wait to see how the rules play at the table before you cry nerf and let loose your dogs of war.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know; Markov Chain Monte Carlo can be pretty fun, especially the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Not that this is likely exactly what Dasrak used, but it's a great way to take a random walk through a really dense feature space with a probability distribution and is thus crucial in a lot of Bayesian analysis.Monte CarloNERD!!! Use a linear congruential generator, like the rest of us, simple folks. :P
I... I... I think I love you Mark.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just some thoughts I want to interject after reading the thread:
•Spell scaling for dps will not work out well.
Based on examples we have seen; Compare a 3rd level Magic Missle (five 1d4+1 missiles) vs Fireball (6d6 to everything in the area). You'd be silly to prep the MM over the FB, regardless of whether you need ST or AoE damage - the FB is better. Using a 5th level slot for 10d6? Feels bad man...
•Mook swarm just does not happen.
Yes, AoE spells really shine when they can be used against hordes of enemies - but let's get real; you never face hordes of enemies. It's the same reason that good GMs never put a party up against a solitary BBEG - action economy will *wreck* the BBEG regardless of how powerful they are compared to individual party members. In the same regard, a single goblin/skeleton/orc/whatever isn't a threat to a single adventurer past a certain point, but 30 of them? If the AoE can't handle most of that, the party loses - period. (Not to mention no one, GMs included, like trying to keep track of that many HP pools.)
•Increased spell DCs are less meaningful when "+level" proficiency bonuses are added to all saves.
Maybe some new math will be previewed to change my opinion on this, but as of what we've seen now, it's a wash, and you should expect a lot of your blasting targets to be making their saves a decent amount of the time. (And remember, the average damage of a saved-against Fireball is gonna be 10.5. That's not exactly scary stuff.)
•The options to optimize for damage in PF1 are probably too plentiful. Blasting without system mastery feels bad. Blasting with system mastery feels *too* good. The bottom needs to come way up, but the top needs to be reigned in too. After all, Fireball should be strictly better than Create Pit - largely, it's not.
•There will be noticeably fewer spell slots, and Vancian isn't going away.
This means the competition for which spells get picked only goes up, and blasting needs to be as worthy a pick as a BFControl effect, etc.
|
|
I can't speak to all of these, but I can comment on a couple:
Just some thoughts I want to interject after reading the thread:
•Spell scaling for dps will not work out well.
Based on examples we have seen; Compare a 3rd level Magic Missle (five 1d4+1 missiles) vs Fireball (6d6 to everything in the area). You'd be silly to prep the MM over the FB, regardless of whether you need ST or AoE damage - the FB is better. Using a 5th level slot for 10d6? Feels bad man...
Where is magic missile scaling stated this specifically? I recall them saying you get more, but not how many more.
•Increased spell DCs are less meaningful when "+level" proficiency bonuses are added to all saves.
Maybe some new math will be previewed to change my opinion on this, but as of what we've seen now, it's a wash, and you should expect a lot of your blasting targets to be making their saves a decent amount of the time. (And remember, the average damage of a saved-against Fireball is gonna be 10.5. That's not exactly scary stuff.)
This isn't quite true, actually. Because you also get Proficiency bonuses added to Save DCs and only need to raise one stat and Proficiency to make your Save DCs scary while others must raise three separate stats and Proficiencies.
A Cleric with Wis 26 at 20th level has a Save DC of 41. A Fighter (or Wizard, or whatever) with Wis 18 and Master Will Save has a +26 Will Save. That's a 15 on the die needed to successfully save at all. Mind you, looking at 1st level, a Wis 10 Fighter (or Wizard) with Expert Will Save is almost as badly off (his +1 bonus needing a 14 to Save vs. a DC 15 from the Wis 18 Cleric), so it hasn't gotten much worse for him, but it was bad to start with.
So, by the math we have now, Save DCs are pretty nasty and effective all the way through your adventuring career if you stay maxed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the same reason that good GMs never put a party up against a solitary BBEG - action economy will *wreck* the BBEG regardless of how powerful they are compared to individual party members.
I do like the 5E legendary action system. I listen to the Critical Role podcast, and it's interesting how legendary actions let a single monster keep 6 or 7 adventurers on their toes.
•Mook swarm just does not happen.
Yes, AoE spells really shine when they can be used against hordes of enemies - but let's get real; you never face hordes of enemies. It's the same reason that good GMs never put a party up against a solitary BBEG - action economy will *wreck* the BBEG regardless of how powerful they are compared to individual party members. In the same regard, a single goblin/skeleton/orc/whatever isn't a threat to a single adventurer past a certain point, but 30 of them? If the AoE can't handle most of that, the party loses - period. (Not to mention no one, GMs included, like trying to keep track of that many HP pools.)
I had a skeleton swarm in one of my games. It was very fun. The Cavalier's mount (AC 23) blocked one door way, and some NPCs were on the other door way. The rest of the party engaged the vampire cleric. The NPCs started to break, so the Oracle had to step in with some fire magic to push back the swarm. But the mount held very well.
With what we are assuming about AC scaling with level, even with many many attacks, a large number of NPCs are not going to be able to put much hurt on PCs if they have a good level advantage.
Likewise, BBEGs can destroy a party if it has enough levels on the party.
I think any discussion about game balance at this point is useless, since we just don't know enough.
•Mook swarm just does not happen.
Yes, AoE spells really shine when they can be used against hordes of enemies - but let's get real; you never face hordes of enemies. It's the same reason that good GMs never put a party up against a solitary BBEG - action economy will *wreck* the BBEG regardless of how powerful they are compared to individual party members. In the same regard, a single goblin/skeleton/orc/whatever isn't a threat to a single adventurer past a certain point, but 30 of them? If the AoE can't handle most of that, the party loses - period. (Not to mention no one, GMs included, like trying to keep track of that many HP pools.)
8 enemies is enough to make Fireball shine. It doesn't have to be 30.
But let's say the GM is determined to run lots and lots of enemies. Does that create a 'party is doomed unless they can cast AoE them' situation?
In PF1:
1 CR 1 enemies is a CR 1 encounter.
2 CR 1 enemies is a CR 3 encounter.
4 CR 1 enemies is a CR 5 encounter.
8 CR 1 enemies is a CR 7 encounter.
16 CR 1 enemies is a CR 9 encounter.
32 CR 1 enemies is a CR 11 encounter.
Do you really think a party of four level 11 PCs with no AoE spells loses to 32 CR 1 enemies? Without 5e-style bounded accuracy, the party probably won't even get scratched.
The 'tracking lots of enemies is hard' issue is much more significant here.
(That's why I'm constantly refining my homebrew troop template. By my current rules, an AoE that hits every square in the troop does double damage, and the troop gets a penalty on Reflex saves.)
From the numbers we've been seeing in the blog I have the feeling that numbers all across the board are toned down...it doesnt just ramp up at the PF1 speeds.
We havent seen a fighter with 1d6 + 24 to damage for example. Then again, we never saw this even in high level built Paizo NPCs in APs, so it is possible that what we are seeing so far is not a real representation of how numbers will turn out.
If this is the case where numbers are tamer, then blasting looks like a solid option so far. Unlike in PF1 without bringing the stilton out.
|
|
As I mentioned above, we know weapons go to +5 and add damage dice.
On the high end, that's 6d12+8 at a minimum, and 47 damage per hit, which is well within standard two-handed power attack damage in PF1 (which generally maxed out in the neighborhood of 2d6+39 and thus 46 damage).
I think speculating on blasts is premature due to a lack of demonstrated damage enhancers not meaning they don't exist, but with only the damage enhancers we know of, PF2 melee damage per attack winds up very much on par. Smaller number of attacks may drop DOR somewhat, but crits may well raise it back up, and we lack sufficient data on either to really argue it's gonna be notably lower. It doesn't look like it is.
Yeo, more dice, less big static modifiers it seems they want, 5d6+4, not 1d6+18 or what-have-you.As I mentioned above, we know weapons go to +5 and add damage dice.
On the high end, that's 6d12+8 at a minimum, and 47 damage per hit, which is well within standard two-handed power attack damage in PF1 (which generally maxed out in the neighborhood of 2d6+39 and thus 46 damage).
I think speculating on blasts is premature due to a lack of demonstrated damage enhancers not meaning they don't exist, but with only the damage enhancers we know of, PF2 melee damage per attack winds up very much on par. Smaller number of attacks may drop DOR somewhat, but crits may well raise it back up, and we lack sufficient data on either to really argue it's gonna be notably lower. It doesn't look like it is.
I'm all up with this change, damn I love it. Apart from the rush I get from watching everyone struggle with simple addition after rolling 7 dice, I feel we'll have less penchant for the chasing of + to everything. It will liven up different weapon types and, I feel, make the maths/spreadsheet efficiency less essential on the surface.
On the flip side, a + to something will be seen as rarer and more valuable, but less..stackable?Also, love your name/reference.
|
|
I'm all up with this change, damn I love it. Apart from the rush I get from watching everyone struggle with simple addition after rolling 7 dice, I feel we'll have less penchant for the chasing of + to everything. It will liven up different weapon types and, I feel, make the maths/spreadsheet efficiency less essential on the surface.
I like it too, and especially the fact that it makes weapon type actually matter, though most people will max out at 6 dice or so, I'd expect.
On the flip side, a + to something will be seen as rarer and more valuable, but less..stackable?
Yeah, less stacking modifiers has definitely been stated as one of their goals. This helps with that cosmetically at the very least.
Also, love your name/reference.
Is this addressed at me or Weather Report? I'm curious now.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
•Mook swarm just does not happen.
Yes, AoE spells really shine when they can be used against hordes of enemies - but let's get real; you never face hordes of enemies. It's the same reason that good GMs never put a party up against a solitary BBEG - action economy will *wreck* the BBEG regardless of how powerful they are compared to individual party members. In the same regard, a single goblin/skeleton/orc/whatever isn't a threat to a single adventurer past a certain point, but 30 of them? If the AoE can't handle most of that, the party loses - period. (Not to mention no one, GMs included, like trying to keep track of that many HP pools.)
I just got done running an AP where an encounter in the fifth book had an attack by 16 (CR4) enemies for an EL12 encounter. So mook swarms definitely happen, but I'd agree they're not common.