It sounds really cool!
I wonder does this matter to wizards? They have lost spells and now everyone else has cool weapon tricks they can use all the time.
Is this rebalancing casters swinging too far the other way?
|
I think its great that martials get neat new weapon tricks. Good for them.
However I do share your concern with casters especially since the previews for some of the iconic spells such as magic missile and fireball seem really weak. I hope that spells hold up so I am not just spamming cantrips over and over again
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The wizard will be able to use the tricks of a weapon they use. They might have to get proficiency to use a specific weapon. They did not say that a weapon trait was specific for a class other then the monk trait which is normal.
A wizard that spends an action to use the bo staff's parry comes to mind to get that extra AC. Then cast a 2 action spell.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that we’re overselling just how much more powerful these new mechanics will make the Martials from the Casters.
A fighter with a Scimitar can:
1: Deal 1 extra damage per die to an enemy that they’be already hit that turn.
2: If they hit one enemy, their folllwing Strikes deal 1 extra damage per die to a different enemy.
3: Unlock an ability that, on a crit, makes the enemy flat-footed for the turn.
Fighters can spend Class Feats for the ability to perform special actions such as
1: Spending 2 actions to perform 2 Stride actions and 1 Strike action.
2: Spend 2 actions to perform a Strike action that deals an extra damage die on a hit (more as you level up.
Wizards using spells can:
1: Turn Invisible.
2: Fly.
3: Teleport
4: Summon Monsters to fight for them.
5: Cast buffs.
6: Attempt to cast Debuffs that may potentially result in “Save or Lose” effects.
7: Use a damaging Spell or Cantrip.
The Wizard can spend Class Feats to:
1: We don’t know yet.
The end result? Fighters are good at fighting things. This is nothing new. Fighters have always been good at dealing a lot of damage. They just don’t do much besides that.
The Wizard will still have more options in how they use their spells to solve problems. The only difference is that now Wizards will need to manage how they use thier spells more thoroughly.
I think that the worry comes from us focusing on damaging spells like Magic Missile and Fireball. “Blaster” Wizard has always been a sub-optimal way to build a Wizard. Magic Missile is not supposed to be equal to a Martial’s Full-Attack. Fireball is an outlier because it deals so much damage for its Spell Slot against such a large Area of Effect, that it can hit multiple targets. “Blasting” also encourages burning multiple Spell Slots every combat just to “keep up” in the DPR race.
The new Spell Progression design does seem to punish “Burn all of my Spell Slots in 1 combat” Blaster Wizards more. But because Cantrips will now scale better, Wizards who try only spending 20% or so or their resources per encounter before resorting to cantrips should be fine.
The information we have now is no enough to said that for certain, I mean we don't even have seen a preview for the Wizard, but what we have seen so far doesn't look too promising for casters. I think balancing should be addressed as much as the next guy, but I have always though that nerfing casters is a poor solution that is going to move the game to state worst than before, and since PF2 was announced one of my concerns is that Paizo may overreact and we end with PF martial edition.
We have seen almost nothing, I wouldn't lose hope yet.
All the weapon changes do is add diversity and asymmetric balance to the different weapons, it doesn't actually increase the problem solving ability of martials any. That's supposed to come from skills and class feats, which frankly I'm concerned casters are going to have too much access to and they won't serve their purpose as a means for martials to do Cool Things because a Bard will still be roughly as good as a Rogue at skills. Willing to give Paizo the benefit of the doubt for now, though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that we’re overselling just how much more powerful these new mechanics will make the Martials from the Casters.
A fighter with a Scimitar can:
1: Deal 1 extra damage per die to an enemy that they’be already hit that turn.
2: If they hit one enemy, their folllwing Strikes deal 1 extra damage per die to a different enemy.
3: Unlock an ability that, on a crit, makes the enemy flat-footed for the turn.Fighters can spend Class Feats for the ability to perform special actions such as
1: Spending 2 actions to perform 2 Stride actions and 1 Strike action.
2: Spend 2 actions to perform a Strike action that deals an extra damage die on a hit (more as you level up.Wizards using spells can:
1: Turn Invisible.
2: Fly.
3: Teleport
4: Summon Monsters to fight for them.
5: Cast buffs.
6: Attempt to cast Debuffs that may potentially result in “Save or Lose” effects.
7: Use a damaging Spell or Cantrip.The Wizard can spend Class Feats to:
1: We don’t know yet.The end result? Fighters are good at fighting things. This is nothing new. Fighters have always been good at dealing a lot of damage. They just don’t do much besides that.
The Wizard will still have more options in how they use their spells to solve problems. The only difference is that now Wizards will need to manage how they use thier spells more thoroughly.I think that the worry comes from us focusing on damaging spells like Magic Missile and Fireball. “Blaster” Wizard has always been a sub-optimal way to build a Wizard. Magic Missile is not supposed to be equal to a Martial’s Full-Attack. Fireball is an outlier because it deals so much damage for its Spell Slot against such a large Area of Effect, that it can hit multiple targets. “Blasting” also encourages burning multiple Spell Slots every combat just to “keep up” in the DPR race.
The new Spell Progression design does seem to punish “Burn all of my Spell Slots in 1 combat” Blaster Wizards more. But because Cantrips will now scale better, Wizards...
Now ElsivrWind, I really got to take issue with your response regarding damage spells as a poor choice. It is a sub optimal choice that really needs to be buffed up. Magic missile should really be doing two darts per action to make it feasible as a 1rst level spell, especially since cantrips scale for free. I really would rather cast magic missile for a decent amount of damage than be spewing cantrips all day for the same effect. My fun is throwing fireballs or lightning bolts around for blast damage and I am tired of it being made into a weak choice.
I could easily say that well if you want to do cool things outside of combat you shouldn't play a martial character because those classes really are sub par choices if you want to accomplish that goal. Wanting effective non-combat options for martials is no different than wanting an effective blaster in the game.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All the weapon changes do is add diversity and asymmetric balance to the different weapons, it doesn't actually increase the problem solving ability of martials any. That's supposed to come from skills and class feats, which frankly I'm concerned casters are going to have too much access to and they won't serve their purpose as a means for martials to do Cool Things because a Bard will still be roughly as good as a Rogue at skills. Willing to give Paizo the benefit of the doubt for now, though.
Well, we know Rogues get twice as many Skill Feats as everyone else, which I'd bet Bards don't, so I think Rogues are probably good.
I'm honestly more concerned about Fighter, Monk, and other martials that lack the Rogue's bonus Skill Feats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I too would like for Martials to be better in areas outside of combat and for “Blaster” Wizards and Sorcerers to be a bit more viable. I’m not trying to say “Fighters should only be good at dealing damage and Wizards should only be good for Utility”.
The OP was discussing the idea of Martial characters possibly overtaking Casters on the tier list due to the new rebalancing options. I was attempting to convey that, while the design of Martials is improving and allowing more flexible possibilities, they likely won’t be stepping on Caster’s toes, so to speak, because of just how many different tools Spellcasting gives access to. At least until characters start gaining Legendary Proficiencies.
For the fighter who wants to excel outside of combat, I strongly believe that the new Skill System will be the answer. As long as Martials have a decent enough selection of Skill Feats, you could customize your character to contribute meaningfully in a wide number of scenarios outside of combat.
As for the viablility of Blaster Builds, I would like for them to be viable seeing how it is such an iconic staple of the fantasy genre. But not “casting Intensified Fireballs at-will every round”, levels of strong.
Magic Missile probably isn’t the best example for this particular discussion because even though it does damage, it IS still a Utility Spell, in that it enables the caster to never miss th target. A spell like that probably shouldn’t be doing 6d4 +6 (21 average) Damage that can’t miss, at 1st Level. A Lv1 Enemy Wizard could smack the Lv 1 Human Fighter with 14 Con (20 [21 with FCB]) from full HP to dying in one turn, without so much as a saving throw!
With the new Spellcasting Progression, I would like to see dedicated damage Spells to be more impactful in PF2 because we have fewer of them per day. And, with the new Critical System, I think that we may get that. If you’re dedicated to being a Blaster, and devote the Class Feats into making your Blasting Spells better, then I think it is reasonable that a 5th Level Wizard could spend an extra action to throw an Enlarged Fireball into a room on enemies, most of the mooks critically fail their saves causing them to take double damage (likely killing them instantly), leaving only a handful of the more powerful enemies standing, but badly damaged. And then have decently strong cantrips to fall back on.
Does that sound more reasonable to you? If not, I’m open to hearing your opinions on the subject.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the new Spellcasting Progression, I would like to see dedicated damage Spells to be more impactful in PF2 because we have fewer of them per day.
I've run the math on blasting based on the currently available information and it doesn't look good. While new information may change the analysis, right now PF2 blasting looks weaker than PF1 core-only blasting, which bodes poorly because blasting was pretty much unviable until the APG came out.
The big problem is that blasting is a very "spammy" playstyle that requires you to keep casting until combat is over, whereas a more conventional controller caster would stop casting once everything was under control and the martials could clean up. This meant blasters needed to expend more spell slots, and were more reliant on using lower-level spell slots to get through the day as a result. PF2 has fewer spell slots in total, and blast spells don't automatically increase in damage with level so lower-level slots are also much weaker. And based on my numbers, their damage is also lower than PF1 blasters. I don't really see a way that PF2 blasts can be viable with numbers like that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the new Spellcasting Progression, I would like to see dedicated damage Spells to be more impactful in PF2 because we have fewer of them per day.I've run the math on blasting based on the currently available information and it doesn't look good. While new information may change the analysis, right now PF2 blasting looks weaker than PF1 core-only blasting, which bodes poorly because blasting was pretty much unviable until the APG came out.
Like I said in that thread, there's an issue in that the comparison ignores all Class Abilities and Feats in PF2 while making use of them for PF1. We also know how Metamagic works now, and it's not a limited resource. If you just assume that Empower Spell still exists and just adds an action to the casting time for 1.5 times the damage, that makes the numbers look much better (and is pretty consistent with the other effects of the action economy, IMO).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as Blasting is just numbers, it can be saved during the playtest. That's one of the easiest things to both test out and play around with for the design of 2E.
1E wizard builds are more on the "qualitative" side of the spectrum, so it's hard to measure their power. If you wanna get blasting right, it's just some math you need (and some realistic scenarios, like the test adventure).
Like I said in that thread, there's an issue in that the comparison ignores all Class Abilities and Feats in PF2 while making use of them for PF1.
As I said in that thread, I disagree and find the comparison perfectly apt. PF1 metamagic is directly equivalent to PF2 upcasting as a game mechanic, and I avoided any and all other optimizations on the PF1 side in my comparison to keep that playing field level.
Notably, this meant that the PF1 blaster numbers I used in this comparison are exceedingly weak. No serious blasting build ever used blasts that weak, and a typical low-optimization blaster would be about 50% more powerful. In PF1, blasting was very much a "completely specialize in it or don't bother" sort of deal, and the PF2 numbers we've seen so far are unfavorable in comparison. This does not bode well for blasting if we want something that is generally useful without focusing your entire build around it.
We also know how Metamagic works now, and it's not a limited resource.
We don't actually know how PF2 metamagic works in this respect, as we have no yet been shown any metamagic that is applicable to blasting spells. We also haven't seen many blasting spells yet, and what we have seen suggests that spells that can already make use of three actions are going to be fairly common so metamagic has an opportunity cost in that respect. We simply don't know enough to make any predictions on how that will play out.
|
|
I too would like for Martials to be better in areas outside of combat and for “Blaster” Wizards and Sorcerers to be a bit more viable. I’m not trying to say “Fighters should only be good at dealing damage and Wizards should only be good for Utility”.
The OP was discussing the idea of Martial characters possibly overtaking Casters on the tier list due to the new rebalancing options. I was attempting to convey that, while the design of Martials is improving and allowing more flexible possibilities, they likely won’t be stepping on Caster’s toes, so to speak, because of just how many different tools Spellcasting gives access to. At least until characters start gaining Legendary Proficiencies.
For the fighter who wants to excel outside of combat, I strongly believe that the new Skill System will be the answer. As long as Martials have a decent enough selection of Skill Feats, you could customize your character to contribute meaningfully in a wide number of scenarios outside of combat.
As for the viablility of Blaster Builds, I would like for them to be viable seeing how it is such an iconic staple of the fantasy genre. But not “casting Intensified Fireballs at-will every round”, levels of strong.
Magic Missile probably isn’t the best example for this particular discussion because even though it does damage, it IS still a Utility Spell, in that it enables the caster to never miss th target. A spell like that probably shouldn’t be doing 6d4 +6 (21 average) Damage that can’t miss, at 1st Level. A Lv1 Enemy Wizard could smack the Lv 1 Human Fighter with 14 Con (20 [21 with FCB]) from full HP to dying in one turn, without so much as a saving throw!With the new Spellcasting Progression, I would like to see dedicated damage Spells to be more impactful in PF2 because we have fewer of them per day. And, with the new Critical System, I think that we may get that. If you’re dedicated to being a Blaster, and devote the Class Feats into making your Blasting Spells better, then I think it is reasonable...
Magic missile should be that powerful at first level because it does not scale. Let me put in in perspective against other first level spells.
Sleep - fighter down on failed save from levels 1-4
Color Spray - fighter down plus lingering effects on save levels 1-2
fighter stunned multiple rounds levels 3-4
fighter stuned single round level 5
Burning Hands - 1D4 damage per level up to 5D4
Granted every spell except magic missile is from PF1 but you can see the dilema. Not allowing spells to scale in damage makes them either too weak or too potent. There is no reason to cast magic missile as a first level spell slot after the low levels of your carrer when you can be using the force cantrip to hit for 1D10 per spell level. Cantrips get to LEVEL UP in power to keep them relevant but magic missile and fireball do not? Its just bias against blasters pure and simple.
And no, skill feats should not be as good as spells. Whats the point of taking a spell then? Especially because skill feats are most likely going to be an unlimited resource. Why would I bother taking invisibility as a caster when I could take a stealth feat that mimicks the spell? Why bother taking jump or levitate when I could just take legendary athletics and get the same result? Now if I had a large number of spell slots or a feat to make a low level utility spell permanent then I could see skill feats being on par with spells. However with 3 spells per level, skill feats should be no where in power equal to a spell. A spell has to be much more impressive because its a limited resource competiting with an at will power
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And no, skill feats should not be as good as spells. Whats the point of taking a spell then? Especially because skill feats are most likely going to be an unlimited resource. Why would I bother taking invisibility as a caster when I could take a stealth feat that mimicks the spell? Why bother taking jump or levitate when I could just take legendary athletics and get the same result? Now if I had a large number of spell slots or a feat to make a low level utility spell permanent then I could see skill feats being on par with spells. However with 3 spells per level, skill feats should be no where in power equal to a spell. A spell has to be much more impressive because its a limited resource competiting wiht an at will power
You get the skill feats that do these things /long/ after you get the equivalent spell. So yes, actually, it is fine for the feats to duplicate low level spells as at-will extraordinary abilities. By that point, the caster will be able to perform much stronger versions of those effects with upcasted or higher level spells, and can still use lower level slots for the original lesser versions of the effects when it seems likely to come up as well.
As for blasting damage, what you're asking for is basically for a 1st level spell to still be super good in combat as a powerful offense option at high level... Even though an equivalent non-magical weapon or untrained skill would have long since ceased to be relevant. I just can't agree with that. You'll already be powerful at artillery with higher level slots and scaling cantrips and scrolls etc as well, you don't also need a dozen extra low level spells that are somehow still equaling or outperforming martial performance. You shouldn't be rewarded for crippling over specialization. Use those lower slots for more utility magic.
Note that unlike PF1, save DCs in PF2 scale off caster level rather than spell level. So a number of low level offensive spells will actually still be good in a way they weren't in PF1. And for all we know, there may well be easily accessible feats and abilities to boost spell damage as you level beyond just casting out of a higher level slot. This may also in fact be one of the roles of a higher tier implement / focus, if those end up in PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scaled cantrips = weapon power.
Wizards will be just fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Magic missile should be that powerful at first level because it does not scale. Let me put in in perspective against other first level spells.
Sleep - fighter down on failed save from levels 1-4
Color Spray - fighter down plus lingering effects on save levels 1-2
fighter stunned multiple rounds levels 3-4
fighter stuned single round level 5
Burning Hands - 1D4 damage per level up to 5D4Granted every spell except magic missile is from PF1 but you can see the dilema. Not allowing spells to scale in damage makes them either too weak or too potent. There is no reason to cast magic missile as a first level spell slot after the low levels of your carrer when you can be using the force cantrip to hit for 1D10 per spell level. Cantrips get to LEVEL UP in power to keep them relevant but magic missile and fireball do not? Its just bias against blasters pure and simple.
And no, skill feats should not be as good as spells. Whats the point of taking a spell then? Especially because skill feats are most likely going to be an unlimited resource. Why would I bother taking invisibility as a caster when I could take a stealth feat that mimicks the spell? Why bother taking jump or levitate when I could just take legendary athletics and get the same result? Now if I had a large number of spell slots or a feat to make a low level utility spell permanent then I could see skill feats being on par with spells. However with 3 spells per level, skill feats should be no where in power equal to a spell. A spell has to be much more impressive because its a limited resource competiting with an at will power
Comparing PF2’s Magic Missile to PF1 Spells isn’t the best way to go about this. We know from the blogs that Color Spray in particular has been reworked to retain its usefulness at higher because Paizo wanted lower level spells to not “fall off” later on. Color Spray will still be capable of inflicting a debuff, even on a successful Save. Much like how, Magic Missile will still be able to minor damage. Lower level spell slots being less effective at killing equal CR enemies isn’t bias against Blasters. It’s just how offensive spells have always worked. Only now, instead of the DC being what falls off, it is the base damage unless you invest into it.
Again, Magic Missile is a bad example because it ignores the Critical mechanics. It doesn’t function like any other Blaster Spell, and doubles as a utility spell. If we’re talking about Blasting Spells, let’s discuss actual Blasting Spells like Shocking Grasp which deals double damage on a Critical Hit that doesn’t need to be confirmed. Which, because Casters have Full BAB, and the Spell Targets Touch AC, will probably happen more often. And that Fireball deals double damage on a critically failed Reflex Save.
Why would it be bad if your Cantrips can scale to the point where they’re better than casting a 1st Level Spell Level in a first level Spell Slot? When you can simply prepare that spell in a Higher Level Spell Slot instead to make it more powerful?
The old problem was “I’m out of 5d6 Fireballs, so now I’m stuck with 3d4 +3 Magic Missiles.” Now it’s “I’m out of 6d6 Fireballs, so now I’m stuck with 3d4 +3 Magic Missiles OR I could cast 3d10 Telekinetic Projectiles without using my resources). While I do think that the numbers will need some tweaking during the playtest, it feels like an overall improvement from PF1 (from what we know at least. Metamagic, Class Feats, and Class Abilities such as Specialist Schools and Bloodlines will be a huge factor in determining how viable Blasting will be.)
Please forgive me if i’m misunderstanding something, but it comes across like your asking 1st Level Spell Slots to be just as Powerful as 3rd, 4th, or 5th Level Spell Slots. That’s a bit too far for my taste, and while I think Paizo could pull it off, I would prefer that blasting on that level require the caster to spend high level spell slots.
Also I wasn’t saying that Skill Feats should be equal in power to Spellcasting. Just that Skill Feats will enable martials to contribute to solving problems outside of combat. We do know that the legendary stuff will be outrageous and dare I say . . . Mythic. But that’s like, Level 17+. By that point Casters will have Legendary Spellcasting.
With the new Spellcasting Progression, I would like to see dedicated damage Spells to be more impactful in PF2 because we have fewer of them per day.I've run the math on blasting based on the currently available information and it doesn't look good. While new information may change the analysis, right now PF2 blasting looks weaker than PF1 core-only blasting, which bodes poorly because blasting was pretty much unviable until the APG came out.
The big problem is that blasting is a very "spammy" playstyle that requires you to keep casting until combat is over, whereas a more conventional controller caster would stop casting once everything was under control and the martials could clean up. This meant blasters needed to expend more spell slots, and were more reliant on using lower-level spell slots to get through the day as a result. PF2 has fewer spell slots in total, and blast spells don't automatically increase in damage with level so lower-level slots are also much weaker. And based on my numbers, their damage is also lower than PF1 blasters. I don't really see a way that PF2 blasts can be viable with numbers like that.
Hmm . . . While I’m a bit saddened to see those numbers, I’m hopeful that there are Class Feats that we haven’t seen that will help make up the difference. Otherwise, let’s all be sure to test out Blaster builds as thoroughly as we can and give our feedback. If it just needs a numbers adjustment, that should be a fairly reasonable change to make during the playtest period.
As for Blasters requiring more spells to burn to be viable, I’m not sure that that’s something that realistically COULD be balanced in one class, outside of giving Wizards/Sorcerers some kind of “Channel Damage” pool devoted purely to Blasting.
If we inflate the spell slots just to give blasters “enough” blasts per day, then we either need to nerf every other Spell to require casting it every round to be balanced, or we’re just extending how long the Not-Blaster Casters can go without running out of spells and not actually solving the issue, because the Blaster will still run out sooner.
Where is the Kineticist when you need them?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said in that thread, I disagree and find the comparison perfectly apt. PF1 metamagic is directly equivalent to PF2 upcasting as a game mechanic, and I avoided any and all other optimizations on the PF1 side in my comparison to keep that playing field level.
No, because there's a big difference: Metamagic in PF1 is an investment of resources. PF2 spellcasters have just as many resources to invest (probably more given Class Feats), and yet have no resources invested.
You've mathematically proved that upcasting alone in PF2 isn't as good as Metamagic alone in PF1, it's true, but that wasn't the question people were asking, y'know?
Notably, this meant that the PF1 blaster numbers I used in this comparison are exceedingly weak. No serious blasting build ever used blasts that weak, and a typical low-optimization blaster would be about 50% more powerful. In PF1, blasting was very much a "completely specialize in it or don't bother" sort of deal, and the PF2 numbers we've seen so far are unfavorable in comparison. This does not bode well for blasting if we want something that is generally useful without focusing your entire build around it.
This is something to be on the lookout for, sure, but it's very possible you can be an equally good blaster in PF2 at lower resource investment by quite a bit. We just don't have enough insight into the system to say yet, and thinking we do seems super premature.
We don't actually know how PF2 metamagic works in this respect, as we have no yet been shown any metamagic that is applicable to blasting spells. We also haven't seen many blasting spells yet, and what we have seen suggests that spells that can already make use of three actions are going to be fairly common so metamagic has an opportunity cost in that respect. We simply don't know enough to make any predictions on how that will play out.
That's actually more or less exactly my point (well, that and the above mentioned fact that you're comparing things that cost character creation resources in PF1 with things that don't in PF2). You are theorizing well in advance of the data.
And no, skill feats should not be as good as spells. Whats the point of taking a spell then? Especially because skill feats are most likely going to be an unlimited resource. Why would I bother taking invisibility as a caster when I could take a stealth feat that mimicks the spell? Why bother taking jump or levitate when I could just take legendary athletics and get the same result? Now if I had a large number of spell slots or a feat to make a low level utility spell permanent then I could see skill feats being on par with spells. However with 3 spells per level, skill feats should be no where in power equal to a spell. A spell has to be much more impressive because its a limited resource competiting with an at will power
I strongly disagree. The sweet spot for utility Skill Feats (other than Ritual Magic) is 'about as good as a spell of equivalent level'. The spell caster's trick is then versatility, they can do any one of a number of such options when they wish it (more with Wands, consumables, Rituals, and other such things), while the 'non-spell' version has the advantage of not being a limited resource and thus being replicable on demand.
Rituals (which are accessed via a Skill Feat, remember) are a trifle different, trading taking awhile for being replicable (as compared to spells) or trading taking awhile for added versatility (as compared to other Skill Feats).
In either case, this is particularly true given that spell casters get Skill Feats as well. If they can just do everything the Skill Feats could do better with spells then having them has little point, which is not good game design. It's much better for them to be actually quite useful abilities that save you ever needing to take spells that replicate what your Skill Feats do.
If I'm not mistaken, the reason why direct damage of any kind (swords, fireballs, etc.) lost value since 3.0 is because everyone's hit points got a significant boost during the edition change, right? Plus the fact that SOD abilities also got much easier to succeed, too.
If they keep the upped HP range since 3.0, another way to buff and encourage using blasting spells is to give them lingering area effects with minor yet useful benefits (like fireball igniting its hit area for X turns, creating updrafts which help with gaining height during flight, etc.).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF2, all characters gain max hit points per level (10 + Con mod per level for fighter, etc).
This is true. However, per Mark Seifter, monster HP no longer inflate in excess of PC HP (in PF1 a CR 20 monster was expected to have 370 HP, a figure almost no 20th level PC could match). So a Level 20 PF2 monster would not be expected to have more than the 300 or so HP most PC Fighters are gonna have (or at least not usually), and might well have more like the 200 a PC Wizard seems likely to hit by that level.
So it's HP inflation for PCs, but not necessarily for monsters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have we seen any evidence for cantrips who are *not* blasts?
Yes. Shield, Prestidigitation, and Tanglefoot are cantrips.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As is Light.Yes. Shield, Prestidigitation, and Tanglefoot are cantrips.Have we seen any evidence for cantrips who are *not* blasts?
Detect Magic as well.
As for Blasters requiring more spells to burn to be viable, I’m not sure that that’s something that realistically COULD be balanced in one class, outside of giving Wizards/Sorcerers some kind of “Channel Damage” pool devoted purely to Blasting.
It's perfectly manageable in PF1, it just means you need to conserve power by using lower-level spell slots. A 10th level Sorcerer isn't spamming 5th level slots non-stop, he's throwing out a mix of 3rd, 4th, and 5th level slots. By pacing himself like this, the Sorcerer can still last through the day despite using more spell slots per encounter. It does mean you'll completely tap out a little earlier than other casters, but it's a downside you can work around.
This is worrisome in PF2 because there are fewer spell slots in total, and we know that lower-level spell slots are significantly weaker. This greatly exacerbates the issue.
No, because there's a big difference: Metamagic in PF1 is an investment of resources. PF2 spellcasters have just as many resources to invest (probably more given Class Feats), and yet have no resources invested.
I agree that the PF1 blaster is down a feat here compared to the PF2 one. We also know that PF2 characters get many more feats in total than their PF1 counterparts. We don't know what will be available, and there may well be powerful feats that bolster blasting in PF2. This completely misses the point, which I laid out at the very beginning of my post:
For the most part, these spells were quite weak in PF1, and required extensive feat and class feature support to be effective. The hope was that PF2 would give us blast spells that would work better out of the box, and wouldn't leave us with the problem of being an obligate specialist in a single spell. This would also mean the extreme blasting support options that existed in PF1 wouldn't be necessary in PF2. What we've seen has me worrying that PF2 is going in the opposite direction, and is making blasts even worse for casters who lack extremely powerful class features to bolster them.
It's entirely possible that PF2 will bring exceptionally powerful class abilities and feats to boost blasting, but that's a bad thing. Blasts should work out of the box as a spell option for everyone, not be something that requires intensive feat and class feature selection to get to a usable level. This was a flaw with PF1, a band-aid that needed to be applied in the APG because they massively undershot the mark in the CRB. My numbers stand: what we're seeing right now indicates that PF2 blast spells will be even weaker out of the box than their PF1 counterparts, requiring even more potent boosting effects to get up to par.
We just don't have enough insight into the system to say yet, and thinking we do seems super premature.
While it's true we don't have a full purview, I do think we know enough at this point to be concerned. We know the baseline damage of blasting spells is lower, and can calculate that the higher DC's and chance of critical success don't make up the difference. We know this disadvantage is even more pronounced at lower level spell slots, and we know that spellcasters in general get fewer spell slots in total. We know that monsters have the same or higher HP totals to their PF1 counterparts, and it's unlikely we'll be looking at radically different chances to save.
I think that's more than enough to start expressing concerns.
If I'm not mistaken, the reason why direct damage of any kind (swords, fireballs, etc.) lost value since 3.0 is because everyone's hit points got a significant boost during the edition change, right?
I'm not familiar enough with AD&D to evaluate that claim myself, but I have heard that before as well. For the record, we know that PC's and NPC's who use the PC rules will have more HP in PF2, but at the same time NPC's tended to have lower HP than monsters of equivalent CR in PF1, so this could just be "catch-up" and typical monsters will still have about the same number of HP. So while the current info is sufficient to conclude that HP won't be going down, I don't think we can conclude that monsters HP will be going up.
|
|
Right on, I wonder if creature type and/or size will effect a monster's hit points.
Having creature type shackled to a particular HP/BAB/Save chassis is one of the things they're trying to fix with the new monster/NPC creation system, so I doubt that creature type will make a difference.
Size didn't directly add to HP in PF1, so I doubt it will in PF2...but it probably correlates with Con, which might well matter (but also might not, we know nothing about this system).
Right on, I wonder if creature type and/or size will effect a monster's hit points.Having creature type shackled to a particular HP/BAB/Save chassis is one of the things they're trying to fix with the new monster/NPC creation system, so I doubt that creature type will make a difference.
Size didn't directly add to HP in PF1, so I doubt it will in PF2...but it probably correlates with Con, which might well matter (but also might not, we know nothing about this system).
Yes, we know that the old BAB/Save bonus attached to monster type is gone (all fey are crap at hitting things, because...), which pleases me, but I wonder how monster HP will be calculated, how many per level, if they add Con mod, like PCs.
Maybe size will effect HPs, this edition, sort of like the racial hit point bonus for PCs or something.
Based on unchained and starfinder(keeping in mind that numbers will be tweaked) there were the 3 core chasis, the fighter, the expert and the spellcaster, which all had their default BAB/HP progressions ( admittedly behind a layer of obfuscation) with modifications based on " how weak or tough they felt a specific type of creature should be. If you want to stretch out the monster creation rules into a more PC based style, you'll probably see bruisers get 10 + con a level, depending on what they decide the con for such a creature should be, expert/specialized monsters will get 8, and your traditional fey and magical inclined will get 6.
|
|
Like I said in that thread, there's an issue in that the comparison ignores all Class Abilities and Feats in PF2 while making use of them for PF1. We also know how Metamagic works now, and it's not a limited resource. If you just assume that Empower Spell still exists and just adds an action to the casting time for 1.5 times the damage, that makes the numbers look much better (and is pretty consistent with the other effects of the action economy, IMO).With the new Spellcasting Progression, I would like to see dedicated damage Spells to be more impactful in PF2 because we have fewer of them per day.I've run the math on blasting based on the currently available information and it doesn't look good. While new information may change the analysis, right now PF2 blasting looks weaker than PF1 core-only blasting, which bodes poorly because blasting was pretty much unviable until the APG came out.
While you do have a point that we don't know all of the feats and class features in play we can just look at base spell damage to see that fireball has been greatly nerfed. Max unadjusted fireball in PF1 is 10D6. Max unadjusted fireball in PF2 seems to be 5D6. That is a HUGE nerf. It would be like saying great swords go from 2D6 to 1D6. Even if you add feat taxes to restore fireball to 10D6 its an unreasonable nerf since may people have pointed out in various threads that an unadjusted blaster is among the weakest spell caster options in PF1
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, the reason why direct damage of any kind (swords, fireballs, etc.) lost value since 3.0 is because everyone's hit points got a significant boost during the edition change, right? Plus the fact that SOD abilities also got much easier to succeed, too.
If they keep the upped HP range since 3.0, another way to buff and encourage using blasting spells is to give them lingering area effects with minor yet useful benefits (like fireball igniting its hit area for X turns, creating updrafts which help with gaining height during flight, etc.).
It is odd, especially considering that since 3E hit points for all classes got a dramatic boost and spell damage shrunk since the inception of 2E. I know because I still play the gold box D&D video games thanks to good old games patches and fireballs did upwards of 30D6 and magic missiles hit for over 100 points of damage at extreme levels of 30 plus. This was back in the era where you stopped getting hit dice and corresponding constitution bonuses for most classes around 9th to 10th level.
|
|
Yes. Shield, Prestidigitation, and Tanglefoot are cantrips.Have we seen any evidence for cantrips who are *not* blasts?
And that is extremely worrisome since shield always defeated magic missile in previous editions of the game. If a cantrip can negate a first level spell it adds credence to my theory that PF2 designers have a disdain for the iconic spells that made D&D/Pathfinder famous
|
|
Right on, I wonder if creature type and/or size will effect a monster's hit points.Having creature type shackled to a particular HP/BAB/Save chassis is one of the things they're trying to fix with the new monster/NPC creation system, so I doubt that creature type will make a difference.
Size didn't directly add to HP in PF1, so I doubt it will in PF2...but it probably correlates with Con, which might well matter (but also might not, we know nothing about this system).
I really hope that they don't go that route. I don't think a dragon and a fey should share the same attack matrix any more than a barbarian and a wizard. Same goes with hit dice. Dragons, demons, undead should have more hit points in my humble opinion than plants or aberrations.
|
|
And no, skill feats should not be as good as spells. Whats the point of taking a spell then? Especially because skill feats are most likely going to be an unlimited resource. Why would I bother taking invisibility as a caster when I could take a stealth feat that mimicks the spell? Why bother taking jump or levitate when I could just take legendary athletics and get the same result? Now if I had a large number of spell slots or a feat to make a low level utility spell permanent then I could see skill feats being on par with spells. However with 3 spells per level, skill feats should be no where in power equal to a spell. A spell has to be much more impressive because its a limited resource competiting wiht an at will powerYou get the skill feats that do these things /long/ after you get the equivalent spell. So yes, actually, it is fine for the feats to duplicate low level spells as at-will extraordinary abilities. By that point, the caster will be able to perform much stronger versions of those effects with upcasted or higher level spells, and can still use lower level slots for the original lesser versions of the effects when it seems likely to come up as well.
As for blasting damage, what you're asking for is basically for a 1st level spell to still be super good in combat as a powerful offense option at high level... Even though an equivalent non-magical weapon or untrained skill would have long since ceased to be relevant. I just can't agree with that. You'll already be powerful at artillery with higher level slots and scaling cantrips and scrolls etc as well, you don't also need a dozen extra low level spells that are somehow still equaling or outperforming martial performance. You shouldn't be rewarded for crippling over specialization. Use those lower slots for more utility magic.
Note that unlike PF1, save DCs in PF2 scale off caster level rather than spell level. So a number of low level offensive spells will actually still be good in a way they weren't in...
No, you are wrong. Skills should not equal the power of low level spells since low level spells do not grow in power like previous editions. So now take jump for example. If PF2 Jump allows you to jump 30 feet up as a 1rst level spell you only jump once for 30 feet. If you want to jump higher you need to up cast it to a 2nd level or higher spell or recast it as a 1rst level spell. Since you only get 3 spells per level its a significant nerf, especially if a non-caster can pay a feat and get a 30 foot jump as an AT WILL Power. Now if you had the jump spell read " as long as you have this spell memorized you can spend x number of actions to jump 30 feet at will, then the spell is on par with the feat since both are at will powers that take a significant resource. If not, then just remove the jump spell as it is worthless.
Magic missile suffers from the same problem. It is way too weak for a first level spell as written. Magic missile has been nerfed from 1 missile plus two missiles every 5 levels for 1D6+1 damage (Basic D&D) to 1D4+1 plus 1 additional missile every 2 levels no maximum (1rst Ed AD&D) to the current 1D4+1 plus 1 missile every 2 levels to 9th level max (AD&D 2nd, D&D 3.0/3.5 & PF1) To the current 1 missile plus a chance for an additional 1 or 2 missiles depending on actions used proposed in PF2. Its a HUGE nerf since the spell no longer scales unless you do the horrid up casting. And if magic missile is still blocked by the shield spell (shield is listed in playtest PF2 as a cantrip btw) then magic missile is a totally worthless spell. It won't scale and its useless after you get second level spells. It needs a damage boost badly to be considered worthwhile to keep it in a spell caster's repertoire until at least 8th level of adventuring.You may not care about magic missile, fireball or other iconic spells Fuzzypaws BUT I DO! I don't want to be forced into the role of the controller or buffer/debuffer as the only viable roles for my caster. Either allow the iconic spells to scale normally like PF1 or give me my power upfront at the minimum spell level to cast. It should not be hard to do since you are giving everyone max hit points per level, a racial hit point bonus at first and increased melee damage. You are telling me that 6D4+6 is too much at 1rst level vs a range of 3D12+15 - 9D12+30 at first level. Really?
|
|
With the new Spellcasting Progression, I would like to see dedicated damage Spells to be more impactful in PF2 because we have fewer of them per day.I've run the math on blasting based on the currently available information and it doesn't look good. While new information may change the analysis, right now PF2 blasting looks weaker than PF1 core-only blasting, which bodes poorly because blasting was pretty much unviable until the APG came out.
The big problem is that blasting is a very "spammy" playstyle that requires you to keep casting until combat is over, whereas a more conventional controller caster would stop casting once everything was under control and the martials could clean up. This meant blasters needed to expend more spell slots, and were more reliant on using lower-level spell slots to get through the day as a result. PF2 has fewer spell slots in total, and blast spells don't automatically increase in damage with level so lower-level slots are also much weaker. And based on my numbers, their damage is also lower than PF1 blasters. I don't really see a way that PF2 blasts can be viable with numbers like that.
Hmm . . . While I’m a bit saddened to see those numbers, I’m hopeful that there are Class Feats that we haven’t seen that will help make up the difference. Otherwise, let’s all be sure to test out Blaster builds as thoroughly as we can and give our feedback. If it just needs a numbers adjustment, that should be a fairly reasonable change to make during the playtest period.
As for Blasters requiring more spells to burn to be viable, I’m not sure that that’s something that realistically COULD be balanced in one class, outside of giving Wizards/Sorcerers some kind of “Channel Damage” pool devoted purely to Blasting.
If we inflate the spell slots just to give blasters “enough” blasts per day, then we either need to nerf every other Spell to require casting it...
The only reason that casters need to burn more spells in PF2 is because of the nerf to spell scaling damage and Paizo's infatuation with 5E garbage concept of upscale casting. It is junk in 5E and the only reason it half works is because they turned every caster in 5E into a sorcerer. They staked Vancian in 5E & left it for the sunrise. If they either allowed blaster spells to scale to a the normal PF1 maximum or flat out gave you PF1 max spell level damage. (not unreasonable with inflated hit points for all classes). then you don't need to burn every spell you have and you could rely on spamming cantrips.
It just really bugs me that they think a 10D6, 3xday fireball is OP but a 9D10 force orb at will is not
No, because there's a big difference: Metamagic in PF1 is an investment of resources. PF2 spellcasters have just as many resources to invest (probably more given Class Feats), and yet have no resources invested.I agree that the PF1 blaster is down a feat here compared to the PF2 one. We also know that PF2 characters get many more feats in total than their PF1 counterparts. We don't know what will be available, and there may well be powerful feats that bolster blasting in PF2. This completely misses the point, which I laid out at the very beginning of my post:
For the most part, these spells were quite weak in PF1, and required extensive feat and class feature support to be effective. The hope was that PF2 would give us blast spells that would work better out of the box, and wouldn't leave us with the problem of being an obligate specialist in a single spell. This would also mean the extreme blasting support options that existed in PF1 wouldn't be necessary in PF2. What we've seen has me worrying that PF2 is going in the opposite direction,...
So I'm not sure base blast spells need to be better out of the box for blasting to still be better off in the new system. The issue with blasters in the old system is that being a competent blaster required putting your entire build towards it, and those builds are incredibly system mastery intensive. An acceptable new status quo might be if you can make an individual build investment more powerful. Better blasting feats, for example. If you only have to invest a couple of feats/features into blasting to make it viable, that could be legit.
Which isn't a completely absurd notion. Cleric feats can grant you a whole new domain, sorcerer feats could maybe grant a whole new bloodline arcana. One possibility worth considering: metamagic. If it only costs actions as opposed to level increases, then metamagic becomes much easier for newbs to understand and has a lower cost. We know Reach Spell lets other touch spells emulate the ranged version of the Heal spell by trading more actions. We know Magic Missile does more damage by spending more actions. It isn't crazy to think there will be a metamagic feat to increase damage. Also, it's a super cool visual to picture a sorcerer planting their feet and charging up a fireball like it is a kamehameha wave.
Obviously we don't know that this will be the case, but with so many missing pieces (including monster HP numbers) we also don't know it will be a problem yet.
|
|
And that is extremely worrisome since shield always defeated magic missile in previous editions of the game. If a cantrip can negate a first level spell it adds credence to my theory that PF2 designers have a disdain for the iconic spells that made D&D/Pathfinder famous
All it does is reduce the damage as a reaction. So it doesn't cancel it completely or for free.
I really hope that they don't go that route. I don't think a dragon and a fey should share the same attack matrix any more than a barbarian and a wizard. Same goes with hit dice. Dragons, demons, undead should have more hit points in my humble opinion than plants or aberrations.
Doesn't this depend drastically on the particular fey, dragon, undead, or abberation? I mean, should a lich or succubus really have more HP than an equally leveled gug or treant or warrior fey like a redcap?
The answer is no, and in fact they don't, because Paizo cheats by giving out extra HD and Con and the like, but that's awkward and can get weird.