What's really odd is that, perhaps I haven't read all the rules close enough yet, the #1 thing that stuck out to me is just how similar it was to Pathfinder 1e. It seems to me that it's just a more-codified, more extensible version of Pathfinder 1e with math that actually works. I was under the impression that it would be a simpler system, but at its heart, it's still a system where the formula for a die's roll is not "Number of die face + ability modifier + proficiency + other bonus", but instead some formula that has 10 different things affecting it.
But again, maybe I haven't dived as deep as others have, or maybe I'm reading a different ruleset.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, did you ever fiddle with moving those characters from PF to Starfinder? There was a small conversion guide placed in the back of the core rulebook, and it might be a useful reference for Paizo as a guide for what kind of changes could work and what wouldn't. Doubly so if you can maintain the feel while transitioning to a science-fiction setting.
BTW, I just remembered a gaming system which also did a drastic change from one edition to another and which did not go nearly as well as 2nd Ed -> 3rd Ed.
And that is Vampire: The Masquerade to Vampire: The Requiem (and the other affected WoD games from that edition change). Food for thought how radical change can not always lead to desired results.
I think it's also important to remember something that really made the 2E -> 3E migration doable.
The Conversion Guide.
Thanks! I will see about taking a look at how Starfinder tackled things.
Second, obviously Paizo believed that fireball was part of the problem as it also received a downgrade and now maxes out at 6d6 rather than 10d6...
6d6 is a minimum, not a maximum. It gains 2d6 for each level you heighten it by.
The minimum damage in PF1 was 5d6.
1. Working on my write up for my complete systemcomplaints. It's only in chapter 3 atm so give me a few days.
2. I am representing NO ONE but myself and my players here ChibiNyan, and it is SHE if you don't mind.
Earnestly, no offense meant in this, but this is exactly what Paizo asked for and is looking for. If customers have honest complaints backed by examples, they can use that more than the "it sucks" posts that were getting pretty prevalent for a while on the forums.
It's like the situation with the thread recently from one customer asking others about actual play of resonance: Although there's been much dissatisfaction, and some people have posted they don't like the feel of it, the last time I read the thread, people who have so far actually used it in-game and posted there haven't run into mechanical problems with it.
Fixing the flavor and way that something appears in play is subtly different than the entire system not working as intended and needing to be scrapped. Now if it becomes a mechanical problem in later chapters, it's worth knowing and knowing why so it can be adjusted.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess this is the right thread, but I've been mulling over some of the issues I have with the playtest and I think I've managed to pin down what I've kind of been feeling. To me it seems like Paizo overcorrected when trying to fix some problems, or fixed things TOO much and caused issues as a result. For example, wand spam. Wands get 10 uses before they burn out. They also cost way, way more now because of the change to the economy. They also use Resonance. Three fixes to a single problem, where one would have sufficed, and as a result it goes too far in the other direction.
There's probably more examples in how the other parts of the playtest are designed, but I'm still working through the system and it'll probably take me a month before I figure out how many of the systems are like that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although there's been much dissatisfaction, and some people have posted they don't like the feel of it, the last time I read the thread, people who have so far actually used it in-game and posted there haven't run into mechanical problems with it.
so, just because Resonance is mechanically sound, I have to like it? It can have no mechanical problems but still be a wy to clunkily solve problems that aren't there in most games outside PFS
|
I guess this is the right thread, but I've been mulling over some of the issues I have with the playtest and I think I've managed to pin down what I've kind of been feeling. To me it seems like Paizo overcorrected when trying to fix some problems, or fixed things TOO much and caused issues as a result. For example, wand spam. Wands get 10 uses before they burn out. They also cost way, way more now because of the change to the economy. They also use Resonance. Three fixes to a single problem, where one would have sufficed, and as a result it goes too far in the other direction.
There's probably more examples in how the other parts of the playtest are designed, but I'm still working through the system and it'll probably take me a month before I figure out how many of the systems are like that.
This is the exact feeling I've been getting from most people who post the "it sucks" comments. It's not that people don't WANT to be constructive in their commentary, it's that there are so many changes that have been made its hard to be precise with our criticizing.
In my mind Paizo took a bunch of car parts, completely unsure if some/all of them would work, and built an engine out of them. Now they are asking the community to be their mechanics. "What's broken?" is a very hard question to answer in that circumstance.
The way I think they should have gone was to limit their changes to a bit at a time. The proper way to test the functionality of a single part would be to hook it up to a functional machine and see if it worked. With the current method it's going to be very hard, If not IMPOSSIBLE, to pin down and repair/replace the non-functional aspects of our new motor... I mean game.
Your example carries an interesting corollary in my real life experience that runs counter to your logic. You see, going through the Pathfinder Playtest to eventually get to Pathfinder 2E is more like upgrading your car not fixing it. If this was about fixing 1E then all we would get is more errata until the end of time. So this is ultimately about more than fixing. This is about bringing the game forward into a new era applying the lessons learned over 10 years of gameplay and making a newer, hopefully better, game. With that in mind I swing back to my real life example using yours as a base.
The first car I ever owned was a Chevy Citation, at this point I can't remember what year but it was a used car that had been through a number of owners before me, including a couple of my dad's coworkers. The owner two stages before me was a guy who like upgrading his cars but he was also as it turned out not good about following through on the job. Its been a while but some of the details are hazy and frankly I suck with car details so bear with me. With this car, IIRC, he had upgraded a component in the engine/motor with a sport equivalent, I want to say Cam but honestly can't say for certain. Thing is he had done nothing else just this one part and the minimum of additional replacement parts to make it "function" again. The end result was an engine block that vibrated at a strength well out of the tolerances of the engine mounts and once the car had been in my possession for a short while began breaking said engine mounts. Point being some times, often even, you need to change more than the one thing you want to change to get a truly functioning whole.
On the chance that you, or others, wish to hold to the idea that 2E is ultimately just a "fix" for 1E I will continue the example. When those Engine mounts broke I, and my father, did not know what was causing the problem, we were unaware of the root cause so we patch the mounts with various means that should have, and likely would have, been sufficient for the engine as designed obviously this did not work out as again the problem was not the mounts, but something deeper. In the same way many of those things that "don't work" in 1E are products of deep seated parts of the system and the only way to "fix" them is to completely overhaul the system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I'm seeing the biggest problem is that the new rules level the playing field too much. There's no real oportunity for the specialist to shine.
If by "shine" you mean "the specialist can do on 2+ things that INVESTED characters can't do on a 20", then yes, there's no place for that in this system.
There are 17 points of difference between the best and the uninvested characters at something at lvl 20 (not counting the cool stuff like being able to jump against a wall twice, or becomeng a diffent person in 6 seconds with disguise). That might or might not be enough to shine, depending on the tastes. In PF1, there was a 20 point difference between specialists, and a character that got 20 ranks and something decent in the ability, such as a 16.
YMMV, but I don't think such a difference is healthy.
so, just because Resonance is mechanically sound, I have to like it? It can have no mechanical problems but still be a wy to clunkily solve problems that aren't there in most games outside PFSAlthough there's been much dissatisfaction, and some people have posted they don't like the feel of it, the last time I read the thread, people who have so far actually used it in-game and posted there haven't run into mechanical problems with it.
How do you know what happen in most games outside of PFS? Did you do a survey among most players in the world? Or is that just a generalization of your own experience?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my mind Paizo took a bunch of car parts, completely unsure if some/all of them would work, and built an engine out of them. Now they are asking the community to be their mechanics. "What's broken?" is a very hard question to answer in that circumstance.
This is a very good way to put it and summarize my thoughts at the moment.
there are a couple of things I see that I like in principle. The way to get to your Ability scores, once you know how it is done, is nice and simple (and while I still prefer rolling and nothing will ever change that, I can accept that as an alternative); Backgrounds, well they're beefed up Traits, highly customizable (because they all work the same way) and I always liked the idea of character Backgrounds being an integral part of Character Creation in other systems; Ancestry feat trees, well the principle looks good on paper, it's just the execution of the idea that is lacking; a simplified Action Economy - reads good, I'll see how it plays on my table on Friday.
But around those good parts (or parts with the potential to be good with a couple of rewrites) is so much that is so wrong, frankensteined together to a system that's neither here nor there
|
True, but that dmg scaled with your level for FREE to a maximum of 10d6. The new system may have the same or higher ceiling, but you have to actively "pay" to push it there.
How deep have folks looked at fireball?
We haven't had a ton of enthusiasm here on wizards or sorcerers, mostly because of a perception (which may be true or false) that mid-level doesn't look "as fun anymore".
I don't think the PF1e core Fireball was overpowered. It was later on when folks picked up metamagic rods of maximize, empower and/or selective and were cross-blooded and what-not that fireball was problematic on the power scale.
Where does theorycrafting on PF2e fireball stand? (I imagine concrete playtesting is pretty limited at this stage)
How deep have folks looked at fireball?
We haven't had a ton of enthusiasm here on wizards or sorcerers, mostly because of a perception (which may be true or false) that mid-level doesn't look "as fun anymore".
I don't think the PF1e core Fireball was overpowered. It was later on when folks picked up metamagic rods of maximize, empower and/or selective and were cross-blooded and what-not that fireball was problematic on the power scale.
Where does theorycrafting on PF2e fireball stand? (I imagine concrete playtesting is pretty limited at this stage)
A Fireball starts at 6d6 and doesn't move if you don't heighten the spell; in exchange its DC does scale with level, and it didn't in PF1.
A Fireball starts at 6d6 and doesn't move if you don't heighten the spell; in exchange its DC does scale with level, and it didn't in PF1.How deep have folks looked at fireball?
We haven't had a ton of enthusiasm here on wizards or sorcerers, mostly because of a perception (which may be true or false) that mid-level doesn't look "as fun anymore".
I don't think the PF1e core Fireball was overpowered. It was later on when folks picked up metamagic rods of maximize, empower and/or selective and were cross-blooded and what-not that fireball was problematic on the power scale.
Where does theorycrafting on PF2e fireball stand? (I imagine concrete playtesting is pretty limited at this stage)
And with the ability to double damage on saves that miss by 10+, coupled with the fact that fireball excels when used against grouped bunchs of mobs (ie: bad saves) instead of solitarie "boss type" enemies, it means that fireball actually has the chance to do 12d6 as early as lvl 5, and remains a competitive spell against "minions" for long.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, but that dmg scaled with your level for FREE to a maximum of 10d6. The new system may have the same or higher ceiling, but you have to actively "pay" to push it there.How deep have folks looked at fireball?
We haven't had a ton of enthusiasm here on wizards or sorcerers, mostly because of a perception (which may be true or false) that mid-level doesn't look "as fun anymore".
I don't think the PF1e core Fireball was overpowered. It was later on when folks picked up metamagic rods of maximize, empower and/or selective and were cross-blooded and what-not that fireball was problematic on the power scale.
Where does theorycrafting on PF2e fireball stand? (I imagine concrete playtesting is pretty limited at this stage)
*whistles* - it's a rather large subject - my opinion (only) is that blaster casting is much closer to 1st and 2nd edition AD&D than it has been in 20 years.
With a catch.
I would say that the hyper specialized cross blooded orc blood builds from PF1 would put both of them to shame. However what I consider 'AD&D' type blasting is that from my look over, all casters will be able to blast without dedicating the entire build towards it, and do so with effective results that feel real and good.
In PF1 without hyper specialization, this was impossible. I think overall this is a healthy and good move forward for the game, as blasting is (and was) fun, but the hyper specialist ended up being so OP no one wanted you to play it, and the stock wizard was so bad at blasting (compared to what else they could do) that no one wanted you to play it.
I think that blasting will be a part of most 'caster' builds moving forward (assuming they aren't forced to play healer) - but instead of the PF1 days of 'blasting every encounter to cinders' and thus making the game boring, it will be part of the playbook that doesn't outshine the rest of the group.
That's the armchair analysis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the core playtest rules Fireball falls off pretty steeply at later levels, because you can't just Intensified Empower the thing for a sixth level spell, where you get a very respectable average 15d6 x 1,5 for 78 damage on it at 15th level. A 15 level Fireball is a level 8th spell which deals an average of 56 damage to which you could add +8 by taking Dangerous Sorcery. I'm sure there are options (aside from the obvious Draconic Bloodline) to also add some more damage to Fireballs in PF1E.
The only advantage PF2E blasters have is. as Megistone noted, that your DC scales with level.
All in all, blasting doesn't look too good so far in the playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only advantage PF2E blasters have is. as Megistone noted, that your DC scales with level.
Being able to crit for double damage is an adventage.
|
So - here's the Pathfinder 2E playtest. Can I convert my old characters? Erm, no handy guide.
If I recall correctly, when they first made the announcement, someone asked about converting/carrying over characters and the answer was no...so I wouldn't expect a conversion guide...since the systems are so different, I don't think it would be practical or easy to do...
I keep hearing that 5 points are NOT the maximum difference in skill points... But how else do you increase that difference other than the glut of feats?
Items? I though from other announcements that Paizo wanted to remove the necessity for magic items. "Down with the big 6!" And all that. Though I personally didn't think it was too much to expect a DM to at least take any lack of financial assets... I digress...
AND Yes I know, a fully armored knight will not be as sneaky as a rogue, but those negatives have always existed, that's nothing new!Base stats? That is a bit unfair as those scores modify everything on your sheet, so obviously your skills are effected, but who wants to assign ability points based on the desire for a skill increase? Yes sometimes it lines up with other desirable boosts, but not always. Especially if that skill is more RP based and not in-line with character class.
But ability scores, feats, items, and racial bonuses (among other stuff) ARE things that wide the gulf between the superspecialized and the invested and the uninvested in Pathfinder 1 too. It's not just the ranks. The ranks widen the guld with the untrained, but consider this two options:
Player 1 has 20 (TWENTY) skill ranks in stealth. He's, for example, a ranger. A two handed ranger. He wears a breastplate (ACP -2, since it's magical), and has dex 16. He is a beast in stealth! That's +24!!! WOW. It really pays off how much he invested. That's 20 Skill ranks right there! Great!.
Player 2 is a maxed out stealth rogue. He's a halfling, with dex 30, has a mithril chain shirt of Shadow, Greater. He has skill focus Stealth, plus, obviously, 20 ranks. He has a stealth skill of plus 60. That's plus SIXTY. He can roll 1, and still get a better stealth roll than our heavily invested ranger with reasonable dex and a medium armor would ever get even rolling 20
And see how the difference, in skill ranks, between those 2 guys, is zero. It didn't matter.
Being able to crit for double damage is an adventage.
The only advantage PF2E blasters have is. as Megistone noted, that your DC scales with level.
Sure, that helps with clearing rooms of mooks. Forgot about that. So, two advantages 2E has, vs. massively more customizability, better efficiency in terms of spell levels being used (a very big point at later levels, where you can cast only a few maximum level Fireballs and it costs you all your high level spell slots) and generally more damage against enemies who are at a level appropiate encounter level.
|
|
I may be overlooking this, but the default way to handle the critical saving throw miss vs a fireball is for the GM to double the damage that was taken?
This is one point of friction I'm having with my gaming group - is our "arcane player" isn't really excited about the Playtest PDF and is having a hard time overcoming psychological inhibitors to rolling a PC.
I know he revels in grabbing a ton of d6s and possibly reading spell descriptions where he sees a continual progression in the d6s he can haul out and impress other players with.
I'm not sure if telling him "sometimes, for a group of monsters, I'll double the number you tell me to apply to them" is satisfactory enough for him to replace all the little cubes he'd normally roll (granted he would get 1 more when he's a 5th level wizard, but he'd been playing a lot of sorcerers lately so his starting point was 6 dice for years now).
With the core playtest rules Fireball falls off pretty steeply at later levels, because you can't just Intensified Empower the thing for a sixth level spell, where you get a very respectable average 15d6 x 1,5 for 78 damage on it at 15th level. A 15 level Fireball is a level 8th spell which deals an average of 56 damage to which you could add +8 by taking Dangerous Sorcery. I'm sure there are options (aside from the obvious Draconic Bloodline) to also add some more damage to Fireballs in PF1E.
The only advantage PF2E blasters have is. as Megistone noted, that your DC scales with level.
All in all, blasting doesn't look too good so far in the playtest.
Yep but the intensified empowered fireball is still a 3rd level spell DC in PF1 - and that means that even the giants are going to mostly save against it doing half damage - in PF2 they are most likely going to take a crit if they have crappy reflex saves because of the scaling.
It won't compete with the hyper focused build that does :
Level 12: 20 point buy, Rod of Quicken Spell Lesser, Headband of Vast Intelligence +4. Let's cast a fireball. We have at least two 6th level slots, three 5th level slots, four 4th level slots and five 3rd level slots.
We don't need to prepare fireball, because we can spontaneously cast it due to the Greater Spell Specialization feat.
We can have it deal any energy damage we choose.
Our CL is 14 for fireball (11 Wizard Levels, +2 from Spell Specialization + 1 from Varisian Tattoo).
Without any Metamagic, this is 10d6 (fireball) + 20 (Sorcerer bonuses) + 5 (Evocation Spell School) = 60 average damage with a DC of 22 (10 + 3 from Spell Level + 8 from 26 Intelligence + 2 from Spell Focuse & Greater). 3rd level spell slot
Our DC is 23.
With Intensified, this is 13d6 + 24 + 5 = Average 74.5. 3rd level slot with traits.
With Empowered, this is (10d6 + 20)x 1.5 + 5 = Average 87. 3rd level slot with traits
With Intensified and Empowered, this is (13d6 + 24)x 1.5 + 5 = average 109.25. 4th level slot with Traits.
With Intensified and Maximized, this is 78 + 24 + 5 = average 107. 5th Level slot with traits (strictly worse than Intensified/Empowered).
With Maximized and Empowered, this is (60 + 24)x1.5 + 5 = average 131. 6th Level slot with Traits.
We can quicken this spell up to three times per day with out metamagic rod, lesser. An example day looks like this:
Round 1: Quickened Maximized Empowered (131) then Maximized Empowered (131): 261 damage, two level 6 spell slots.
Your 6th level spell fireball in PF2 does 12d6 - (avg 42) but you could use chain lightning for 7d12 (avg 46), or cone of cold for 13d6 (avg 46) instead - all roughly the same average. Lets assume (somehow) that the caster has a way to quicken on cast to keep things even. in PF1 the hyper specialist could nova for 261 damage - 130 on a save (likely). The PF2 wizard can do 92 damage - 184 on a crit.
The PF1 wizard that didn't hyper focus is going to do ... 12d6 with a 3rd level spell DC, can't crit, and will most likely do 46 damage, 33 on a save (likely). So the PF2 wizard (stock) to me looks already twice as good as the PF1 wizard - before we start to specialize - however I don't expect the game to bring options in that allow 261 damage fireballs -
Looking at evasion - with the scaling DC's we can expect to see many more instances where an evasion foe takes at least half damage, vs no damage currently - or at least it looks more likely given the DC's will scale.
I submit that a level 12 wizard - using two 6 level spell slots in a single round to do 92-184 damage, is pretty damn competitive with the hyper specialized PF1 wizard doing 261-130, given that the PF2 wizard should land solid hits more often than the PF1 wizard.
/armchair off.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At low levels, without putting feats purposefully into place to boost skills, ranks are all the low level character had to distinguish itself in skill from other characters.
Something I keep meaning to process.
Say you have two 2nd-level guard NPCs watching a hallway. Say they are nothing special, there's no feat investment into detecting/perceiving/guarding.
Take a 3rd-level halfling rogue who hasn't done anything significant to invest in Stealth feat-wise. He's picked it as best he can otherwise (picked it as a skill, or maxxed points in it).
How do PF1e and PF2e rate at the rogue's success? I can recall a Kingmaker adventure where our 3rd-level rogue was something like +14 (6 ranks, 4 Dex, 4 size) sneaking through some level 2 warriors at +0 (0 ranks, 10 Wisdom).
In PF2e, how different is this classic trope?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. If player 2 wants to spend a enormous amount of his character resources on stealth (money for the armour, feat, the choice of his race) on top if his skill points than he deserves his +60.
No.
The guy who spent 20 skill ranks, a few points in the ability, bought a +5 cloak, and burned a feat in skill focus to get +35, deserves more than "can't even try what the other guy succeeds with a 1".
We are not talking about the difference between a Dex 10 paladin with full plate and heavy shield and the halfling rogue. We are talking about a lvl 20 ranger with maxed ranks in stealth, a stealth magic item, and skill focus in stealth. That should not be more than 20 points of difference with the rogue. I'm happy that the devs agree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, that helps with clearing rooms of mooks. Forgot about that. So, two advantages 2E has, vs. massively more customizability, better efficiency in terms of spell levels being used (a very big point at later levels, where you can cast only a few maximum level Fireballs and it costs you all your high level spell slots) and generally more damage against enemies who are at a level appropiate encounter level.Being able to crit for double damage is an adventage.
The only advantage PF2E blasters have is. as Megistone noted, that your DC scales with level.
Yes, basic blasting in PF2 is upgraded vs basic blasting in PF1, while super-specialized blasting gets a well deserved nerf.
Win-win.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At low levels, without putting feats purposefully into place to boost skills, ranks are all the low level character had to distinguish itself in skill from other characters.Something I keep meaning to process.
Say you have two 2nd-level guard NPCs watching a hallway. Say they are nothing special, there's no feat investment into detecting/perceiving/guarding.
Take a 3rd-level halfling rogue who hasn't done anything significant to invest in Stealth feat-wise. He's picked it as best he can otherwise (picked it as a skill, or maxxed points in it).
How do PF1e and PF2e rate at the rogue's success? I can recall a Kingmaker adventure where our 3rd-level rogue was something like +14 (6 ranks, 4 Dex, 4 size) sneaking through some level 2 warriors at +0 (0 ranks, 10 Wisdom).
In PF2e, how different is this classic trope?
Rogue has +4 to his roll. He's at Expert and that's (Level +1) bonus. Now I actually went and looked at Stealth feats a day or two and I really couldn't find any boost to it. Nothing like a +2-3. And by level 3, you don't have any items to boost it either thanks to level gating. However let's give him the benifet of the doubt and say he or she has as high Dex as they can get away with. That'd be 18 I'm assuming. So grand total is 7.
Now let's take those NPCs, make them fighters. Because there's no Warrior yet.
Fighter is Expert in Perception and he's level 2. So that means he's at +3 for his Perception bonus by default. Now lets say this one knows what's up and knows how to do his job better, so Wis 12. And if we really want to complete that full transfer, there's 2 Guards.
So that Halfling Rogue has a +7 to beat two +4 rolls. Oh and is instantly seen if there's no cover so I hope the GM didn't just give you a straight hallway to try and sneak up to these guys.
Now I could be wrong. I'm willing to be wrong. It's a new system, I'm using questions like this to help test my own ability to math things out. I could have forgotten to carry the 1 so to say.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
..that Halfling Rogue has a +7 to beat two +4 rolls. Oh and is instantly seen if there's no cover so I hope the GM didn't just give you a straight hallway to try and sneak up to these guys.
I'm assuming appropriate cover by barrels, garbage, what-not.
But if we just swung the typical 3rd level "rogue sneak" vs a pair of guards from high probability to low probability, remind me to sell all my shares in Golarion Thieves Guilds.
I'm hoping someone else sees something we don't in how this plays out, numbers-wise. i.e. Somehow does the 3rd level small-sized rogue sneak past with a failure and only is seen on a critical failure?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
with the number squish seeming to have reduced most level-appropriate checks to coin-flips (and highly specialized characters only getting ~65% odds or so), it sounds like golarion is going to have trouble ever getting anything done.
Yep but the intensified empowered fireball is still a 3rd level spell DC in PF1 - and that means that even the giants are going to mostly save against it doing half damage - in PF2 they are most likely going to take a crit if they have crappy reflex saves because of the scaling.
My sorcerer produces a DC 25 Fireball (Sage bloodline, greater spell focus evocation, robe of arcane heritage to get the Sage bloodline lvl 15 power early) currently at 12th level. That will still scale up later on when I get Spell Perfection (Fireball) and higher intelligence modifiers.
Level appropiate giants have about a +7 to +9 save to reflex, something more nimble like an Valkyrie demon has a +13, with the "average" high reflex DC of monsters being +12 to +14 and some outliers in the way higher tiers (who have other weaknesses against Fortitude or Will). I'm not seeing how those monsters are going to "mostly" save against that DC 25. Spell Resistance is much more of a problem for me here. So, we are talking about a 10% - 50% chance to save against that fireball.
At this point I can choose to use a fourth level slot for 14d6 (average damage 49 HP) or a sixth level slot for 14d6 x 1,5 (average damage 73).
Meanwhile, my PF2 pendant would be looking at a fixed DC of 28 for 12d6 of damage (average damage 42), against saves of +21 (slime demon, including its conditional +1 vs spells) or +18 (Valkyrie). And he only can use his sixth level slots to cast those much less useful fireballs. The chance of a same level challenge to save against the PF2 lvl 12 sorcerer is 50% - 65%. Furthermore the PF2E Sorcerer will only crit against a same level challenge on a saving throw with a natural 1.
So, yeah. Not really seeing the advantage here for PF2E blasters.
Now, let's do some more comparisons, at 16th level. By now, my Fireball has an increased DC 29 save (+6 enhancer and lvl 16 stat up, plus Spell Perfection (Fireball)) and has capped out at 15d6, going at 52 average damage still in its Intensified lvl 4 slot or 78 average damage as the Intensified Empowered Version. Assuming I've gotten my hands on a Rod of Maximise, the damage increases to 116 average damage, still at sixth level. Average reflex saves hover at +11 (and go as low as +7 to +9 still) for a Very Old Green Dragon and go up to +17 to +19 (Hollow Serpent to Fjord Linnorm). So we are talking now about a variance of 5% to 50% to save vs. full damage. Once again, I feel pretty good about my PF1E Sorcerer.
Meanwhile on the PF2 side again, we are using now precious lvl 8 spell slots to cast Fireball, for an average damage of just 56 points and a DC 31, versus level appropiate reflex saves of about +23 (surprisingly those haven't scaled the eight points I was expecting from other monster four levels higher), so the save chance is mostly 50%. Crits again only happen on a nat 1.
Yeah, sorry. Still feeling very good about my PF1E Sorcerer and mostly "meh" about the PF2E pendant. Especially considering all the stuff I can do with those level 8 slots, like casting Polymorph any Object or Mind Blank or Power Word: Stun, and so on.
*edit* Oh, and I haven't even factored in that I might have taken Quicken Spell for Spell Perfection, that's another Quickened Intensified Fireball for 52 more damage at level 16, adding up the average damage (if not saved versus) to 130 (not maximised) or 168 (maximised), at the mentioned save chances. Meanwhile the PF2E Sorcerer can do that once per day for an average damage of 112 damage and a much higher chance that his spell will be saved against.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wait... Am I reading this right??? A armored human moves 15 ft a round...
i've just been reading/hoping that it's 15ft [per movement action], because otherwise i'd be staggeringly disappointed in whoever mad ethe armor so harshly penalizing (moreso than it is currently)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wait... Am I reading this right??? A armored human moves 15 ft a round...
Why? Is he forbidden to use more than one of his 3 actions to move?
Grrr, had to do some edits to my big post, because it's late and I saw some numbers the wrong way. PF2E monsters have a slightly less high chance to save vs. fireballs. PF1E specialized casters still pull ahead in what I think is the majority of cases.
I'm going to bed now, before I make more math errors. ^^
Aaaah, crap, I forgot proficiency increases! Now I got to redo all the numbers again, before the editing window runs out. Aaaah!
*edit* Okay, it was literally just three numbers which had to changed due to that. PF1E specialized Sorcerer (who still has tons more options what to do per day than the PF2E non-specialized Sorcerer, btw) still pulls ahead in almost every metric against same level challenges. I'd have to do more math to see how lower level and higher level challenges go, but now I got to catch some zzzzz's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1 the difference can be substantial!
SHOULD be ABLE to be substantial.
Okey, what about... no?