Welp, I guess it's time for me to stop playing casters then.


Classes

51 to 80 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I understand that, but the main issue is with the AND. We have 2 conditions that are stated.

1. When you finish casting
2. When you spend an action to Concentrate on the spell

The AND between means both conditions must be true for the result of the summoned creature taking 2 actions.

If OR or AS WELL AS was used, then either condition 1 would cause the result or condition 2 would cause the result.

Not a big deal to me, as the chances of me ever having the time or group to play this anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading the "and" as exclusive instead of inclusive would cause other issues. Because the creatures would only be able to act on that first round where the spell is maintained, because it doesn't specify "and further rounds".

I'm not saying the language couldn't be improved. It can and should be improved.

I'd probably also change "then" to "immediately", so something like:
"When you finish casting the Spell or spend an action to Concentrate on the Spell, the summoned creature immediately takes its 2 actions"

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

The people complained, and complained, about the C/MD... Paizo fixed it in the only logical way... Then the people complaining about the C/MD are complaining because they wanted Martials buffed to Caster levels rather than Casters brought down to Martial levels.

I'd change that. SOME players are vocally complaining about the fixes to C/MD. They're a pretty loud segment on the boards right now but the boards almost certainly are NOT at all representative of the general reaction.

Others are very vocally saying that they LIKE the nerfs precisely because they wanted to see C/MD reduced and are quite happy that the reduction in C/MD came about by reducing the power of Casters.

I'm very much in the latter camp. I like the overall thrust of the rules changes. And, for the record, I played a LOT of casters who took advantage of the C/MD (I certainly firmly believe that the C/MD was Very, Very real). Now, I DO think they went overboard on some specific spells (eg, entangle) but, especially for a playtest, that is basically a nit that will hopefully be addressed. Or, if it isn't, that I can definitely live with


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
From my understanding 1st edition d&d didn't even have saves.

It most certainly did. It was an overly complex matrix with five categories based on the source rather than the effect (except for two categories where it was based on the effect instead of the source), and irregular progressions and starting saves, all of which varied by class because Gygax.

And Fighters (edited to add: and Paladins and Rangers, which were sub-classes* of the Fighter) had the worst saves across the board at the starting levels, though they had the fastest progression so at mid-to-high levels they surpassed most of the other classes (Clerics still fared better) which all had slower progressions. Because Gygax.

Edited to add: Oh, and there were seven footnotes to the saving throw table (oops, I meant "saving throw matrix", because Gygax), and then you also had additional explanatory text, for example: multi-class characters, characters with two classes (yes the latter was a thing, and the two were not the same, and I swear I am not making this up), and Bards checked the table for each class they have and used the best one. And there's no explanation of how exactly that works for Bards since there is no "Bard" entry on the table. Because Gygax.

Also, all monsters used the same matrix, and they saved as Fighters, and their hit-dice was their level (sort of, as there were four sub-bullets explaining how to equate monster hit dice to levels) and do I even need to go on?

You kids today with your full, 3/4, and 1/2 progressions. You've got it easy. And get off my lawn!

*Edited to add: Please don't make me explain what a sub-class is and how that differs from a regular class because I don't think even Gygax knew


Some food for thought:

* One of the biggest advantages to summoning in PF1e was increased action economy.
* PF2e gives increased action economy, but...
* It seems to cap increased action economy at 5 actions (4 actions + Reaction(s)?).* This goes for spells as well as features like Flurry of Blows.

I don't see this as so much of a summoning change as it is controlling how action economy used to balloon. Some of the big issues right now involve ironing out these economy adjustments.

* Are summons' Reactions a thing? That could get hairy.


Melkiador wrote:

Reading the "and" as exclusive instead of inclusive would cause other issues. Because the creatures would only be able to act on that first round where the spell is maintained, because it doesn't specify "and further rounds".

I'm not saying the language couldn't be improved. It can and should be improved.

I'd probably also change "then" to "immediately", so something like:
"When you finish casting the Spell or spend an action to Concentrate on the Spell, the summoned creature immediately takes its 2 actions"

I agree, that would make the statement much clearer.


Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
wait, what fighters have had "stupidly good saves"? in what edition?

Fathfinder

Fortitude: always good
Will: Armed Bravery - Bravery to Will
Reflex: Fighter's Reflexes - Weapon Training Bonus to Reflexes

If you build for Trained Grace, Reflex is the fighter's best save while Fortitude and Will come out about the same.

A fighter in PF1 has the feats and tools to be whatever you choose to build him to be.

I had to look up armed bravery and fighter's reflexes. Neither are in a main book and neither are available till level 9, So not everyone is gonna even know about them.

You can take one of the two at 5th level. Usually armed bravery.

The only people who won't know about them are the people who don't use the free online resources. The PRD lists them on the fighters front page.

So yeah, willful ignorance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Mechalas wrote:
And there's no explanation of how exactly that works for Bards since there is no "Bard" entry on the table. Because Gygax.

You had to refer back to the bard's fighter, thief and wizard levels and use the best saves from each of those classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a lot of hyperbole on this thread...

Spells were for sure nerfed, but most of them aren't THAT bad and do as advertised. A lot of them seem really lame and uninspiring tho, granted most low level powers in PF2 have this problem. SO there´s certianly some exaggeration on how useless Spellcasters are.

Blasts spells are total trash vs big enemies, though, this one for sure.
Other spells still have potential.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
My personal favourite drift of this playtest are all the people who spent the last 10 years berating Paizo for caster-martial disparity and are now flipping over because caster nerfs.
Well, maybe they would've preferred to give martials a fancy vehicle of their own than take the casters' away. Grand theft auto is not the solution here, crime isn't the answer.

If one side has machineguns and other side revolvers, it might be wiser for everyone to replace machineguns with revolvers rather than revolvers with machineguns, for both sides.

It might be wiser, but it's a game, So wise takes a back seat to fun, and I for one think that machine guns are more fun than revolvers.

It's what I've been seeing in games all over, balance is good for competitive games but Pathfinder is cooperative, we're telling a story about heros. bring on the machine guns, the BFGs, the BFS, and a rain of daggers and arrows to blot the sun. As long as everyone can do something interesting what's the real problem? give us all ferrarris.

Scarab Sages

Have people taken into account the new critical system? I think many people read a spell and go NOOOOO I'M NERFED BEYOND EVERYTHING!!! But if you look at the new critical system I feel it balances alot of things. Look at the Cantrip Produce Flame, d4 damage not great but if you roll 10 higher it goes to double d4 plus a persistant d4 which is really powerful. To get rid of persistent the enemy has to make a flat DC20 roll. Lets take a goblin commando with its 18 HP and say I crit he take 4 (say I roll a 2 which is double) and another 2 from the d4 persistent damage. That is 6 poimts of damage out the gate. Goblin rolls doesnt get a nat20 another d4 so another 2 now its 8pts. My turn I go I hit it again another d4 so 2 so the goblin os already at 10 damage. That is crazy strong. I really feel alot of people haven't taken into effect the new crit rules when looking at some of the stuff.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
John Mechalas wrote:
And there's no explanation of how exactly that works for Bards since there is no "Bard" entry on the table. Because Gygax.
You had to refer back to the bard's fighter, thief and wizard levels and use the best saves from each of those classes.

Ah, yes. The nightmares return.


jquest716 wrote:
Look at the Cantrip Produce Flame, d4 damage not great but ...

Even then, it's not too bad compared to other simple, one-handed, ranged weapons like the javelin.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
My personal favourite drift of this playtest are all the people who spent the last 10 years berating Paizo for caster-martial disparity and are now flipping over because caster nerfs.
Well, maybe they would've preferred to give martials a fancy vehicle of their own than take the casters' away. Grand theft auto is not the solution here, crime isn't the answer.

If one side has machineguns and other side revolvers, it might be wiser for everyone to replace machineguns with revolvers rather than revolvers with machineguns, for both sides.

It might be wiser, but it's a game, So wise takes a back seat to fun, and I for one think that machine guns are more fun than revolvers.
It's what I've been seeing in games all over, balance is good for competitive games but Pathfinder is cooperative, we're telling a story about heros. bring on the machine guns, the BFGs, the BFS, and a rain of daggers and arrows to blot the sun. As long as everyone can do something interesting what's the real problem? give us all ferrarris.

Alright, this is a good time to talk about balance in tabletop RPGs.

Let's start with the basics: tabletop RPGs are not a cooperative game, even if they have cooperative gameplay. While you can make a story about characters pulling together to accomplish a goal, it should be equally viable to pit characters against each other. But that's not the point here, because there's also the component that accomplishing a goal, while an easy motivation to have, is as relevant as playing a character, both in terms of having enjoyable mechanics as well as fulfilling a fantasy of the player.

There's another component that's being missed here – there's also a GM taking part of the game. The GM, as a person, is cooperative with the other people taking part of the game, but the GM, as a position, is not necessarily cooperative towards the players.

What is absolute about tabletop RPGs is that they are interactive. Not cooperative, INTERACTIVE. That's the basis of all design decisions from the top-down. You don't just create monsters in the Bestiary for players to band together to fight them, you also create rules for weather, settlements, items, NPCs, etc., because the objective of the game is providing tools to interact with constructs in a way that makes the players and the GM feel part of a narrative experience.

For this reason, the most important objective of the game is that everyone has a satisfying toolset with which to interact with the game. Someone who plays a Wizard wants a specific toolset, whereas a Fighter wants another.

So where does balance come into play? Balance among player choices is of great significance in a tabletop RPG because being less able to interact with the game than other participants, systemically, is a subversion of the game's goals.
That's why I particularly don't like Rangers to be built around "natural terrain" – even if the class could be balanced in terms of power budget, there are a lot of times where their ability to interact with the game is diminished due to contingent circumstances.

A lot of people think that players who prefer Wizards want to have a lot of ways to interact with the game, and, conversely, people who prefer Fighters want to have less ways to interact with the game to keep track of.

While that might be partially true in terms of market psychographics, which may or not be the case, it's certainly not an in-built characteristic of the system.

You don't need Fighters to have as many things to do as Wizards, you just need them to have a satisfactory amount of ways to interact with the game.

In PF1, on the CRB, this meant Fighters could move and attack. This was a disaster in terms of balance, and caused a lot of issues for Paizo – they had to release a million quasi-Fighter classes to compensate, rules for Advanced Weapon/Armor Training, lots of feats tuned for Fighters like Peerless Courtier, and so on.

Balance is important because it gives everyone a place in the story. If you remove balance, you endanger that – suddenly, one of the players needs to "grant" others a place in the story out of charity. This is a systemic failure to the objectives of the game, if it happens.

So to summarize: who knows if magic users need tuning? Just playtest, post here, and we'll see. But don't go around saying balance has no place here, Irori's still got shooters out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A Lot of spells have been toned down and even as someone who almost exclusively players casters (when I get a break from GMing), or at least some version (6 spell slot equivalents most likely not appearing in this edition). I feel this is mostly a good thing, however there are some that cross the line a bit.

Unseen Servant: 1 minute Duration, concentration required, These are nerfs I think are a little too far. Why did I even spend all that time learning magic if I can't even be lazy, with a spell this bad I might as well just do it myself. (Not joking, was an hour of effortless house cleaning too much to ask).

Also Suggestion being a 4th level spell is pretty steep for 1 minute duration. I feel it could be much lower (1/2) for 1 minute heighted at (3/4) for an hour, with a Crit Fail lasting 24 hours.

I don't mind the High damage or Save or Lose spells being gutted, But I do feel like some of the basic "showy" caster stuff could really be returned. Also like Summons, 1 minute is fine for "Battle" tier summons, but you should be able to go down the list levels and get longer durations without concentration (up lasting all day). They won't really hold up in combat, but something about having bound servants performing simpler tasks feels very appropriate (Not that PF1 did this either).

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Do not attack people for having opinions you don't share.

I removed several posts, and posts quoting those posts. (I probably missed a few.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:

I’m seeing a lot of flattening of spells, with them being stronger at first level and weaker at later levels. In pf1, summoning by spell is super limited at level 1, with a measly one round duration and not even coming into effect till the next round. In pf2, I can use my summon on the round I cast it and I can use it for 10 rounds, as long as I can maintain my concentration.

Mage armor may give a smaller bonus, but it lasts all day at level 1 now.

I have. Concentration was enough of a Nerf, 3 actions reduced to 2 and 10 round max is too much.


DeltaPangaea wrote:
pad300 wrote:
Snip

I mean to be fair, should a cleric be able to turn on a super mode that turns him from a caster into being better at fighting than a guy whose class is ABOUT fighting? I wouldn't think so.

Save or Dies are also honestly poor design in the first place.

I agree wholeheartedly.


Kodyboy wrote:
Melkiador wrote:

I’m seeing a lot of flattening of spells, with them being stronger at first level and weaker at later levels. In pf1, summoning by spell is super limited at level 1, with a measly one round duration and not even coming into effect till the next round. In pf2, I can use my summon on the round I cast it and I can use it for 10 rounds, as long as I can maintain my concentration.

Mage armor may give a smaller bonus, but it lasts all day at level 1 now.

I have. Concentration was enough of a Nerf, 3 actions reduced to 2 and 10 round max is too much.

10 Round Max is probably meaningless, unless combats are expected to last for more than 10 rounds, which seems unlikely.

Concentration isn't that bad of a deal. Round 1 you use up 3 actions and get 2 variable actions out of it. And then every following round you use up 1 action and get 2 variable actions. It's pretty good efficiency.


John Mechalas wrote:
Bards checked the table for each class they have and used the best one. And there's no explanation of how exactly that works for Bards since there is no "Bard" entry on the table.

The PHB says quite directly that bards use the druid chart based on their bard level. Page 118, second column, first paragraph under the heading "Bards".

Quote:
Because Gygax.

No reason to disrespect the guy who ultimately is responsible for the games we are playing. And I don't mean Dave Arneson, who thankfully thought up the idea of the game. I mean the guy who wrote it all down. Spent years in his basement typing on a typewriter rules and charts. Getting venture capital to create a company. And thus actually make a game on store shelves that people could purchase. The guy who then got ripped off by his business partners and drummed out of the business. But that's a different story.

No idea why the concept of sub-class is difficult. Subclasses mean you don't need a separate to-hit and saving throw chart for every class. You just say the subclass is under another class and those two things (and only those two things) are taken care of. We'll never know what Gary might have done with a 2nd edition. Unearthed Arcana introduced subclasses. He might have made the class/subclass hierarchy better in a 2nd edition. (Although he said he never wanted a 2nd edition which is (a small) part of why he was ousted.)


Melkiador wrote:
Kodyboy wrote:
Melkiador wrote:

I’m seeing a lot of flattening of spells, with them being stronger at first level and weaker at later levels. In pf1, summoning by spell is super limited at level 1, with a measly one round duration and not even coming into effect till the next round. In pf2, I can use my summon on the round I cast it and I can use it for 10 rounds, as long as I can maintain my concentration.

Mage armor may give a smaller bonus, but it lasts all day at level 1 now.

I have. Concentration was enough of a Nerf, 3 actions reduced to 2 and 10 round max is too much.

10 Round Max is probably meaningless, unless combats are expected to last for more than 10 rounds, which seems unlikely.

Concentration isn't that bad of a deal. Round 1 you use up 3 actions and get 2 variable actions out of it. And then every following round you use up 1 action and get 2 variable actions. It's pretty good efficiency.

Plus you get a target dummy.


Just going to post this, and remind people that the playtest is over the course of the next year, until August of 2019.

Good day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Kodyboy wrote:
Melkiador wrote:

I’m seeing a lot of flattening of spells, with them being stronger at first level and weaker at later levels. In pf1, summoning by spell is super limited at level 1, with a measly one round duration and not even coming into effect till the next round. In pf2, I can use my summon on the round I cast it and I can use it for 10 rounds, as long as I can maintain my concentration.

Mage armor may give a smaller bonus, but it lasts all day at level 1 now.

I have. Concentration was enough of a Nerf, 3 actions reduced to 2 and 10 round max is too much.

10 Round Max is probably meaningless, unless combats are expected to last for more than 10 rounds, which seems unlikely.

Concentration isn't that bad of a deal. Round 1 you use up 3 actions and get 2 variable actions out of it. And then every following round you use up 1 action and get 2 variable actions. It's pretty good efficiency.

That's a big part of my issue with it, though. Spells are now almost exclusively combat powers. Everything is centered around combat now. And it results in only feeling like a full fledged wizard a few minutes a day, and then it's back to the first year at Hogwarts. There are some players that prefer campaigns where combat isn't the entirety of the campaign, but the playtest looks like the plan is to make the system even more combat centric.


Melkiador wrote:
Kodyboy wrote:
Melkiador wrote:

I’m seeing a lot of flattening of spells, with them being stronger at first level and weaker at later levels. In pf1, summoning by spell is super limited at level 1, with a measly one round duration and not even coming into effect till the next round. In pf2, I can use my summon on the round I cast it and I can use it for 10 rounds, as long as I can maintain my concentration.

Mage armor may give a smaller bonus, but it lasts all day at level 1 now.

I have. Concentration was enough of a Nerf, 3 actions reduced to 2 and 10 round max is too much.

10 Round Max is probably meaningless, unless combats are expected to last for more than 10 rounds, which seems unlikely.

Concentration isn't that bad of a deal. Round 1 you use up 3 actions and get 2 variable actions out of it. And then every following round you use up 1 action and get 2 variable actions. It's pretty good efficiency.

Summon Monster takes 3 actions to cast. Since you have to concentrate on a spell for your monster to act, I do not see how it can act the round it is summoned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:

Someone said summon monster summons can’t act when first being cast but that isn’t true.

Page 195, “When you finish casting the spell and when you spend an action to Concentrate on the Spell, the summoned creature then takes its 2 actions. ”

So the creature gets its actions when first summoned, and then when you use concentration on following rounds.

You are not reading this right - you don't have an action to spend (on Concentrate) until next round. Casting Summon Monster uses all 3 of your actions for that round - Verbal, Somatic and Material casting. So the summon does nothing round 1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Inquisitive Tiefling wrote:

Just going to post this, and remind people that the playtest is over the course of the next year, until August of 2019.

Good day.

Pretty sure the surveys end in late November of this year. It's actually not such a long period for feedback so people got to hurry.

Shadow Lodge

Yossarian wrote:

MAGE ARMOR SPELL 1

Duration 1 day
You ward yourself with shimmering magical energy, gaining a +1 item bonus to AC. While wearing mage armor, you use your unarmored proficiency to calculate your AC
Heightened (2nd) The bonus increases to +2, and you gain a +1 item bonus to saving throws.

Thats a longer duration and increased effect over PF1.

And your unarmored proficiency is untrained, so its a nice patch too.


pad300 wrote:
Melkiador wrote:

Someone said summon monster summons can’t act when first being cast but that isn’t true.

Page 195, “When you finish casting the spell and when you spend an action to Concentrate on the Spell, the summoned creature then takes its 2 actions. ”

So the creature gets its actions when first summoned, and then when you use concentration on following rounds.

You are not reading this right - you don't have an action to spend (on Concentrate) until next round. Casting Summon Monster uses all 3 of your actions for that round - Verbal, Somatic and Material casting. So the summon does nothing round 1.

There are two conditions that allow your summons to act: (1) when you finish casting the spell, which is on round 1, and (2) when you spend a concentrate action on subsequent rounds. You don’t have to do both together because you can’t do both together.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Yossarian wrote:

MAGE ARMOR SPELL 1

Duration 1 day
You ward yourself with shimmering magical energy, gaining a +1 item bonus to AC. While wearing mage armor, you use your unarmored proficiency to calculate your AC
Heightened (2nd) The bonus increases to +2, and you gain a +1 item bonus to saving throws.

Thats a longer duration and increased effect over PF1.

And your unarmored proficiency is untrained, so its a nice patch too.

According to a Gencon Panel, Jason Buhlman said this is getting errataed - they acknowledged it as an omission; specifically he said "All classes are considered trained in Unarmored Defense."

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/293043872

EDIT - roughly 1:54:30, sorry!

Grand Lodge

Nonalyth wrote:

Casters are used to driving a Ferrari, and are losing their minds because Paizo has told them to follow the speed limit.

Meanwhile the rest of us are in a horse-drawn buggy, and they just took our horse.

As a caster-player, I agree with you. I also agree the martials are the exact same way. PF1 is incredibly easy; PF2 seems to actually be making a challenging game.

51 to 80 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Welp, I guess it's time for me to stop playing casters then. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Classes