| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Always? Then why uses classes at all?
Certain selections obviously work better for some classes than others.
This is not the same as telling a class that he simply cannot do something. He just may not be quite as good at it, unless used in an innovative way.
Current rules lock characters into specific fighting styles, removing player agency from the build process. For example, building a paladin of Erastil using his diety's favored weapon, the bow, is simply not viable. Why? because for some reason paladin's no longer have access to bow feats. They still get proficiency, but have access to none of the abilities that make bows worthwhile.
I guess we just fundamentally perceive things differently. To me, classes should be more cohesive than "every class can do everything (albeit with varying levels of effectiveness)." At that point, you'd be much better served by ditching classes altogether.
I also don't think that's how Pathfinder 1E worked. There were still pretty hard limits as to what a class could do. If a fighter wants to cast spells, he pretty much had to multi-class. I don't think that was a problem.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Always? Then why uses classes at all?
Certain selections obviously work better for some classes than others.
This is not the same as telling a class that he simply cannot do something. He just may not be quite as good at it, unless used in an innovative way.
Current rules lock characters into specific fighting styles, removing player agency from the build process. For example, building a paladin of Erastil using his diety's favored weapon, the bow, is simply not viable. Why? because for some reason paladin's no longer have access to bow feats. They still get proficiency, but have access to none of the abilities that make bows worthwhile.
I guess we just fundamentally perceive things differently. To me, classes should be more cohesive than "every class can do everything (albeit with varying levels of effectiveness)." At that point, you'd be much better served by ditching classes altogether.
I also don't think that's how Pathfinder 1E worked. There were still pretty hard limits as to what a class could do. If a fighter wants to cast spells, he pretty much had to multi-class. I don't think that was a problem.
Yes, PF1 had some things locked behind classes.
pF2 took a bunch of things that used to be available to everyone and added the class lock in front of them.
No one is saying that everyone should be able to get every class feature, just that things that are basic (not taking a horrendous penalty to using a bow, or Power Attack, or Cleave) which have been general feats or baseline options for 20 years suddenly being available only to a particular class is not fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I figure all we really need to make archer paladins work is a way to emphasize on light and medium armor and some way to use retributive strike with a bow. It's not like Paladins come build in with many offensive options right out of the box, and the righteous ally weapon option works fine with bows.
Cool, but putting the cleric channeling feats that nobody else would qualify to
Anyone whou could channel could use those feats.
Oracles and Witches both come to mind. use may hurt it a bit.
Ah, yes. 2 options which don't exist yet are blocked from using options which do exist currently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, yes. 2 options which don't exist yet are blocked from using options which do exist currently.Cool, but putting the cleric channeling feats that nobody else would qualify to
Anyone whou could channel could use those feats.
Oracles and Witches both come to mind. use may hurt it a bit.
But Clerics are NOT the only ones who can channel.
Channeling is not casting Heal or Harm with 3 actions- and heal is on both Divine and Primal lists.
So Clerics, Druids, Paladins (with Channel Life feat), and Sorcerers can all channel as we knew it in PF1.
Sorcerers can get the Cleric's Channel ability (which is just free casts of Heal or Harm), but even they still can't do so selectively because Selective Energy is class locked?
And only Clerics can Alignment Channel, Elemental Channel, or Command Undead despite the Harm and Heal spells being available to several other classes?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the Title Says:
Bull Rush (Dwarf- Boulder Roll or Fighter Brutish Shove or Monk Knockback Strike)
Charge (Barbarian & Fighter- Sudden Charge)
Cleave (Barbarian)
Great Cleave (Barbarian)
Whirlwind Attack (Whirlwind Strike- Barbarian, Fighter)
Reach Spell (NOT Bards)
Command Undead (Cleric)
Selective Channel (Selective Energy- Cleric)
Elemental Channel (Cleric)
Warrior Priest (Cleric)
Widen Spell (NOT Clerics & Bards)
Attack of Opportunity (Fighter & Paladin)
Double Slice (Fighter & Ranger)
Furious Focus (Fighter)
Point Blank Shot (Fighter)
Power Attack (Fighter)
Shield Bash (Aggressive Shield- Fighter)
Rapid Shot (Double Shot- Fighter)
Using one handed weapon 2 handed and removing a hand as a free action (Dual-Handed Assault- Fighter)
Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Exotic Weapon Training- 6th level fighter!!)
Blind-Fight (Fighter)
Combat Reflexes (Fighter)
Spring Attack (Fighter)
Crane Style (Monk)
Dragon Style (Monk)
Stunning Fist (Monk)
Tiger Style (Monk)
Deflect Arrow (Monk)
Snatch Arrow (Arrow Snatching)
Quick Draw (Monk & Rogue)
Rapid Reload (Running Reload- Ranger & Rogue)
Mobility (Rogue)
Counterspell (Sorcerer & Wizard)
Quicken Spell (Quickened Casting- Sorcerer & Wizard)
Magical Striker (Arcane Strike- Sorcerer & Wizard)
I think a lot of what's listed here is griping over things that are different because they're different, and a lot of these things are actually present and are being misread or misinterpreted.
That being said, I think that the general feat options are very very limited, and could use some expansion. Some of these options do need to be moved back to general feats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I think a major problem in PF1 was that one genuinely could not consider themselves "good at something" without investing scads of feats into it or having a bunch of relevant class features. Fixing this and, for example, making it so that someone can be good with a weapon if they have sufficient ability scores and proficiency, without having to buy a suite of feats (point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, multishot; weapon finesse, weapon focus glaive, bladed brush; power attack, shield focus, shield brace; etc.)
At the same time it's going to be hard to break out of the PF1 mindset where if there's not a relatively efficient set of feats to enable something, it's bad. But I have to wonder if one of the values in playtesting is in realizing things like "playing an archer Paladin works fine, even if your starting dex is 16 and you have irrelevant class features about heavy armor and retributive strike, and no real archery feats available."
Yes, PF1 had some things locked behind classes.
pF2 took a bunch of things that used to be available to everyone and added the class lock in front of them.
No one is saying that everyone should be able to get every class feature, just that things that are basic (not taking a horrendous penalty to using a bow, or Power Attack, or Cleave) which have been general feats or baseline options for 20 years suddenly being available only to a particular class is not fun.
No disagreement there. I just wonder if maybe focusing on those things -- as opposed to just listing everything -- might be a better way of effecting change. YMMV.
Ah, yes. 2 options which don't exist yet are blocked from using options which do exist currently.Cool, but putting the cleric channeling feats that nobody else would qualify to
Anyone whou could channel could use those feats.
Oracles and Witches both come to mind. use may hurt it a bit.
But Clerics are NOT the only ones who can channel.
...
My point was to compare options which exist to options which exist. Saying druids aren't as good at channeling energy as clerics are is a fair comparison, and objectively true in PF2. Saying oracles aren't as good at channeling energy as clerics are is not a fair comparison, because that assumes oracles will be introduced without access to any of the cleric channel feats despite knowledge that classes can and do share feats sometimes.
And yes, clerics are not the only ones who can channel. Here I thought everything was class-locked.
I also don't think that's how Pathfinder 1E worked. There were still pretty hard limits as to what a class could do. If a fighter wants to cast spells, he pretty much had to multi-class. I don't think that was a problem.
In Pathfinder 1e if a fighter wants to cast spells, he invests in UMD.
The only hard limits are the numbers, there is no limit on character concepts or play style hard wired into any class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, yes. 2 options which don't exist yet are blocked from using options which do exist currently.Cool, but putting the cleric channeling feats that nobody else would qualify to
Anyone whou could channel could use those feats.
Oracles and Witches both come to mind. use may hurt it a bit.
But Clerics are NOT the only ones who can channel.
...
My point was to compare options which exist to options which exist. Saying druids aren't as good at channeling energy as clerics are is a fair comparison, and objectively true in PF2. Saying oracles aren't as good at channeling energy as clerics are is not a fair comparison, because that assumes oracles will be introduced without access to any of the cleric channel feats despite knowledge that classes can and do share feats sometimes.
And yes, clerics are not the only ones who can channel. Here I thought everything was class-locked.
No, just the option to Channel without healing your opponent as well is class locked- an ability which in both PF1 and PF2 Paladins (for instance) are capable and should want to do, and which in PF1 Paladins could (by taking the Selective Channel feat) and now cannot because only Clerics can take Selective Energy.
No one is mad about the extreme corner case things, but for an option like Selective Channel which was essentially mandatory to channel energy to now be limited to clerics only is a real problem.
It's the knee-jerk "this is different that 1E, and therefore bad" reaction which is implied by the act of posting such a list in the first place that I personally find less-than-useful.This change removes player agency from the character design process by restricting selection to a much smaller sub-set of characters.
This is a bad thing, regardless of edition or game system. If a character is willing to devote resources to stepping outside the box, that option should be available.
More options vs. Fewer. Class vs. Classless. Restricted vs. Open. None of these are good or bad game design. None are even fun/unfun in any kind of objective sense.
They are just different. Maybe you don't enjoy some of the restricted choice, but that doesn't make it bad. If you want to criticize it, I think there's perfectly valid room for that in the context of the "more options" stated design goal.
That said, one of the Paizo people said they plan on releasing some blogs that go into their design goals in more details. I think that will be very helpful for determining how well the implementation reflects the goals.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think all of these sides have some interesting and good points, but I can't escape laughing at the fact that Fighters finally are the best at fighting with a wide range of weapons, something people were clamoring for in 1e, and people aren't liking it.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not true at all. You can use a bow without point blank shot, and it's pretty effective. It's better than a crossbow in most circumstances, actually, thanks to adding half your strength, being able to shoot multiple times per round and being Deadly. The volley property is a mechanism to balance bows with other long range projectile weapons. They are still a fine weapon.
So the problem is that you need a feat tax to use bows due to Volley 50, NOT the fact that only Fighter's get PBS. That's indeed a feat tax.
The volley property is stupid, makes no sense, is ahistorical, and is less realistic than Wizards casting fireballs.
That's just not how bows work.
Actually, historically, this is how long bows worked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't think that's how Pathfinder 1E worked. There were still pretty hard limits as to what a class could do. If a fighter wants to cast spells, he pretty much had to multi-class. I don't think that was a problem.
In Pathfinder 1e if a fighter wants to cast spells, he invests in UMD.
The only hard limits are the numbers, there is no limit on character concepts or play style hard wired into any class.
Uhm, no. UMD is NOT the same as being a spell caster. Not even close.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, historically, this is how long bows worked.That's not true at all. You can use a bow without point blank shot, and it's pretty effective. It's better than a crossbow in most circumstances, actually, thanks to adding half your strength, being able to shoot multiple times per round and being Deadly. The volley property is a mechanism to balance bows with other long range projectile weapons. They are still a fine weapon.
So the problem is that you need a feat tax to use bows due to Volley 50, NOT the fact that only Fighter's get PBS. That's indeed a feat tax.
The volley property is stupid, makes no sense, is ahistorical, and is less realistic than Wizards casting fireballs.
That's just not how bows work.
It really isn't.
You can fire a bow more effectively at a point target at close range.
The volley that was used was for bows when firing en masse and not aiming at point targets.
So unless the bow can only be used to fire at armies, volley isn't relevant to the reality of bows.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think all of these sides have some interesting and good points, but I can't escape laughing at the fact that Fighters finally are the best at fighting with a wide range of weapons, something people were clamoring for in 1e, and people aren't liking it.
Because this was achieved by taking options away from everyone else.
Uhm, no. UMD is NOT the same as being a spell caster. Not even close.I also don't think that's how Pathfinder 1E worked. There were still pretty hard limits as to what a class could do. If a fighter wants to cast spells, he pretty much had to multi-class. I don't think that was a problem.
In Pathfinder 1e if a fighter wants to cast spells, he invests in UMD.
The only hard limits are the numbers, there is no limit on character concepts or play style hard wired into any class.
I don't think the party Cleric is going to argue the point when the fighter uses a scroll of Breath of Life to bring him back from death.
The wizard might argue the point when the fighter pops an Anti-Magic Sphere while standing right next to him, but it will most likely be a very short argument, and not in the wizards favor.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the party Cleric is going to argue the point when the fighter uses a scroll of Breath of Life to bring him back from death.
The wizard might argue the point when the fighter pops an Anti-Magic Sphere while standing right next to him, but it will most likely be a very short argument, and not in the wizards favor.
Yeah...so feel free to try to contort "UMD is useful" into "UMD is the same as being a caster" for as as long as you find doing so entertaining. Personally, that's not the hill I'd pick to die on.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think all of these sides have some interesting and good points, but I can't escape laughing at the fact that Fighters finally are the best at fighting with a wide range of weapons, something people were clamoring for in 1e, and people aren't liking it.
People are probably a little irked because the way this was brought about wasn't necessarily by making the Fighter better, but rather removing options from other classes.
this is actually one of my favorite aspect about this editions. it fits lore wise to me, and the makes class make up actually important. first edition was really an archetype game, this edition fells more like a class based game.
Crane Style - You can get it by multiclassing. Also why would anyone who wasn't a monk take these feats?
Dragon Style - See above
Stunning Fist - See above
Tiger Style - See above
I did. Nearly every martial character I ever made had a style feat they were using. I love the style feats in PF1e, and I honestly think they're among the most fun things to use in the entire game. There's a few stinkers to be sure, but Crane, Dragon, Tiger, and Wolf Style all saw use in at least two characters I've made apiece.
And only two or three of them were even partially a Monk or a Brawler.
Oh, you meant in PF2e. Probably because Tiger does persistent bleed damage and has improved movement abilities.
Actually, historically, this is how long bows worked.
It really isn't.
You can fire a bow more effectively at a point target at close range.
The volley that was used was for bows when firing en masse and not aiming at point targets.
So unless the bow can only be used to fire at armies, volley isn't relevant to the reality of bows.
Hm. I’m no expert in these matters, but Wikipedia disagrees with you.
According to my (admittedly brief and half-assed) research, longbows were tremendously impractical for short-range adventurer-style skirmishes.
A typical military longbow archer would be provided with between 60 and 72 arrows at the time of battle. Most archers would not shoot arrows at maximum rate, as it would exhaust even the most experienced man. "With the heaviest bows [a modern war bow archer] does not like to try for more than six a minute."[43] Not only do the arms and shoulder muscles tire from the exertion, but the fingers holding the bowstring become strained; therefore, actual rates of shooting in combat would vary considerably.[...]
In tests against a moving target simulating a galloping knight[35] it took some approximately seven seconds to draw, aim and loose an armour-piercing heavy arrow using a replica war bow. It was found that in the seven seconds between the first and second shots the target advanced 70 yards and that the second shot occurred at such close range that, if it was a realistic contest, running away was the only option.
Reading that, I think we should up the damage on the longbow (maybe allow the whole strength modifier?) and have it take actions to reload like a heavy crossbow.
|
That's the crux, yes, fighters having their own stuff is great, but to implement that by siphoning off standard abilities to just the fighter is a bit, lazy? Why not some fresh stuff, like fighters have the best saves (harkening back to AD&D), and specialise in weapons/styles, so many ways to go.I think all of these sides have some interesting and good points, but I can't escape laughing at the fact that Fighters finally are the best at fighting with a wide range of weapons, something people were clamoring for in 1e, and people aren't liking it.Because this was achieved by taking options away from everyone else.
I was kinda thinking that the combat feats should still be combat feats and fighters should be able to get more of them then anyone else and have a reduced action cost to the combat feats I.E. Double Slice is 2 actions a fighter that has master weapon proficiency only does 1 action to do. There are a few complications that go with that but I don't see any issues that are huge that can't be fixed with a small Fighter line of text on the combat feats.
Slashing/Fencing/Starry Grace (Rogue)
I consider this one a positive change. Also, what the rogue gets this edition is more like what the URogue had in PF1- it lacks all of Foo Grace's restrictions on your offhand.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the knee-jerk "this is different that 1E, and therefore bad" reaction which is implied by the act of posting such a list in the first place that I personally find less-than-useful.This change removes player agency from the character design process by restricting selection to a much smaller sub-set of characters.
This is a bad thing, regardless of edition or game system. If a character is willing to devote resources to stepping outside the box, that option should be available.
It's especially jarring considering that I thought greater flexibility in character builds was a design goal. I could be wrong on this, but I thought that was the whole point of everything being feats now. But common builds like a rogue focusing on two-weapons or a ranger who's great with a longbow or anybody but a barbarian using cleave are now impossible without a big investment in multi-classing.
This whole thread is committing a oft-done sin of viewing PF2 through a PF1 lens. This is a different game, and stands alone.
It's a second edition. It's not unreasonable to compare it to what came before and see where it improves upon what the first did or where it's worse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole thread is committing a oft-done sin of viewing PF2 through a PF1 lens. This is a different game, and stands alone.It's a second edition. It's not unreasonable to compare it to what came before and see where it improves upon what the first did or where it's worse.
And yet that's not what it's doing. It's cherry-picking certain parts so that it can passively-aggressively say "look at what we're losing in PF2".
It in no way attempts to regard the system as a whole, especially given there are things like "Double Slice is now fighter-only", something that's obviously only based on the name and not anything actually related to the abilities being described.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole thread is committing a oft-done sin of viewing PF2 through a PF1 lens. This is a different game, and stands alone.It's a second edition. It's not unreasonable to compare it to what came before and see where it improves upon what the first did or where it's worse.And yet that's not what it's doing. It's cherry-picking certain parts so that it can passively-aggressively say "look at what we're losing in PF2".
It in no way attempts to regard the system as a whole, especially given there are things like "Double Slice is now fighter-only", something that's obviously only based on the name and not anything actually related to the abilities being described.
Double slice should be compared to two weapon fighting feat from PF1 and is locked behind fighter or ranger.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except in 2e, anyone can 2-weapon fight without a feat. In fact, it's a fairly decent idea to have a stronger weapon in one hand and an agile weapon in the other which has reduced penalties when making multiple attacks in a turn.
Fighters and Rangers just 2-weapon fight better than other classes do because of their class feats. What I don't really see as a problem. If a fighter has nothing unique that they can do, then why do they deserve to exist as a class?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except in 2e, anyone can 2-weapon fight without a feat. In fact, it's a fairly decent idea to have a stronger weapon in one hand and an agile weapon in the other which has reduced penalties when making multiple attacks in a turn.
Fighters and Rangers just 2-weapon fight better than other classes do because of their class feats. What I don't really see as a problem. If a fighter has nothing unique that they can do, then why do they deserve to exist as a class?
Anyone with more than one attack could have done the same in PF1.
We all understand that when we say "Two Weapon fighting" or "Dual wielding" we mean "Gaining an advantage (usually an extra attack) for doing so."
No, simply using an offhand weapon to do the same number of attacks you could have done with one is NOT the same.
I'm sort of skeptical whether people's fondness for two weapon fighting is borne more out of an idea they had for a character and how they fight, or out of a desire to do the most damage possible like in some other game where twf was the best way to do the most damage.
Like if two-weapon fighting literally were not possible, I am not sure I would miss it (and I have built a few, but these were largely mechanically motivated characters).
I would like it more if I could build a two-weapon character based on parrying and counterattacking, rather than "swinging your arms a lot to do catastrophic damage." "Parry or feint with the advance sword and then attack with the second on the pass" would be my preference for how twf works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, historically, this is how long bows worked.
It really isn't.
You can fire a bow more effectively at a point target at close range.
The volley that was used was for bows when firing en masse and not aiming at point targets.
So unless the bow can only be used to fire at armies, volley isn't relevant to the reality of bows.
Hm. I’m no expert in these matters, but Wikipedia disagrees with you.
According to my (admittedly brief and half-assed) research, longbows were tremendously impractical for short-range adventurer-style skirmishes.
Reading that, I think we should up the damage on the longbow (maybe allow the whole strength modifier?) and have it take actions to reload like a heavy crossbow.
A typical military longbow archer would be provided with between 60 and 72 arrows at the time of battle. Most archers would not shoot arrows at maximum rate, as it would exhaust even the most experienced man. "With the heaviest bows [a modern war bow archer] does not like to try for more than six a minute."[43] Not only do the arms and shoulder muscles tire from the exertion, but the fingers holding the bowstring become strained; therefore, actual rates of shooting in combat would vary considerably.[...]
In tests against a moving target simulating a galloping knight[35] it took some approximately seven seconds to draw, aim and loose an armour-piercing heavy arrow using a replica war bow. It was found that in the seven seconds between the first and second shots the target advanced 70 yards and that the second shot occurred at such close range that, if it was a realistic contest, running away was the only option.
Nothing in that article talks about a minimum range they must fire to be effective, and it actually pegs the MAXIMUM range for most archers in the 220 yard range.
Firing one arrow every 6-7 seconds in combat?
You mean like. . . one per round?
Sounds like a 1st level character to me. . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
at low levels you do get a lot of damage with duel wielding but if you are looking for raw damage most players i know will tell you its a trap a good two hand weapon build dose more in the long run. i have not done the math tho as i play caster for the group
so i think most do it for the fondness of it but i do agree it would be cooler if you could do all that parry or feint with stuff
Double slice should be compared to two weapon fighting feat from PF1 and is locked behind fighter or ranger.
This whole thread is committing a oft-done sin of viewing PF2 through a PF1 lens. This is a different game, and stands alone.It's a second edition. It's not unreasonable to compare it to what came before and see where it improves upon what the first did or where it's worse.And yet that's not what it's doing. It's cherry-picking certain parts so that it can passively-aggressively say "look at what we're losing in PF2".
It in no way attempts to regard the system as a whole, especially given there are things like "Double Slice is now fighter-only", something that's obviously only based on the name and not anything actually related to the abilities being described.
I mean, if you're trying to compare like to like in good faith, the actual comparison is Doublestrike, the level 9 ability in the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype.
Is Double Slice required to make a TWF build that's literally not a waste of actions? No? Then you can't compare it to the TWF feat.
Except in 2e, anyone can 2-weapon fight without a feat. In fact, it's a fairly decent idea to have a stronger weapon in one hand and an agile weapon in the other which has reduced penalties when making multiple attacks in a turn.
Fighters and Rangers just 2-weapon fight better than other classes do because of their class feats. What I don't really see as a problem. If a fighter has nothing unique that they can do, then why do they deserve to exist as a class?
Anyone with more than one attack could have done the same in PF1.
We all understand that when we say "Two Weapon fighting" or "Dual wielding" we mean "Gaining an advantage (usually an extra attack) for doing so."
No, simply using an offhand weapon to do the same number of attacks you could have done with one is NOT the same.
I’d be frustrated too if someone gave me as pointless a reply as I surmise you found the one Ventnor gave you.
It seems you haven’t read the rules for agile weapons. You’ll be happy to learn that using one in your off-hand gives a not insubstantial bonus to dual wielders, even without double slice.
Let’s compare two level one fighters, eighteen strength, one using a maul (two handed hammer), the other using a long and shortsword in tandem. They’ll both use three actions to Strike.
The two handed fighter looks like:
Maul +6 (1d12+4), Maul +1 (1d12+4), Maul -4 (1d12+4)
The two weapon fighter looks like:
Longsword +6 (1d8+4), Shortsword +2 (1d6+4), Shortsword -2 (1d6+4)
The second fighter is much more accurate with their iterative attacks. The get something out of dual wielding without taking double slice at all.
Exclusivity is diversity. By locking elements behind class feats, we finally have a framework that makes all classes meaningful, not just the very few that were allowed to have unique class features others could not get their hands on.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics, Warpriests, Paladins, Oracles, Inquisitors, Shamans, Witches, Rangers, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards, Mediums, all of them can get channel in PF1e as class feature through archetypes. I don't like the idea that some important feat like Selective Channel is now class locked.
Except in 2e, anyone can 2-weapon fight without a feat. In fact, it's a fairly decent idea to have a stronger weapon in one hand and an agile weapon in the other which has reduced penalties when making multiple attacks in a turn.
Fighters and Rangers just 2-weapon fight better than other classes do because of their class feats. What I don't really see as a problem. If a fighter has nothing unique that they can do, then why do they deserve to exist as a class?
Anyone with more than one attack could have done the same in PF1.
We all understand that when we say "Two Weapon fighting" or "Dual wielding" we mean "Gaining an advantage (usually an extra attack) for doing so."
No, simply using an offhand weapon to do the same number of attacks you could have done with one is NOT the same.
I’d be frustrated too if someone gave me as pointless a reply as I surmise you found the one Ventnor gave you.
It seems you haven’t read the rules for agile weapons. You’ll be happy to learn that using one in your off-hand gives a not insubstantial bonus to dual wielders, even without double slice.
Let’s compare two level one fighters, eighteen strength, one using a maul (two handed hammer), the other using a long and shortsword in tandem. They’ll both use three actions to Strike.
The two handed fighter looks like:
Maul +6 (1d12+4), Maul +1 (1d12+4), Maul -4 (1d12+4)
The two weapon fighter looks like:
Longsword +6 (1d8+4), Shortsword +2 (1d6+4), Shortsword -2 (1d6+4)
The second fighter is much more accurate with their iterative attacks. The get something out of dual wielding without taking double slice at all.
No, that fighter is getting a +1 to damage with his first attack over the guy using a single short sword, at the cost of having to maintain multiple weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Power Attack (Fighter)Quick correction. Even though the feat is named Power Attack, it's actually more similar in function to Vital Strike.
Either way- Power Attack and Vital Strike were both general feats in Pf1
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, it would be nice to have a thread critical of the new rules where the same five people would not come in and derail it massively by snarking at everybody who has a problem with the new edition. Just saying.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exclusivity is diversity. By locking elements behind class feats, we finally have a framework that makes all classes meaningful, not just the very few that were allowed to have unique class features others could not get their hands on.
All the classes in PF1 (with possible exclusion of fighter and rogue) had unique elements and felt distinct. An yet none of them had restricted a combat style.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, it would be nice to have a thread critical of the new rules where the same five people would not come in and derail it massively by snarking at everybody who has a problem with the new edition. Just saying.
And from my perspective, it would be nice to have a thread discussing the new rules in any capacity whatsoever where the save five people would not come in and derail it massively by ranting that 2E is unplayable, deliberately obtuse, garbage (yes, someone said this), etc., and how Paizo is guaranteed to go out of business.
We're what...nine days in? In that time, the often farcical level of histrionics around the new edition has driven me from from sympathy to ambivalence to frustration and annoyance. And thus snark is born.
For the record, I'm not saying the snark is productive or mature. But blaming the message board dumpster fire solely on one side -- either side -- is the equivalent of squirting gasoline.
This is really frivolous.
Being "available for everyone" is not a good thing. Sometimes it's better some things are closed off.
For example, Point-Blank Shot was a stone-cold tax feat that everyone wanted to skip, but everyone was burdened with.
Your post doesn't serve to advance a conversation, it seems like griping onto PF1 when, in terms of market share and accessibility, the game needs an update.
Now, a wholly different argument would be saying "hey, without Attacks of Opportunity, a lot of classes don't have an use for reactions, and combat feels like a constant chase", or "I don't have a lot of ways to make a more warrior-like Bard other than Fighter MC, and maybe I just want the dueling talents".
Focusing on what's different between two editions as though as it were inherently bad/good without looking at the system is disingenuous.
I agree.
A lot of the mentioned feats were mandatory picks, like PBS or twf, Imho. In pf1 e.g.twf was a basically a feattax of always the same feats one had to Pick... I fail to see the difference in pf2, Other than binding that feat chain dedication, if you really want it.