The Systems Agnostic's Too Long PF2E Critique Part 3


Classes


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*I have several threads for all of my thoughts, but they are also collected--with a statement of the aims of my analysis--here in this Google Doc.*

Classes (using cores--not archetypes--as reference point):

*Alchemist:*
- Crafting anything other than bombs is uninteresting, unprofitable, difficult, and useless after level 3 or so.
Partially addressed! The majority of items (meaning items that actually create different effects, not just providing gradations of power) are level 1 or 2 items. Many of them, oddly, do not have upgraded versions, so if you can hit someone with a level 1 tanglefoot bag, then they are entangled, period.

*Barbarian:*
- No downside to raging/rage cycling is a thing.
Addressed! Very clear rules in the basic version of the action that give you -1AC/fatigue and prevent you from cycling in and out all the time. Titan Mauler applies further penalties. Rage is still an optimal choice, but it’s a choice, and there don’t seem to be ways to game this system to “rage” but be in total calm and perfect control.

*Bard:*
- Playing music in battle is weird, in an RP sense.
Addressed! The bard now has compositions that are special bard spells. These spells, incidentally, use Performance as part of their casting, but this is already rolled into the verbal/somatic component of the spell. No more serious, deadly high-stakes fight where the party member in the back whips out her violin--unless that’s the tone the player chooses to take.

- Performance is a skill tax.
Addressed! At first level you can choose a bard feat that lets you use Performance in other situations, so while investing in the skill doesn’t explicitly help you do bard-specific stuff better, it does help you be a good all-rounder, which is kind of the bard’s shtick anyway.

*Cleric:*
- OP/CoDzilla.
Partially addressed! They are still a “full” caster with nice armor and weapon proficiencies, plus domains. Worth playtesting to check to see if OTHER classes got a significant-enough power BUFF, but it sure looks like, on paper, clerics are still grossly overpowered.

- Not all gods are created equal (weapon profs, bonus spells).
Not addressed! Bonus spells are somewhat balanced against one another, but weapon proficiencies and skills are not. It’s extremely cool that Nethys gets so many bonus spells, but poor Pharasma… The domain powers are similarly varied in power and utility (at least you get some nice range of choices for your character) and, just for fun, they’re listed as powers, not spells, but to find them you have to look in the list of spells, and nowhere is this indicated in the book, not even in the index.

- Limited incentive to RP to your god.
Partially addressed! But really “not addressed!”. There’s 4 paragraphs of suggestions on how to implement the new anathema mechanic that amount to general roleplaying advice. They describe some “best practices”, but nothing that will help PFS players deal with edgelords and min-maxers.

*Druid:*
- OP/CoDzilla.
Partially addressed! Great saves? Check. Good weapon and armor profs? Check. Full caster? Check. Animal companion and wildshape and dominion over nature? Only a partial check! You now have to choose which extremely powerful special ability you use. And there’s some token--weak--anathema in there.

- Wildshape with Wild-Casting is especially terrifying.
Addressed! Not only is Wildshape/Wild Shape now shortened in duration and gated off from OP forms by class feats, it also seems to be impossible to cast spells in animal form (other than other self-targeted polymorph spells).

- Metal armor is a bad thing, even though there’s no such thing as armor that doesn’t have metal in it somewhere, and even though metal weapons are fine.
Not addressed! Not explained! Still just cockamamie and arbitrary!

- Animal companions are imbalanced and Handle Animal skill is not meaningful.
Addressed! Animal companions (and companion characters/minions in general) have been balanced out in their stats and in how you may use them in combat, and Handle Animal is gone.

*Fighter:*
- Feat taxes.
Partially addressed! This really is mostly solved; fighters still get a smorgasbord of feats available to them, many of which have been balanced (up AND down), though a few oddities remain. Combat Reflexes is level 10! And in order to knock an opponent prone with a strike--a trip attack available to any PC/NPC in PF1--now requires a LEVEL 14 feat!!! So there’s some jank in there.

- Underpowered compared to...everyone.
Partially addressed! It’s clear why AoOs were simplified; it’s not clear why they were also nerfed, or why shields were nerfed AND made more complicated. (On that note, there’s some real nonsense in the way that shields, which work primarily by keeping your body from getting hit--like AC, in other words--now can give you DR, while armor, which works primarily by reducing the damage you suffer when your body IS hit--like DR, in other words--still only give you AC. SHENANIGANS.) Multiple attacks starting at level 1 is great, their saves are better, and AC means more in PF2e than in PF1. So it’s a wash.

- Limited options for battlefield control.
Addressed! Many, many feats that recall THE TOME OF BATTLE and give the fighter control of where the battle takes place. My quibble is that there is still limited ability for the fighter to “taunt” or otherwise control who is fighting him, and it’s still up to “fair” GMs to manage this.

*Monk:*
- MAD.
Addressed! It’s not even clear that the average monk needs a lot of Wisdom (though it still helps), and there is a clear favoring of DEX over STR, but it’s not mandatory for all stances/styles of play.

- Easy to kill, bad at fighting.
Partially addressed! While there are still only the MAD options for getting a monk to a decent AC, they have a lot of mobility and a better hit die. Meanwhile, they can do solid damage with monk weapons or stances from very early on.

- Little about them is mystical.
Partially addressed! There isn’t much in the rules that suggests you roleplay the monk as anything other than a kind of mobile fighter. In addition, the really interesting mystical abilities aren’t available until the higher levels, where everyone else in the party is also a magical superhero. On the other hand, there is a much clearer design mandate that the monk is a wuxia-style kung fu warrior, so the lack of compelling mysticism doesn’t feel so out of place.

*Paladin:*
- Alignment/devotion not supported positively, only negatively (and weakly).
Not addressed! There is some additional--helpful--clarification as to how to resolve conflicts/edge cases in the paladin’s code, but even then the final message is what it should have been from the start: “don’t be a dick” (my paraphrasing). There are no positive incentives to use or follow this code; the code doesn’t offer flavor of any kind; and it still applies unique levels of roleplaying restrictions on one character class more than all others.

- The paladin is either a better fighter or a worse cleric or both.
Not addressed! You fight virtually as well as a fighter, but can do all kinds of interesting magical things no fighter can, and many of your paladin feats make you good in combat the same ways the fighter’s do.

*Ranger:*
- The focus on the “iconic” bow v. TWF is not explored or explained in a way that connects with the nature theme of the class.
Not addressed! The question has always been what fighting with two weapons has to do with being a hunter, and that question remains.

- Favored enemies are imbalanced (e.g.: Fav. enemy (human)) and ill-defined (what makes the difference between sniping a human versus an elf LESS than sniping a deer versus an octopus?)
Addressed! The ranger finds it easier to hit (and therefore crit) a target whom she has studied or pursued. The end. Explaining this simple concept takes a lot more words than it ought to, but it’s fundamentally fixed. Fixed, it should be noted, means nerfed. (No more damage buff, and you can’t use the ability on multiple targets until 12th level.)

- Animal companions are imbalanced and Handle Animal skill is not meaningful.
Addressed! Animal companions (and companion characters/minions in general) have been balanced out in their stats and in how you may use them in combat, and Handle Animal is gone.

- The ranger is either a better fighter or a worse druid or both.
Partially addressed! The ranger is a now a more versatile fighter rather than a strictly better one. All of the ranged/TWF abilities the ranger can get are not denied the fighter for any clear reason. (Couldn’t the Hunt Target ability be reflavored nicely and easily for a duellist fighter?) The ranger no longer gets hella awesome spells, which actually only highlights how they are just a worse druid.

*Rogue:*
- The rogue is characterized as both a personality type and a set of abilities, facing the same awkward combination of fluff and crunch as the paladin.
Partially addressed! Many of the rogue feats create or imply a level of secrecy and cruelty that make the rogue gesture towards what we might call roguishness, but what could also be swashbuckling.

- Conditional utility.
Not addressed! The rogue still struggles to use its signature ability (still called “Sneak Attack”, even though it’s not usually used while sneaking) until the higher levels, at which point the rogue has to give up other choices just to still lag behind in combat utility. E.g.: the rogue cannot, with a class-specific ability, create her own flat-footed enemies until level 4, and not consistently or easily do it until level 6. Virtually all of the rogue feats are related to combat, meaning that even the skill-monkey role, while supported with the large number of signature skills and proficiencies, is not supported by elements unique to the class itself. An expertly deceptive alchemist is as deceptive as an expertly deceptive rogue.

*Sorcerer:*
- Power disparity with Wizard.
Not addressed! Sorcerers have all the cool flavor in the world now--like, seriously, the broad variety of spell lists from which you can choose, and the freaky-deaky-ness of the powers is front and center--but they still have greatly limited spells known and metamagic comes online identically for both classes. If you want to be a sorcerer who acts kind of like a wizard, you can use the Imperial bloodline and a couple of sorcerer feats, but you’re still a weaker/less versatile wizard. See also: the sorcerer feats like Vicious Concentration that are weak and complicated for the player and GM to track. And though it seems like the sorcerer has the edge in skills, those skill proficiencies are still based on INT, so at best it’s a marginal advantage.

*Wizard:*
- Power disparity with Sorcerer.
Not addressed! Wizards get more spells known, and now even can cast spells the same amount of times per day OR MORE (if they are a universalist wizard). Arcane schools do a great job of making a spellcaster better at casting spells, where many of the sorcerer’s bloodline powers make the spellcaster better at doing things that aren’t casting spells (like hitting people).

- Limited flavor (spell schools don’t do enough).
Not addressed! School powers make you more powerful, but offer no roleplaying hints or incentive, and now don’t even offer a negative/opposing school. There are a few feats that give you the option to double down on your chosen school but do not make your PC act like they committed to anything.


Definitely looking for others' thoughts on these takes, if they have them.

I've really appreciated the strong discussion on the Playtest forums so far.


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

Lots of good points. For the sake of length, I'm going to leave out the parts I 100% agree with, and only comment where I'm not wholly aligned with you.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

*Cleric:*

- OP/CoDzilla.
Partially addressed! They are still a “full” caster with nice armor and weapon proficiencies, plus domains. Worth playtesting to check to see if OTHER classes got a significant-enough power BUFF, but it sure looks like, on paper, clerics are still grossly overpowered.

I don't agree, although I might agree after actual testing. But the cleric's most overpowered spells have been removed or seriously deflated.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

- Not all gods are created equal (weapon profs, bonus spells).

Not addressed! Bonus spells are somewhat balanced against one another, but weapon proficiencies and skills are not. It’s extremely cool that Nethys gets so many bonus spells, but poor Pharasma… The domain powers are similarly varied in power and utility (at least you get some nice range of choices for your character) and, just for fun, they’re listed as powers, not spells, but to find them you have to look in the list of spells, and nowhere is this indicated in the book, not even in the index.

There will always be better options than others, but I feel the most gross unbalances of PF1 have been addressed. There's no equivalent of the old travel domain.

I do agree about the inclusion of domain powers in the spell lists, this is poor formatting especially since none of the powers can be used as regular spells.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

- Limited incentive to RP to your god.

Partially addressed! But really “not addressed!”. There’s 4 paragraphs of suggestions on how to implement the new anathema mechanic that amount to general roleplaying advice. They describe some “best practices”, but nothing that will help PFS players deal with edgelords and min-maxers.

That's true but I don't think a rulebook is the place to fix that problem, especially at the playtest level.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

*Druid:*

- OP/CoDzilla.
Partially addressed! Great saves? Check. Good weapon and armor profs? Check. Full caster? Check. Animal companion and wildshape and dominion over nature? Only a partial check! You now have to choose which extremely powerful special ability you use. And there’s some token--weak--anathema in there.

As you noted, there doesn't seem to be a way to cast spells while in wildshape, and companions have been noticeably deflated, plus the druid needs an action to command them. I think this adresses 90% of the issues, we just need to test to check this further.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

- Metal armor is a bad thing, even though there’s no such thing as armor that doesn’t have metal in it somewhere, and even though metal weapons are fine.

Not addressed! Not explained! Still just cockamamie and arbitrary!

Well, this is a fantasy world, if you can conjure fire out of thin air I don't see why you can't have armor made of tree bark. On the contradiction with metal weapons, I agree.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

*Fighter:*

- Feat taxes.
Partially addressed! This really is mostly solved; fighters still get a smorgasbord of feats available to them, many of which have been balanced (up AND down), though a few oddities remain. Combat Reflexes is level 10! And in order to knock an opponent prone with a strike--a trip attack available to any PC/NPC in PF1--now requires a LEVEL 14 feat!!! So there’s some jank in there.

I disagree. In the new action economy, access to a second reaction is very powerful. So I think level 10 for Combat Reflexes is about right. Also, the trip action is available at level 1 as a use of Athletics. The Knockdown feat performs this as an added effect of a basic attack, and allows for no save and no defense as long as the attack hits. This is very powerful and has no PF1 equivalent: PF1's Knock Down feat requires a roll for trip maneuver, and so does the barbarian Knockdown rage power.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

- Underpowered compared to...everyone.

Partially addressed! It’s clear why AoOs were simplified; it’s not clear why they were also nerfed, or why shields were nerfed AND made more complicated. (On that note, there’s some real nonsense in the way that shields, which work primarily by keeping your body from getting hit--like AC, in other words--now can give you DR, while armor, which works primarily by reducing the damage you suffer when your body IS hit--like DR, in other words--still only give you AC. SHENANIGANS.) Multiple attacks starting at level 1 is great, their saves are better, and AC means more in PF2e than in PF1. So it’s a wash.

I don't see how AoOs were nerfed? They're now a much more exclusive ability, which I approve wholeheartedly: They were the #1 reason why PF1 melee combat tended to be so static.

Shields: I think the shield reform is meant to allow for tactical choices every round. Do you make a 3rd attack at -10, or do you raise your shield for better AC? Do you take this AoO, or do you save your reaction in case you need to block a bad hit? This makes combat much more interesting. I'm not sure I would call it a nerf to shields.

I have no opinion regarding the realism of DR coming from shields rather than armor. Not a big deal either way.

It remains to be seen from testing if the fighter is competitive versus other classes, but on paper it looks fairly solid.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

*Paladin:*

- Alignment/devotion not supported positively, only negatively (and weakly).
Not addressed! There is some additional--helpful--clarification as to how to resolve conflicts/edge cases in the paladin’s code, but even then the final message is what it should have been from the start: “don’t be a dick” (my paraphrasing). There are no positive incentives to use or follow this code; the code doesn’t offer flavor of any kind; and it still applies unique levels of roleplaying restrictions on one character class more than all others.

This is an interesting critique. I have two answers:

- The first from a RP perspective: Virtue is its own reward. At least, that's what the paladin would say!
- The second from a mechanical perspective: It would be cool to give the paladin mechanical benefits for especially good adherence to code, but I fear it would be very difficult for the GM to adjudicate without standing accused of playing favorites.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

- The paladin is either a better fighter or a worse cleric or both.

Not addressed! You fight virtually as well as a fighter, but can do all kinds of interesting magical things no fighter can, and many of your paladin feats make you good in combat the same ways the fighter’s do.

Wholly disagree. The best fighter shticks are either exclusive to him, or available to the paladin at a much later level. The paladin gets his own, different shticks which may or may not prove to be be equal to the fighter's, pending testing.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

- The ranger is either a better fighter or a worse druid or both.

Partially addressed! The ranger is a now a more versatile fighter rather than a strictly better one. All of the ranged/TWF abilities the ranger can get are not denied the fighter for any clear reason. (Couldn’t the Hunt Target ability be reflavored nicely and easily for a duellist fighter?) The ranger no longer gets hella awesome spells, which actually only highlights how they are just a worse druid.

"Hella awesome" isn't exactly the term I would use for the PF1 ranger's spells. Only a couple of them were ever useful, and they never were more than a sideshow. I'd say the new ranger isn't a worse druid, because he's no longer a druid at all. And that's a good thing.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

- Conditional utility.

Not addressed! The rogue still struggles to use its signature ability (still called “Sneak Attack”, even though it’s not usually used while sneaking) until the higher levels, at which point the rogue has to give up other choices just to still lag behind in combat utility. E.g.: the rogue cannot, with a class-specific ability, create her own flat-footed enemies until level 4, and not consistently or easily do it until level 6. Virtually all of the rogue feats are related to combat, meaning that even the skill-monkey role, while supported with the large number of signature skills and proficiencies, is not supported by elements unique to the class itself. An expertly deceptive alchemist is as deceptive as an expertly deceptive rogue.

Feint is available at level 1. It's not exclusive to the rogue, indeed. But there are many more ways to make enemies flat-footed than there were ways to get sneak attacks going in PF1.

Sure, anyone can get to expert in any skill, but for everyone but the rogue (and to some degree, the bard) this is an investment with a significant opportunity cost, and takes a couple of levels to get to.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

*Sorcerer:*

- Power disparity with Wizard.
Not addressed! Sorcerers have all the cool flavor in the world now--like, seriously, the broad variety of spell lists from which you can choose, and the freaky-deaky-ness of the powers is front and center--but they still have greatly limited spells known and metamagic comes online identically for both classes. If you want to be a sorcerer who acts kind of like a wizard, you can use the Imperial bloodline and a couple of sorcerer feats, but you’re still a weaker/less versatile wizard. See also: the sorcerer feats like Vicious Concentration that are weak and complicated for the player and GM to track. And though it seems like the sorcerer has the edge in skills, those skill proficiencies are still based on INT, so at best it’s a marginal advantage.

The biggest disparity was access to the highest level of spells, where the sorcerer was 1 level behind, every other level. That's fixed. The sorcerer vs wizard balance is one of the most intriguing things we need to test now, and I won't venture a guess where it's going to end up. You can't say this wasn't addressed at all, though.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

- Limited flavor (spell schools don’t do enough).

Not addressed! School powers make you more powerful, but offer no roleplaying hints or incentive, and now don’t even offer a negative/opposing school. There are a few feats that give you the option to double down on your chosen school but do not make your PC act like they committed to anything.

This is true. I'm a little disappointed the old schools were kept. I was hoping for a full reorganization, aligned with one of the flavors available from popular lore, like using the elements to base schools on, or some other way. On the other hand, I always disliked the opposed school mechanic and I'm happy to see it gone. I do agree it's unfortunate schools aren't more strongly differentiated, the way bloodlines are.


gwynfrid wrote:

Lots of good points. For the sake of length, I'm going to leave out the parts I 100% agree with, and only comment where I'm not wholly aligned with you.

Just calling out my appreciation for thoughtful disagreement here. Really learning more from this playtest forum discussion than I expected to.

My perspective on the forums was much too cynical, I am delighted to discover.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / The Systems Agnostic's Too Long PF2E Critique Part 3 All Messageboards

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