Attack cantrips are plain worse than a +1 returning javelin; the magic javelin deals the same damages for 1 action, can be thrown at 40 feet, and everyone is trained with the javelin except the Wizard (but maybe you shouldn't play a wizard?). Not to mention, the returning property is free when you create a level 5+ character: a +1 returning javelin is a level 4 item as the vanilla +1 javelin.
So you can spam some fancy spell to feel magic, but you probably shouldn't.
nope it isn't.
a +1 potency rune is a 4th level treasure.
a returning property rune is a level 4 item
a +1 returning javelin is NOT a 4th level item, it's 2 4th level items.
it's probably better to get a +1ac, +1 saves, and a lesser fire staff and rely on your cantrip (and still have "money" left, than get a +1 returning javelin for a tiny bit extra damage.
I was under the impression that such a weapon would constitute a single item.
"The level of an item with runes etched on it is equal to the highest level among the base item and all runes etched on it; therefore, a +1 mace (4th level) with a disrupting rune (5th level) would be a 5th-level item."
Notice how it says 'a' 5th level item, not one 5th level item and one 4th level item.
RAW Zecrin wins. I suspect this is a F'up , especially as this means everyone gets a ghost-touch weapon with their +1 potency. Also, returning says "it flies
back to your hand after the Strike action is completed. If your
hands are full when the weapon returns, it falls to the ground
in your space." Hard to argue that you need to draw it again...
Attack cantrips are plain worse than a +1 returning javelin; the magic javelin deals the same damages for 1 action, can be thrown at 40 feet, and everyone is trained with the javelin except the Wizard (but maybe you shouldn't play a wizard?). Not to mention, the returning property is free when you create a level 5+ character: a +1 returning javelin is a level 4 item as the vanilla +1 javelin.
So you can spam some fancy spell to feel magic, but you probably shouldn't.
nope it isn't.
a +1 potency rune is a 4th level treasure.
a returning property rune is a level 4 item
a +1 returning javelin is NOT a 4th level item, it's 2 4th level items.
it's probably better to get a +1ac, +1 saves, and a lesser fire staff and rely on your cantrip (and still have "money" left, than get a +1 returning javelin for a tiny bit extra damage.
I was under the impression that such a weapon would constitute a single item.
"The level of an item with runes etched on it is equal to the highest level among the base item and all runes etched on it; therefore, a +1 mace (4th level) with a disrupting rune (5th level) would be a 5th-level item."
Notice how it says 'a' 5th level item, not one 5th level item and one 4th level item.
yes, for lower level runes.
because each "tier" scales expotentially.
so, a +4 weapon, doesn't need the +3, +2, and +1 runes, because they are much much cheaper than the +4 so it kinda rolls on to it.
but here, we don't have 1 cheaper and 1 more expensive.
we have 2 identical level runes, both 4th level.
pad300 wrote:
RAW Zecrin wins. I suspect this is a F'up , especially as this means everyone gets a ghost-touch weapon with their +1 potency.
if one wants to "cheat" wbl, the GM can simply use RAW too:
"sure buddy, pick up any item you want that's according to your wbl, but only from the tables of existing items"
hard to find a "+1 returning weapon" in the tables, easy to find a returning property rune and a +1 potency rune though.
RAW Zecrin wins. I suspect this is a F'up, especially as this means everyone gets a ghost-touch weapon with their +1 potency.
if one wants to "cheat" wbl, the GM can simply use RAW too:
"sure buddy, pick up any item you want that's according to your wbl, but only from the tables of existing items"
hard to...
It's a playtest. Part of the point is to find these little errors in wording.
I'm also not sure I agree with your stacking argument. Consider a +5 (lvl 20 potency rune) sword vs a +5 (lvl 20 potency rune) speed (lvl 16 property rune), void (lvl 15 property rune), greater shock (lvl 14 property rune) sword. Should these be considered equal items? I don't think so. IMO this bit of wording needs to go the way of the dodo...
RAW Zecrin wins. I suspect this is a F'up, especially as this means everyone gets a ghost-touch weapon with their +1 potency.
if one wants to "cheat" wbl, the GM can simply use RAW too:
"sure buddy, pick up any item you want that's according to your wbl, but only from the tables of existing items"
hard to...
It's a playtest. Part of the point is to find these little errors in wording.
I'm also not sure I agree with your stacking argument. Consider a +5 (lvl 20 potency rune) sword vs a +5 (lvl 20 potency rune) speed (lvl 16 property rune), void (lvl 15 property rune), greater shock (lvl 14 property rune) sword. Should these be considered equal items? I don't think so. IMO this bit of wording needs to go the way of the dodo...
i'm not gonna touch the rare/uncommon runes, since those are another bag of issues that the GM has to specifically allow/give to players, but from the common ones that one should reasonably have access to:
a +5 rune is 53k (level 20) and something, a greater elemental rune (level 14) is just 4.5k
so, even with all 3 property slots filled, we're talking about increasing the value of an item from 53.5k to 66k
a full +5 weapon is 70k due to being legendary, and it's a 20th level item. a +5 potency rune is 53.5k and it's again a level 20 treasure.
so, given that it seems that level 20 items range from 50 to 70k it seems that a margin of 10k that are 3 level 14 property runes are not that far off (there's already too big of a gap)
i mean, that's just like 15% more value than your normal +5 sword.
BUT
I also don't think you do actually get any of them for "free" unless the GM says so.
Rules wise, nothing suggests that you can build your own item for a starting character as you wish, but you have to pick it from the list.
And if you want a lower level rune, either buy it with the spare cash, or use a higher level slot to buy it (you can downgrade according to the rules).
So, for general "power" levels, a +5 vorpal/speed/whatever* item seems to be a 20 level item, because that's the highest level rune.
but wbl wise, that's quite a bit above the normal level 20 item (around 30% more) (due to using full rare properties mind you)
(*plus, I think damage wise, keen+holy blow most of the higher level property runes out of the water and they have a combined cost of 4.1k, so realistically, from the 70k that your weapon already costs, with 74k you've already filled 2/3 property slots...)
so yeah, I don't think that's a problem personally.
would it be better to make stuff like starting wbl more clear? Ofc it would. There's never a time, for any reaon, that one can possibly say "nah, it's not that clear but leave it as it is" in a playtest.
Not really as it's an action to add a hand to a weapon [ie: taking a two handed grip from one handed]. As such, it doesn't seem out of place for it to be an action AND nowhere does it say ignore reload. RAW seems like 2 actions. Now what they actually meant it to be, who knows.
Not really as it's an action to add a hand to a weapon [ie: taking a two handed grip from one handed]. As such, it doesn't seem out of place for it to be an action AND nowhere does it say ignore reload. RAW seems like 2 actions. Now what they actually meant it to be, who knows.
It says it comes back "to your hand". Reload on pg 179 says: "An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon." If it is in your hand, you don't need to draw it; you can just throw it...
If its in their hand, they don't need an action to put it in their hand. There is no more loading to be done. RAW/RAI arguments are silly here.
Whats wrong with returning javelins anyways? Who cares if cantrips are worse generally. Cantrips should be worse than attacks from magical weapons.
The benefit of the cantrip is it uses the spell casting modifier for damage and spellcasting TEML prof bonuses +dex for attack. A javelin uses strength for damage and weapon TEML prof bonuses +dex for attack. So, unless the caster is a muscle wizard who somehow has good weapon TEML bonuses, that cantrip will be better for him generally speaking (especially when you factor in MAP and all that).
Or better yet, toss a returning javelin and follow that up with an electric arc - Zeus Style.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Apologies, I'm late to the thread but would like to respond to things posted earlier.
magnuskn wrote:
Although, as I pointed out, that divine spellcasters get access to their whole spell list but there are uncommon spells on it as well makes me doubt that this was the intent by Paizo.
The angelic bloodline for sorcerer uses divine spells, so they can be gated off from sorcerers in that fashion. I suspect we'll see errata stating that clerics and druids only get access to common rarity spells without learning others through skill use at some point in the future.
shroudb wrote:
Everyone needs magic armor. The same way everyone needs magical weapons (even casters need spell dueling wand/golves)
The same way cloak of prot and circlet were mandatory, now it's armor.
The problem with the cloak and circlet was that they were so mandatory that other items were never given a chance to shine. Other items would languish because there was just no way to make practical use of them.
Several third party writers had taken notice of this, producing rule sets such as the Iron Heroes bonuses, and Paizo themselves produced two alternative rule sets for bonuses in Unchained (one in which bonuses are based off of level, and one in which the bonuses are coupled on to other effects so you have things like Elven Cloaks that give resistance bonuses).
I' d personally prefer to keep to that line of thought -- avoid situations where certain items become mandatory, and certain slots are doomed to always be occupied by a specific type of item. I'd rather have enchanted robes than mages and monks whose slots may as well be filled in by default on the character sheets.
I'm still looking at Mage Armor, though. Since Mage Armor doesn't have a maximum DEX bonus, that seems like it eventually makes it the best armor option in the game -- the only way of breaking the +7 total cap on item and DEX bonus. It's even better on a monk, since they can add up to +3 from proficiency bonus.
John Mechalas wrote:
Passwall was actually a bigger offender in "skip to the end" syndrome.
For Reign of Winter, we played a stealth-heavy party which made absurd use out of an Insistent Door Knocker and Gloves of Reconnaissance, with the occasional round of Spider Climb to get into a good position. There's a bit of good-natured griping about that combo being nerfed, but we definitely understand the necessity! =
Now Passwall doesn't scale as neatly, only having an option to heighten it to 7th for a 20 foot tunnel, but its heightened form disguises the entrance and exit to appear and act like solid walls unless the person trying to use them meets criteria of your choosing. This might be the best "get out of town" option available at short notice to a party in 2E! You cast it, dive into the tunnel, and your criteria for entering it is something like "must be an ally of mine."
shroudb wrote:
also, you can buy wands and staves and fling fireballs every round.
Duly note that wands now possess only 10 charges and staves have charges equal to the highest level spell slots you have accessible (so 10 at maximum) and you may only use one at a time. Both use resonance for each cast and have caps on their spell DC growth; spamming Fireball off a wand won't be very productive if the DC is so low that the monsters critically succeed most of the time. Not to mention the relatively high cost of magic items means you probably can't afford that many of them...
dnoisette wrote:
Although I keep posting here in the hopes that Paizo staff will realize that a good amount of people truly feel let down with their new take on magic, I don't have high hopes that it will change anything.
For what it's worth, I'm in the same boat. I feel the heavy reduction to the reliability and overall oomph of magic is a step in the wrong direction. I played around with the concept of characters whose spells per day were strictly limited, but who could change a situation drastically when their magic was invoked, and I played around with characters who could do a small number of things almost continuously throughout the day. Second edition thus far feels like the worst of both worlds: both a strict limit on how often you can cast as well as an overall lack of efficacy when you do cast.
If magic is going to be limited this much, it also ought to be more powerful. Otherwise, it should be more common. Being both rare and rarely a gamechanger is a bad combination.
On one hand, the way many spells still have a reduced effect on a success save is nice, but it doesn't feel like it makes up for the shortcomings detailed throughout this thread.
Almarane wrote:
Am I the only one here loving Mythic ?
I liked what I played of Mythic, but there were parts of it that desperately needed balancing. From what I gather, PCs not only quickly start to overshadow mooks, they also start overshadowing other mythic creatures as well, until the question goes from "can PCs kill Cthulhu?" to "how quickly can they kill Cthulhu?"
We played a homebrew version of it for Age of Worms (in which the various arbitrary buffs PCs got were replaced by PCs becoming Mythic instead), but I think our GM may have swung too far in the other direction, making generation of mythic power limited to one point per day and scaling up monsters to the point that most encounters were barely survivable, as well as routinely creating situations which felt like the kind of thing a particularly sadistic GM might put together to "gently hint" that the PCs had gone off the rails and needed to get back on track (like a large cavern filled with equipment-destroying acid spewing horrors, shielded by a miles-wide antimagic field). I wound up never feeling like a superhero, more like I was barely keeping apace with the monsters.
But I liked some of the options it gave martial characters. I played a guardian alchemist/master chymist who picked up several abilities to become a massive tank and melee monster, and I liked some of the champion powers (although some of them were clones of existing feats, and others were lackluster). I would rather see martial characters get raised up in such a manner than to see casters brought down as they presently stand.
Incidentally, Perfect Lie had the potential to derail a campaign in hilarious ways. I consider it the most subtly overpowered skill ever: any lie you tell is believed by whoever hears it "in the absence of obvious proof." In a world with magic, that's a laugh. "Guard, I'm actually the king. That imposter on the throne is a Faceless Stalker who has inscribed runes of power on the underside of his malleable flesh to foil your truth-seeking magics."
@ Maguskn: sorry to derail the thread, but i think cantrip should be compared with weapons to see if they are useful. Anyway, you're right, the actual cost of a +1 returning javelin is out of the scope of this thread.
I'm still interested to know why would anyone cast haste, and what buffs a caster is supposed to cast - appart from inspire courage. You mention blur (which happen to be a bard spell as well), I can't think of any other useful buff. i don't even think herosim is worth it when you already have inspire courage.
DataLoreRPG wrote:
If its in their hand, they don't need an action to put it in their hand. There is no more loading to be done. RAW/RAI arguments are silly here.
Whats wrong with returning javelins anyways? Who cares if cantrips are worse generally. Cantrips should be worse than attacks from magical weapons.
The benefit of the cantrip is it uses the spell casting modifier for damage and spellcasting TEML prof bonuses +dex for attack. A javelin uses strength for damage and weapon TEML prof bonuses +dex for attack. So, unless the caster is a muscle wizard who somehow has good weapon TEML bonuses, that cantrip will be better for him generally speaking (especially when you factor in MAP and all that).
No.
Cantrips add spell casting modifier when you're level 5. At level 5, a Acid splash deal 1d4+spell casting ability damage (probably 1d4+4). The javelin deals 2d6+For. The difference isn't that high - except Acid splash uses two actions. It's the same at any level, since the javelin has always 1 more damage die than cantrips.
It seems you're right about MAP: for some reason, Acid splash doesn't have the "attack" tag. So you can cast two acid splashes with no MAP. Except you can't because it costs 4 actions. You cast Acid splash, and then you can throw a javelin - in other words, if you're interested in the MAP, you need the javelin anyway.
... And maybe we should replace the javelin with a spear? For some reason, a returning spear doesn't have to be reloaded.
None of the rules makes sense. The only thing I'm quite confident about is: you shouldn't use any ranged attack cantrip, you should use a returning weapon instead. Be it only to approach, attack, retreat; if you can't survive in melee, you shouldn't end your turn 30 feat away from a monster. To Roll attack and damages for 1/2 or 1/3 of the damages of a competent character and to lie dead on the ground the round after is a waste of everyone's time. Just don't use cantrips.
Ed Reppert wrote:
What the heck is MAP?
I hate when people use acronyms I don't know. :-(
Multi-Attack Penalty.
I didn't know if I had to write entirely or if the acronym was understandable - in the end, I assumed this will be a widely-used acronym, so I can start using it right now.
The point of the attacking cantrips is doing less damage but spending 0 resources for them, while a magic weapon is one of your few, highest cost, items.
Wbl is much more restricted in pf2, and a magic weapon one of the most expensive resources.
Heroism is pretty great a buff, even as a bard you'd want to cast it when you want to switch songs since harmonise doesn't really work until very high levels. And even then it's really expensive to keep it up. Plus, heroism applies to a whole lot more (mainly to all saves and skills)
Fear is also pretty great, even if they make the save, that's - 1 to everything, including AC and their own ability/spell DCs.
Haste is more of a caster buff now imo, since a hasted caster can either both move and concentrate and still cast, or he can even attack, move and cast (in case he went with a weapon as you personally like as an example)
Invisibility is always awesome, especially improved.
Blur is solid as well.
The rest are more circumstantial like ghostly weapons and etc that usually work much better on a wizard rather than a sorc.
But yeah, Arcane list doesn't has that many buffs. But it has a lot of debuffs for opponents.
Naw, I meant MAP will affect successive attacks on the javelin, so you should work that into your calculus.
Frankly, cantrips should be worse. One of the things I dislike about 5e is over reliance on cantrips by casters (especially by cheap Warlock multiclassers).
Acid Splash is subject to MAP since you make an attack. Its probably an error that the tag isnt there. Similarly, electric arc has no attack so it shouldnt have the attack tag. Bow shot + electric arc seems pretty sweet.
As an aside, I think its hilarious you guys are hung up on javelin reloading.
Anywho, this thread is getting funny. First some dude asks for casters to be OP again (then to make martials a different kind of OP - so the game becomes Exalted or something). Then another dude ups the ante and says casters should be even more op by having at will cantrips be as good as magical weapons. Sigh.
I'm still looking at Mage Armor, though. Since Mage Armor doesn't have a maximum DEX bonus, that seems like it eventually makes it the best armor option in the game -- the only way of breaking the +7 total cap on item and DEX bonus. It's even better on a monk, since they can add up to +3 from proficiency bonus.
Mage armor gives a +1 AC bonus; the heightened version just add the magical bonus any armor would get (in other words, at level 4 your mage armor grants +2 AC and +1 saves, while a +1 breastplate grants +5 AC and +1 saves).
To break the total cap of +7, you need Dex 24. That's not possible for wizards, sorcereurs or bards. A monk can break the cap at level 20 if he gets a level 20 bracers of armor - seriously, does anyone care about what happen at level 20 when you max Dex and the DM gives you the item you need to break the cap by 1 point?
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sanmei Long wrote:
The angelic bloodline for sorcerer uses divine spells, so they can be gated off from sorcerers in that fashion. I suspect we'll see errata stating that clerics and druids only get access to common rarity spells without learning others through skill use at some point in the future.
As I said, I doubt Sorcerers and Wizards just getting access to uncommon spells as a part of their natural leveling up process is probably not the intent of Paizo, although the wording is so poor that one could read it as such. Hence my opposition to the concept of the Uncommon spell list.
Sanmei Long wrote:
For what it's worth, I'm in the same boat. I feel the heavy reduction to the reliability and overall oomph of magic is a step in the wrong direction. I played around with the concept of characters whose spells per day were strictly limited, but who could change a situation drastically when their magic was invoked, and I played around with characters who could do a small number of things almost continuously throughout the day. Second edition thus far feels like the worst of both worlds: both a strict limit on how often you can cast as well as an overall lack of efficacy when you do cast.
If magic is going to be limited this much, it also ought to be more powerful. Otherwise, it should be more common. Being both rare and rarely a gamechanger is a bad combination.
Yeah, pretty much that. It's that double whammy which hits so hard when looking at the rules as a fan of casters.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DataLoreRPG wrote:
Anywho, this thread is getting funny. First some dude asks for casters to be OP again (then to make martials a different kind of OP - so the game becomes Exalted or something). Then another dude ups the ante and says casters should be even more op by having at will cantrips be as good as magical weapons. Sigh.
Cantrips fall of very steeply later on in the game. Furthermore, getting the appropiate +x magic weapon at the expected levels become pretty mandatory to keep up with the steadily escalating monster AC values. If the GM falls behind in handing those weapon runes out to the martials, you'll notice very quickly, believe me.
And, yeah, martials should get powers more akin to magic attacks (in the paradigm of PF1E), IMO, because that is what high-level D&D/Pathfinder always has been. A game of essentially superheroes fighting dragons and monsters as big as multi-story houses. That's not Exalted, that is actually more of a realistic idea (in terms of internal story consistency) than Fighters hitting the toes of a colossal dragon so hard that it falls over dead.
Or what is your ideal PF2E? Should they remove gargantuan and colossal creatures altogether?
The current power balance and power set is fairly close to my ideal.
Maybe healing clerics could be optional (see stamina thread). That would let them cast more stuff.
Maybe spells should be slightly easier to land. Maybe not though since I am sure once players get more system mastery over conditions and buffs, it wont be as much of an issue in play. One of the things I hate about 5e is what a snoozefest combat is since spells land so easily.
Maybe the game needs a wider array of class feats but those will come one way or the other. There is already more build variety than base 5e. Martials already have tons of options when you factor in weapons too.
I dunno. The sky isnt falling. The game is solid but just needs to be tweaked slightly. This is what playtests are for. There is no need to turn the game into a supers game. Let them come up with an epic level supplement for that nonsense. That way the rest of us can ignore it.
İ didnt get noe at first.
So tell me what exactly do you like about this edition?
This low fantasy sword and sorcery setting feels clunky and unfun when the sorcery part feels no joy at all.
EDİT:Since we are at it.Please tell me as a gm do you enjoy when youtube distraction starts?Because with a system like this that sorcery part will be loking at youtube in combat.
Frankly, cantrips should be worse. One of the things I dislike about 5e is over reliance on cantrips by casters (especially by cheap Warlock multiclassers).
Yeah, and I have loathed the warlock since its debut in Compete Arcane, why whoever decided a warlock is a class that pew-pews laser beams from its hands all day, is beyond me. And somehow it made it onto 2 PHBs; I pretend like it's not there in 5th Ed (I have mentally deleted it).
And unlimited cantrips, all day magic, changes the lore/structure/vibe of all the D&D worlds (for those that don't use the spell reserve feat thingies). When Raistlin was out of magic, he was out of magic, he did not continue to pew-pew things for the rest of the afternoon.
Your ideal is martials are cool and casters are terrible?
If you're familiar with the large number of threads around Caster-Martial Disparity in PF1 then you'll undoubtedly be aware of the number of people arguing that it's not a problem with arguments around how, "it's a team game", "you should play your concept and not worry about the power level", and "it's not PvP". You'll want to explain to them why a disparity is a bad thing, because it seems perfectly reasonable to throw those arguments straight back at you if you're going to complain about power disparities.
Frankly, cantrips should be worse. One of the things I dislike about 5e is over reliance on cantrips by casters (especially by cheap Warlock multiclassers).
Yeah, and I have loathed the warlock since its debut in Compete Arcane, why whoever decided a warlock is a class that pew-pews laser beams from its hands all day, is beyond me. And somehow it made it onto 2 PHBs; I pretend like it's not there in 5th Ed (I have mentally deleted it).
And unlimited cantrips, all day magic, changes the lore/structure/vibe of all the D&D worlds (for those that don't use the spell reserve feat thingies). When Raistlin was out of magic, he was out of magic, he did not continue to pew-pew things for the rest of the afternoon.
To be fair, novel NPCs, especially of the kind that simply become Gods and kill all other Gods don't have a place in balance perspective.
Even if you were 20 level Mythic, or happen to sleep with Mystra, you still wouldn't reach even the pinky of Raistlin.
As for novel characters, there's always that drow-that-shall-not-be-named that invalidates any sort of mechanics discussion.
Going to PFverse we have martials who became Gods after a drunken stupor.
But that doesn't somehow make actual fighter game play feel any heroic.
In any verse, those figures, are not what we turn into. They are just the shiny idols we aspire to be. Even when we're 20 level.
Your ideal is martials are cool and casters are terrible?
If you're familiar with the large number of threads around Caster-Martial Disparity in PF1 then you'll undoubtedly be aware of the number of people arguing that it's not a problem with arguments around how, "it's a team game", "you should play your concept and not worry about the power level", and "it's not PvP". You'll want to explain to them why a disparity is a bad thing, because it seems perfectly reasonable to throw those arguments straight back at you if you're going to complain about power disparities.
Inability to do what you are good at because something was powerfull when optimized at a different edition and in 2e's case in a different game is not a good argument.Do you think disparity is closed?What exactly pazio did to close it?Dont you need your caster to cast fly on when you have to deal with flying enemies?Dont you need caster to cast teleport if it is allowed in your game to pass a very hazardous enviorment or dont you need the cleric to heal you so you can move forward with the story?Breathing underwater?Controlling enemies?Buffing you?Come try me.Throw my argument back at me then.I have played with paladins and fighters who could deal hundreds of damage while i was there to help them.I was in situation where a boss could one shot my paladin and i thought if i were to play my witch instead of my kineticist i could have saved my paladin and inqusitor.Saying martials are lame in the first edition is a lame argument and i dont think it has a lot of basis anyway.It was a team effort in 1e.Now i am not sure if that is the case in 2e.
EDİT:Why making spellcasters badwrongfun in this edition is ok?What is the argument there?You had a lot of fun in first edition.So to make it fair we make you suck in this one.Please play this game for 10 years.
Do you not know how to use the space bar after a full stop or question mark or is this just a stylistic choice?
Doesn't take anything away from what he/she said though.
I finally had one PC death yesterday.
Do you want to know how it happened?
Doomsday Dawn Chapter 2 spoilers:
I'll tell you anyway: the Bard and Wizard ran out of spells in the midst of the manticore fight.
That was their second encounter only on that day.
No more healing spells for the party Fighter and Rogue, no Magic Missile either that could have finished the creature while it stood at 11 HP and landed a crit on the now dead character.
That player did critically fail his Fort save. (yes, it took a critical success on my end and critical failure on his end for him to die but that's another issue)
The point is: when he fell to the ground, he just casually waited for the Bard and Wizard to play. When he realized that they were both out of spells, he knew his character was probably dead and suddenly, the caster nerfs weren't very funny anymore. :D
It's a sad thing that this was probably the highlight of the session for me, when the players rolling martial characters suddenly realized that yes, they could now mock spellcasters and tell them they're useless...until they themselves die precisely because of that.
This edition is going to be: spellcasters have no fun and look up videos on youtube while martials die for lack of support. Enjoy. :(
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DataLoreRPG wrote:
I dunno. The sky isnt falling. The game is solid but just needs to be tweaked slightly. This is what playtests are for. There is no need to turn the game into a supers game. Let them come up with an epic level supplement for that nonsense. That way the rest of us can ignore it.
The game always was about supers at the high levels. The rest of you were playing low levels. Just saying.
Frankly, cantrips should be worse. One of the things I dislike about 5e is over reliance on cantrips by casters (especially by cheap Warlock multiclassers).
Yeah, and I have loathed the warlock since its debut in Compete Arcane, why whoever decided a warlock is a class that pew-pews laser beams from its hands all day, is beyond me. And somehow it made it onto 2 PHBs; I pretend like it's not there in 5th Ed (I have mentally deleted it).
And unlimited cantrips, all day magic, changes the lore/structure/vibe of all the D&D worlds (for those that don't use the spell reserve feat thingies). When Raistlin was out of magic, he was out of magic, he did not continue to pew-pew things for the rest of the afternoon.
To be fair, novel NPCs, especially of the kind that simply become Gods and kill all other Gods don't have a place in balance perspective.
Even if you were 20 level Mythic, or happen to sleep with Mystra, you still wouldn't reach even the pinky of Raistlin.
As for novel characters, there's always that drow-that-shall-not-be-named that invalidates any sort of mechanics discussion.
Going to PFverse we have martials who became Gods after a drunken stupor.
But that doesn't somehow make actual fighter game play feel any heroic.
In any verse, those figures, are not what we turn into. They are just the shiny idols we aspire to be. Even when we're 20 level.
That's neither here nor there, Raistlin, Drizzt, Elminster, etc, there are tons D&D novels, characters, and magic/spellcasting is not usually unlimited, even Lord Soth specifically explains to Strahd that he can only cast fireball once a day in The Knight of the Black Rose, novel, things like that. Characters, the multiverse over, suddenly all getting access to 24/7 spellcasting, changes things.
Do you not know how to use the space bar after a full stop or question mark or is this just a stylistic choice?
Doesn't take anything away from what he/she said though.
I finally had one PC death yesterday.
Do you want to know how it happened?
** spoiler omitted **
This edition is going to be: spellcasters have no fun and look up videos on youtube while martials die for lack of support. Enjoy. :(
Chapter 2 Spoilers:
So the encounter just before the Mantcore fight is an optional fight at the Gnoll Camp (really not hard, it shouldn't have taken most of the casters resources). They are allowed to just skip that fight and walk further down the river. To actually get to the Manticore the PCs need to at least spend 3 hours searching for a way up the mountain. and even if they do it's still a decently long way up the mountain in difficult terrain with no mounts.
Point I'm trying to make is, that encounter was built specifically for your party to be fully rested with all their spells. They even give the party a warning part way up the cliff with a bunch of dead gnolls. This should tell the party they should have all their spells for the upcoming fight. You may have run that encounter incorrectly. The party shouldn't be allowed to travel more than 8hrs a day without rest.
The game is solid but just needs to be tweaked slightly.
Slight tweaks will result in a game I don't want to play. Until it's fixed enough to make it actually fun to play, I wouldn't call it "solid" but a game in need of some major overhauls.
In the end, this whole thread makes me want to start a poll along the lines of "Do you want a low-magic or high-magic universe in Pathfinder 2.0 ?".
A high-magic universe cannot exist when spells are nerfed, spell DCs are nerfed and spell slots are nerfed.
We have a low-magic setting so far.
In an ideal world, people would simply answer with "low-magic" or "high-magic".
The aim would not be to debate each other's view and wishes but rather to get a quantitative idea of how many poeple actually want the low-magic setting we have here and how many want it to change.
At this point, I really need to know.
Because if it turns out that 80% of the community is very happy with the magic nerfs all around then I'll be on my way, no bad feelings (not too many at least).
I just want to know if I'm wasting my time giving feedback while I am from the very vocal minority that some people are telling me I am.
Paizo staff has not come forward with their design goals because I suspect they have none.
Or rather, they are not set in stone and everything can change.
If that is true then I would like to be able to let them know what the majority of people actually want.
Let the community decide their own favored design goal regarding magic.
Unfortunately, I know full well what such a thread would end looking like right now and it would be derailed to no end with no one actually answering the question.
Do you not know how to use the space bar after a full stop or question mark or is this just a stylistic choice?
Doesn't take anything away from what he/she said though.
I finally had one PC death yesterday.
Do you want to know how it happened?
** spoiler omitted **
This edition is going to be: spellcasters have no fun and look up videos on youtube while martials die for lack of support. Enjoy. :(
** spoiler omitted **
Doomsday Dawn Chapter 2 again:
My players rushed in mindlessly into the gnoll camp.
That was a really bad strategy to begin with - I daresay there was no strategy involved here at all and they deserved the punishment they got for jumping into the water without first making sure no one would ambush them on the other bank.
As a result, they had to spend a lot more spells and potions than expected, maybe in part because I kept rolling really high - two crits on the same character one after the other, natural 20s.
When the party was done searching for the right path to take to climb the mountain, it was late in the afternoon.
Because they still had some of their spells and enough HPs left (in their view), they decided to start climbing.
At their current speed, they would have reached the top before midnight and wanted to rest there.
They did not expect the manticore fight.
I did not run the encounter incorrectly, my players just made some bad calls and found out the hard way that they should have listened to the Wizard when he said: we should rest now and attempt to climb on the morrow.
He was dismissed because "you don't do much in a fight" anyway.
Well, he still lives and the party now has one fewer martial character. :)
"Do you want a low-magic or high-magic universe in Pathfinder 2.0 ?".
Pathfinder is high magic. If they want a low magic system, they should name it something different so as not to confuse people.
That is my view too but assuming the majority of the playerbase wants a low-magic setting then Pathfinder will become just that, whether that was the original design or not. :(
This is not a low magic game. Thats hyperbole. A low magic game is like Conan d20 (or 2d20), Beasts and Barbarians (Savage Worlds), and the like.
This is a fantasy game. It has the trappings of assorted fantasy sub genres but "low magic" is not something I get from reading the rulebook or playing the game.
The point of the game is not to play casters and lord over everyone else. The point is to have fun. Sure lording your miraculous spellcasting over others is fun, for you. But again, the intent is that EVERYONE have fun. That means martials need to be fun. That means martials and casters should ideally be equivalently fun. Otherwise one side syphons fun from the other. So arguments based on how "magic should be super powerful yadda yadda yadda" miss the point of the game even if they fit whatever sort of fantasy narrative you like. It's wrong just because of false premise, no matter how much math you can bring to bear.
The point of the game is not to play casters and lord over everyone else. The point is to have fun. Sure lording your miraculous spellcasting over others is fun, for you. But again, the intent is that EVERYONE have fun. That means martials need to be fun. That means martials and casters should ideally be equivalently fun. Otherwise one side syphons fun from the other. So arguments based on how "magic should be super powerful yadda yadda yadda" miss the point of the game even if they fit whatever sort of fantasy narrative you like. It's wrong just because of false premise, no matter how much math you can bring to bear.
I'm going to tell you bluntly: right now, martial characters in the game I run are lording over spellcasters with their awesome martial prowess.
Players keep making jokes about how everything casters do is inconsequential and it gets especially hard to disagree when a cantrip lands 2 points of damage.
So, in short, spellcasters should not have fun and martial characters only are entitled to being awesome?
Doesn't sound like wanting balance between both to me.
It sounds exactly like accusing spellcasters to want to shine above anyone else.
That's not OK for spellcasters to do but it is for martial characters, apparently.
Folks here are claiming that casters need a total redesign to make them demi gods and that even melee characters should be redone so they play similar to Tome of Battle characters. Thats just silly. Completely silly.
A set of small, measured changes can address most issues casters are experiencing at the table.
The main issue I see with casters in my game has little to do around the power of their spells. Its more around how reliably they can land their spells to full effect. This is doubly important early on when the amount of slots are so few. It will be interesting to see what this feels like at higher levels with more spell slots.
I still feel part of this is lack of system mastery. However, a few small tweaks to allow casters to land spells more reliably may be in order. This may come down to NPC design (lowering saves) - especially early on when spell slots are less numerous. Once thats addressed, casters won't feel "lorded over" or whatever.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Davick wrote:
The point of the game is not to play casters and lord over everyone else. The point is to have fun. Sure lording your miraculous spellcasting over others is fun, for you. But again, the intent is that EVERYONE have fun. That means martials need to be fun. That means martials and casters should ideally be equivalently fun. Otherwise one side syphons fun from the other. So arguments based on how "magic should be super powerful yadda yadda yadda" miss the point of the game even if they fit whatever sort of fantasy narrative you like. It's wrong just because of false premise, no matter how much math you can bring to bear.
The false premise is yours, in that you assume people want to "lord it over everyone else". Players of arcane casters want to feel useful and so far the rules have been overnerfed so much that all the areas where arcane casters excelled are now either bad or mediocre.
