No, I'm not bashing 2e. Maybe this is what they're trying to do?
Every thread I read keeps comparing 2e to 1e classes. The 2e monk is weaker than the 1e monk, the 2e barbarian is weaker than the 1e barbarian, etc.
Maybe all these threads are true?
And maybe that's deliberate?
If every class is weaker by deliberate design, then we should stop comparing 2e to 1e.
Instead, we should be comparing 2e classes to each other (e.g., can the 2e barbarian dish out comparable damage with comparable survivability to the 2e fighter?), or comparing 2e classes to 2e playtest content (e.g. can the 2e druid contribute as much in the playtest scenarios as the 2e cleric can?).
Just wondering if this has been considered.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance between PF2 classes is important and the right place to discuss how powerful classes are in terms of pure mechanics but at the same time comparing defining class features between editions is still valaid to see if they have the same feel while playing.
So saying the PF2 paladin is weaker than the PF1 paladin isn't a great argument since they exist in different frameworks but saying that a PF2 paladin doesn't play right because it lacks a smite evil ability is a more valaid complaint in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Bards have become full casters, and not lost much at all, so I don't think you can say that all the classes have become weaker.
Their full caster PF2 spell list is arguably weaker than the 6th level list they had in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure all the classes are weaker, but certainly a large swath.
However.
Instead, we should be comparing 2e classes to each other (e.g., can the 2e barbarian dish out comparable damage with comparable survivability to the 2e fighter?), or comparing 2e classes to 2e playtest content (e.g. can the 2e druid contribute as much in the playtest scenarios as the 2e cleric can?).
The classes aren't balanced against each other either.
Eg:
Cleric vs. (Divine) Sorcerer:
Cleric Wins, hands down, every time, on every metric.
Same spell list.
Same number of spell slots.
Cleric then also gets:
- Armor and Weapon Proficiencies
- Channel Energy times like six
- Domain powers
Sorcerer gets:
- The ability to cast Protection from Evil (target: self) twice a day
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If every class is weaker by deliberate design, then we should stop comparing 2e to 1e.
Mechanically, that makes sense. Comapring 2e power to 2e power makes sense for balance.
For "fun" factor? If you get some of your fun by feeling heroic and powerful while fighting against tough odds, then how powerful you feel matters tremendously. In that case, 2e to 1e comparisons are entirely valid.
I'd say a majority of players don't want a character that feels week. It doesn't matter if it's mechanically balanced with everyone else, if it feels weak in their hands. That's where those comparisons come from.
Like, Cantrips feel weak to me. They're clearly better than 1e cantrips in that they give me something to do that actually scales and doesn't cost spell slots, and I'd also argue they're better than my other default action in 1e on my Cleric there (make a melee attack)... but I felt like I was fighting with an inflatable mallet while using them because the effects are generally so lame compared to what everyone else is doing.
Compare that to when I'd channel heal, where I suddenly had a variety of options (how many actions to use, if I wanted to use healing hands, healing domain if I had taken it, etc), and which feels like I'm suddenly using a rocket launcher instead of an inflatable mallet. It's obviously mechanically impactful, but when monsters spend their turn trying to beat someone down to the brink of death and I blast them back up and back into the fight? It feels powerful. It also lets them start fighting again, which makes them feel powerful.
The difference is night and day. A lot of threads on here are that healing is too strong right now, and comparatively it might very well be, but I think that's because a lot of other stuff just feels weak. Even my other spells were a mixed bag where some felt good and some felt ridiculousy weak (Create Water was nerfed into the stone age AND now burns a consumable spell slot because we can't have fun things).
That's something I hope people take into account. It's a game, and games should be fun. While mechanical balance can help fun, how it feels while you're playing it also matters quite a lot. (D&D 4e had lots of mechanical balance, after all, and how fun was that?)
They certainly feel weaker than in PF1, but 1st level characters in PF1 aren't exactly weak, at least not compared to those in 3e, 2e or 1e AD&D. Like when your Magic User had 1 spell, a staff and no armour.
So there's nothing wrong with toning them down a bit...but there is something wrong with them feeling incompetent at those things they're meant to be good at, both compared to the opposition and to the other PCs.