|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Hello,
and thank your for your time reading this.
On the topic, creating a character and looking through the options available I noticed that bards, clerics, druids and wizards have three class feats less than other class, sorcerors also miss another two class feats. In comparison to the other classes. This irregeluraty surprised me.
One of those class feats is easily explained by the choices the classes get at first level be it muse, deity, order, school, or bloodline.
The missing sorceror feat could be explained by the level advanced and greater bloodline powers.
Class feats in their current state are an expression of playstyle choice. They improve aspects of gameplay or open options for different gameplay. As this is a irregular developement of those classes, it is easy to assume that this design choice. Since I luckily can't read minds I have to admit I don't know why this is the way it is. I just have to assume there is a reason.
So in the interest of creating character diversity and individuality what would actually be a counter argument to implementing additional options on the level 12 and 16 for all caster classes?
If the assumption is true that sorcerors choose their class feats for level 1, 6 and 10 at level 1 by choosing a bloodline. In other words class features replacing class feats, is the assumption correct that proficiency increases in spellcasting at level 12 and 16 replace the appropiate class feats?
If thats the case, how could that be interesting? Thats my biggest issue with this, since other classes aren't forced to take a general improvement at a certain level. For example lets say paladins loose their 10th level class feat and get "Divine Will" as class feature. This is only a rough guess of course.
Again thank you for your time.
I can't speak as to it being a good decision or not but you are correct about bloodline powers and casting proficiency increases taking place of class feats. Though one of the updates to the playtest has turned bloodline powers beyond the initial one into feats and Sorcerers now get a 6th and 10th level feats.
I definitely understand the dislike for those things being preset, though to be fair every class has preset features. Casters just have more (If you count each level of spells as a new feature), or less if you don't.
I'm personally not too averse to casters getting less class feats as they also customize through spell choice but if that's gonna be the case I'd like to see all classes have more class feats than they do now.
Edge93 wrote: I can't speak as to it being a good decision or not but you are correct about bloodline powers and casting proficiency increases taking place of class feats. Though one of the updates to the playtest has turned bloodline powers beyond the initial one into feats and Sorcerers now get a 6th and 10th level feats. Good to known, its hard to keep up with updates in correlation with the original rules.
Edge93 wrote: I definitely understand the dislike for those things being preset, though to be fair every class has preset features. Casters just have more (If you count each level of spells as a new feature), or less if you don't.
I'm personally not too averse to casters getting less class feats as they also customize through spell choice but if that's gonna be the case I'd like to see all classes have more class feats than they do now.
I agree, it would be nice if a lot of the class features that create a fixed role like shield proficiency on a paladin became optional. It would create more diversity. Although its easy to see that the playtest requires more linear characters.
Level 2 Paladin class feats are worse. Basically, there are two feat choices, with one choice given four different flavourings.
I'm more okay with casters getting less class feats, since spells already give those PCs more choice and differentiation. Weapon Users need the most class feats.
EberronHoward wrote:
I'm more okay with casters getting less class feats, since spells already give those PCs more choice and differentiation. Weapon Users need the most class feats.
Had this been PF1 spells, totally with you, maybe would have said spellcaster would need a little less then they have now. However given how spells are now {which were problematic in PF1, though your view on wither they were scaled back to much of just enough for PF2 may differ.) I'd be more towards giving equal feats, as many spells have been scaled back in power.
This does lead back into the argument of spells vs abilities of old, has you can generally do more with a spell then a class feat. On the same hand however, you only use that spell a limited amount of times per day, while class feats generally have the advantage of being used without limit. By itself {given this edition of magic} I would say its an equal trade, and spellcasters could be afforded with lesser feats because of it.
However non-spellcasting classes do have one key advantage over spellcasting classes. Non-spellcasting classes tend to have a lot more automatic class abilities given to them as they level up then there spellcasting counterparts. For example, a Bard will gain {not including increases to Spellcasting prof which seems to take up class feats, and of course spells themselves} two performance cantrips, and there Muse at level 1. At level 3, they also gain the ability to heighten 2 spells. Pass that there is no automatic class abilities given to them, which is very similar to other spellcasting classes.
Non-spellcasting classes get a lot more of these throughout there career. For example, the Fighter will be getting constant increases to weapon prof, crit effect access, improvements in armor prof, improvements to Perception, additional fighter feats you are allowed to change out each day ect. This isn't to say that automatic abilities should be lessened, these abilities are what can both make a class functional and fun. Its to say that given the changes to spells, spellcasting classes should either be given access to the same amount of feats, or be given more automatic abilities.
Siro wrote: However non-spellcasting classes do have one key advantage over spellcasting classes. Non-spellcasting classes tend to have a lot more automatic class abilities given to them as they level up then there spellcasting counterparts. For example, a Bard will gain {not including increases to Spellcasting prof which seems to take up class feats, and of course spells themselves} two performance cantrips, and there Muse at level 1. At level 3, they also gain the ability to heighten 2 spells. Pass that there is no automatic class abilities given to them, which is very similar to other spellcasting classes.
Non-spellcasting classes get a lot more of these throughout there career. For example, the Fighter will be getting constant increases to weapon prof, crit effect access, improvements in armor prof, improvements to Perception, additional fighter feats you are allowed to change out each day ect. This isn't to say that automatic abilities should be lessened, these abilities are what can both make a class functional and fun....
As spellcasters level up, the DCs for low-level spells go up as well. And many spellcasting classes can prepare a Fireball spell in a 4th or 5th level slot, and have its damage improve. That's a constant increase in damage output that's baked into the game itself, just not in the class section of the spellcaster.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I kind of want all classes to have a level 1 feat just so we can have archetypes which cost level 1 feats to take so that you can start as one.
Siro wrote: EberronHoward wrote:
I'm more okay with casters getting less class feats, since spells already give those PCs more choice and differentiation. Weapon Users need the most class feats.
Had this been PF1 spells, totally with you, maybe would have said spellcaster would need a little less then they have now. However given how spells are now {which were problematic in PF1, though your view on wither they were scaled back to much of just enough for PF2 may differ.) I'd be more towards giving equal feats, as many spells have been scaled back in power. I wouldn't use that comparison. Class feats aren't equal to spells, class feats should be equal to class feats. I agree that with the variety of available spells mundane classes seem a little lackluster. But instead of more feats and even more deviations of a normed class building I'd implement more general options: maneuvers, stances, "teamwork feat" like combat modifier. Acessible through positioning and proficiencies.
Siro wrote: However non-spellcasting classes do have one key advantage over spellcasting classes. Non-spellcasting classes tend to have a lot more automatic class abilities given to them as they level up then there spellcasting counterparts. For example, a Bard will gain {not including increases to Spellcasting prof which seems to take up class feats, and of course spells themselves} two performance cantrips, and there Muse at level 1. At level 3, they also gain the ability to heighten 2 spells. Pass that there is no automatic class abilities given to them, which is very similar to other spellcasting classes.
Non-spellcasting classes get a lot more of these throughout there career. For example, the Fighter will be getting constant increases to weapon prof, crit effect access, improvements in armor prof, improvements to Perception, additional fighter feats you are allowed to change out each day ect. This isn't to say that automatic abilities should be lessened, these abilities are what can both make a class functional and fun....
I disagree the rule is, if the casters are burned out of spell slots the adventuring day ends.
PossibleCabbage wrote: I kind of want all classes to have a level 1 feat just so we can have archetypes which cost level 1 feats to take so that you can start as one. Well that would be neat, making all the level 1 choices for caster classes exclusive feat so addiotional choices could be implemented more easily / sound.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
EberronHoward wrote:
As spellcasters level up, the DCs for low-level spells go up as well. And many spellcasting classes can prepare a Fireball spell in a 4th or 5th level slot, and have its damage improve. That's a constant increase in damage output that's baked into the game itself, just not in the class section of the spellcaster.
To be fair, I did not mention DC's for spells being the same, which is also something that should be taken into account. It does mark an improvement over PF1, as lower leveled spells {that had saving throws} would start becoming less useful, as the saves for them would become to low as you leveled up. Within this version, those lower leveled spells that require saves still do have a use.
However, there was also something given up in the conversion, and that was spells increasing there effectiveness dependant on Caster Level. Unlike before the constant increase is not in baked in the game mechanics itself, it is baked within the spellcasting class feature of higher level slots. So {with the 1.5 update} a Level 3 Fireball on a failed save will deal 28 damage on average, good damage for Level 5, a wasted turn for Level 20. So, {much like a fighter using constantly more mightier swords} your having to use higher level slots to have certain spells remain relevant.
Which leads back to a key point, the fact it is on a failed save. As it currently stands, the increases to spellcasting DC is using up class feats, but it does not improve what they are doing, it just keeps them on pace for the saves they are going to face, which is where I'm really finding the problem. At least the way I'm looking at it, it is like saying to a Fighter "You need to take the 'Improve Sword' prof Fighter Class Feat three times in order to stay relevant in the thing your class does." Which for me is the sticking point.
Wermut wrote:
I disagree the rule is, if the casters are burned out of spell slots the adventuring day ends
One caveat to that is only if you have a merciful DM. Some DM's when resources are running low (Spells, HP, Items, ect) will give opportunity and allow the party to rest up and regain. For example, if they decide to rest, the DM will forgo rolling any encounters for the night, or during a losing combat, will allow the party to escape without to much effort. Other DM's will not care, you decide to camp a little ways from the road to recover, lets roll to see if there are any bandits and what not coming around, you just blew your last spell in combat and want to rest, the Pit Fiend you were fighting will help with your eternal rest.
Sometimes {depending on DM and situation} you just do not have the opportunity to end the day.
Siro wrote: Wermut wrote:
I disagree the rule is, if the casters are burned out of spell slots the adventuring day ends
One caveat to that is only if you have a merciful DM. Some DM's when resources are running low (Spells, HP, Items, ect) will give opportunity and allow the party to rest up and regain. For example, if they decide to rest, the DM will forgo rolling any encounters for the night, or during a losing combat, will allow the party to escape without to much effort. Other DM's will not care, you decide to camp a little ways from the road to recover, lets roll to see if there are any bandits and what not coming around, you just blew your last spell in combat and want to rest, the Pit Fiend you were fighting will help with your eternal rest.
Sometimes {depending on DM and situation} you just do not have the opportunity to end the day.
Then we could use the pfs scenarios as guidelines. They have about 3-4 encounters, often on one single day.
With my pf2 caster I have 4 highest level spells and 4 second highest level spells. All other spells are mostly useless in combat / only useful for buffing my weapon attacks with something like True Strike/Magical Striker.
So I have 2 spells to use per combat, the rest is meh. So the only real choice, if you want to contribute, is to use a weapon. As fullcaster. Yes.
Adventure Paths tend do have way more combats per day, then the problem is even more worse.
Spellcasters are nerfed to the ground, and they lose an amount of class feats. It just makes things worse. I played a lvl 12 cleric, and I couldn't take the expert weapon proficieny of the fighter prestige class because of the less amount of feats. That was very painful.
Siro wrote: Wermut wrote:
I disagree the rule is, if the casters are burned out of spell slots the adventuring day ends
One caveat to that is only if you have a merciful DM. Some DM's when resources are running low (Spells, HP, Items, ect) will give opportunity and allow the party to rest up and regain. For example, if they decide to rest, the DM will forgo rolling any encounters for the night, or during a losing combat, will allow the party to escape without to much effort. Other DM's will not care, you decide to camp a little ways from the road to recover, lets roll to see if there are any bandits and what not coming around, you just blew your last spell in combat and want to rest, the Pit Fiend you were fighting will help with your eternal rest.
Sometimes {depending on DM and situation} you just do not have the opportunity to end the day. Then everyone dies and you get to play a better game with a better DM. So what?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Gaterie wrote: Siro wrote: Wermut wrote:
I disagree the rule is, if the casters are burned out of spell slots the adventuring day ends
One caveat to that is only if you have a merciful DM. Some DM's when resources are running low (Spells, HP, Items, ect) will give opportunity and allow the party to rest up and regain. For example, if they decide to rest, the DM will forgo rolling any encounters for the night, or during a losing combat, will allow the party to escape without to much effort. Other DM's will not care, you decide to camp a little ways from the road to recover, lets roll to see if there are any bandits and what not coming around, you just blew your last spell in combat and want to rest, the Pit Fiend you were fighting will help with your eternal rest.
Sometimes {depending on DM and situation} you just do not have the opportunity to end the day. Then everyone dies and you get to play a better game with a better DM. So what?
Oh, I guess were no longer discussing about class abilities, but ideals of how the game state is played. Because if you house rule that death does not exist for PC's, then yes that changes everything. Every PC class is OP because they are invincible, they can't die, which also means in the long run they can't fail. Which can make the story meaningless, as you know the inevitable outcome {the party may lose to the Red Dragon, but because PC death is taboo, the party can just come back and try again later until they win.)
But note, you are making your assessment on your own house rule, not the rules of the game. There is no where in the book that says a PC, nor party, cannot die. There are many rules however that facilitate death, from the concept of HP, to saving throws, to the 'Dying Rules'. Even the idea of ending the day to recover plays a role in that {which by the way, if you could just rest and recover whenever you wanted, what is the point of making limited use abilities such as spells? Because if you can rest whenever you want that would mean you would be able to recover spells whenever you wanted, making spells and other renewable abilities infinite.)
However, maybe you are making an argument based upon the caliber of DM, that those that ignore both the rules and point of dying are better than those that do. Is it because if a PC dies, they are kicked out of the group, or if the party dies everyone just walks away from the table? Because yes, that is a sign of both a bad group and a bad DM, but not because of a PC death, it was just a trigger behind it. Most groups however, that actually have PC death, embrace it, and use it to enhance the game. Death means they have to plan out there moves, that victory is not guaranteed and therefore earned. When a death happens, its an opportunity for the other PC's to take up the mantel {ie to avenge them, to work towards the goal there fallen party member was working towards ect} and when a full party falls, its a way to see the impact of that failure {and there pass successes} in the next game. And it gives purpose to the point of playing out the game, as you do not know the outcome.
So when you throw out a comment about, "The adventuring day ends when spells are burned out." and "everyone dies and you get to play a better game with a better DM" note that it does not reflect the game, nor does it mean that those that play by the rules are worse because they differ from your own. If you want to play an easier variation of the game where parties cannot die that’s ok {at the end of the day, it’s a game for fun, if that is the way your group enjoys it that is the most important thing at the end.) However at the end of the day, those are your own house rules, not the rules of the game.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
PossibleCabbage wrote: I kind of want all classes to have a level 1 feat just so we can have archetypes which cost level 1 feats to take so that you can start as one. That would be nice.
I want a level 1 feat for all classes not because I think casters need the buff, but because I think it feels bad to be missing level 1 customisation for a caster player.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
But don't all the caster classes have customization built into them? Sorcerer Bloodlines, Wizard Spell Schools, Druid Orders, Cleric Domains, and Bard Muses all offer ways to differentiate one PC of the same class from another.
Hmm, I don't think the problem is they can't differentiate themselves from others, its just they have less customization options to do so {which then need to be focused more on making them relevant then in other classes}
Forgive me if I do a poor job explaining this. When I was building my Rogue, I felt like I had a plethora of customization, partly due to having more class feats, but also because the class came with ongoing abilities as it leveled up. Because I had more options, and I knew certain things were going to automatically be taken care of in the class itself {for example, even if I did not take any class feats for sneak attacks, I knew I would still have a useable sneak attack as I leveled up,} it created an easier job to make the rogue I wanted. Because I knew the class was both going to somewhat take care of itself, and because I had more class feats to do it, I had a less need to optimize, and had greater freedom to make the Rogue I wanted, even having the ability to focus on separate areas if I wanted. I even toyed with a Human Rogue that multiclassed into both Sorcerer and Bard {for two sets of occult spells} and it would still be able to function as a basic {not amazing, but could get the job done, and had a couple of occult tricks} Rogue due to innate abilities of the class.
When I did this for the Bard {a class I had much more experience from PF1} I could not do this. Because the class did not come with automatic increases {save for spells} there was a much greater reliance on class feats {along with others feats} to fill in that gap. Yet this option was more limited, due to having 4 {3 if you include the Muse as a class feat) less feats then other classes. Because of this, I felt I was taking options to just stay relevant as I leveled up, and in certain areas fell short in doing so because there was a lack of class feats/the amount of class feats {didn't really have any good non-spell combat options, and certain feats required you to use your skill increases in certain skills to be useful ect. Now multclassing can somewhat help, though again you using your more limited class feats to do so.). Now spells did help somewhat with this {this is where a good deal of customization can take place} however this had the problem of= 1) a limited resource that could not always be relied on and 2) needed the use of other resources to be reliable {ie class feats and such}. So while I technically have customization options, because I had did not have the innate support from the class, and because I had fewer class feats, most of my choices {class feats, spells ect} felt like they were already made for me before I started so I could remain somewhat relevant as the leveled went up.
At least that's been my experience so far, and I fully admit I haven't really had a chance to play a lot of PF2, so this may all be because of limited experience with the new system.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
EberronHoward wrote: But don't all the caster classes have customization built into them? Sorcerer Bloodlines, Wizard Spell Schools, Druid Orders, Cleric Domains, and Bard Muses all offer ways to differentiate one PC of the same class from another. They do. It just doesn't necessarily feel like that. My wizard player before he left the playtest (2 of my players hated it, 4 seem to really like it) felt like human was the only reasonable choice for his level 1 non-universalist wizard, simply because he didn't get to pick a feat at level 1 (I think cleric and druid seem better at face value to players there though?)
Whereas say, the barbarian clocks in and gets to celebrate the fact he can catch fire and take advantage of the action economy with sudden charge.
Siro wrote: Gaterie wrote: Siro wrote: Wermut wrote:
I disagree the rule is, if the casters are burned out of spell slots the adventuring day ends
One caveat to that is only if you have a merciful DM. Some DM's when resources are running low (Spells, HP, Items, ect) will give opportunity and allow the party to rest up and regain. For example, if they decide to rest, the DM will forgo rolling any encounters for the night, or during a losing combat, will allow the party to escape without to much effort. Other DM's will not care, you decide to camp a little ways from the road to recover, lets roll to see if there are any bandits and what not coming around, you just blew your last spell in combat and want to rest, the Pit Fiend you were fighting will help with your eternal rest.
Sometimes {depending on DM and situation} you just do not have the opportunity to end the day. Then everyone dies and you get to play a better game with a better DM. So what?
[...]
or if the party dies everyone just walks away from the table?
[...] Yes, obviously.
I don't know the rules you're using, but in the rules I use, players can't play a dead PC. If the party dies, no player can play and this ends the game.
Now, the initial assertion was: "I disagree the rule is, if the casters are burned out of spell slots the adventuring day ends"; and you disagree with that. Let's look at what happens if the casters are out of spells and there's a new encounter.
First, "being out of spells" doesn't mean "being dead". Casters that are out of spells are fine, thanks for them. in the other hand, it means "the fighter (and other martials) can't get healed anymore - nor buffed nor helped in any way". In the other hand, this is the fighter's role to go into melee to protect the party. So "being out of spells" actually means "the fighter has a serious risk to die in any encounter" - ie it doesn't change much for casters, but it put a risk on non-casters.
Now let's assume the party walk 4 kilometers away from the dungeon and rests (as it should because it has no spell left). If the DM doesn't set up a night ambush, then the initial statement is de facto true: "the rule is, if the casters are burned out of spell slots the adventuring day ends". So let's assume there's a night ambush. I can see 2 possibilities:
1/ It's an easy ambush, so easy the fighter (and the other martials) can handle it without heal, without buff, without any enemy debuff, just all alone. The fighters wins all alone and then the night resumes and everyone recover his spells. Why does this fight exists at all? It slows down the game and has no consequence whatsoever. It's just a waste of everyone's time.
2/ The fighter can't handle the fight. In that case, a spell-less wizard won't help. The party can't handle the fight and doesn't have any "fast exit" spell and everyone dies.
3/ The DM is a balance machine and is able to create an encounter that's too hard for a single fighter but is doable for a fighter and a spell-less wizard with a crossbow. lol, no.
So yes, in the end, either the adventuring day ends when all spells are burned out, either there's a TPK and everyone get to play a better game. Maybe there's a third possibility I can't see where the whole party dies but players continue to play their dead PCs.
Quote: So when you throw out a comment about, "The adventuring day ends when spells are burned out." and "everyone dies and you get to play a better game with a better DM" I've never thrown out such a comment. I wrote everyone gets to play a better game. Stop strawmaning.
I didn't even write the party can't die. Obviously the party can die. What I'm saying is in PF2 it's not a big deal - it's only a problem for players who want to play PF2 (this obviously includes the DM).
Elleth wrote: EberronHoward wrote: But don't all the caster classes have customization built into them? Sorcerer Bloodlines, Wizard Spell Schools, Druid Orders, Cleric Domains, and Bard Muses all offer ways to differentiate one PC of the same class from another. They do. It just doesn't necessarily feel like that. My wizard player before he left the playtest (2 of my players hated it, 4 seem to really like it) felt like human was the only reasonable choice for his level 1 non-universalist wizard, simply because he didn't get to pick a feat at level 1 (I think cleric and druid seem better at face value to players there though?)
Whereas say, the barbarian clocks in and gets to celebrate the fact he can catch fire and take advantage of the action economy with sudden charge. Mhm well in the case of the wizard I'd play with the idea to make all the schools a feat (Prequisite that no school feat has been taken already). While it wouldn't change anything at first glance it would make multiclassing more interesting and character creation more consistent.
Anyhow, it isn't even a question of power more of flavor. Choosing spells is customization and tells the players what kind of person a character is. But there could be more to it. Feats feel more unique than for example a fireball spell which can be cast by wizards, certain, clerics, certain sorcerors and so on. Class feats provide class identity, whereas spells provide utility.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
In my opinion one key issue here is that Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, and Bard class abilities are divided up via Class Feat, while the martial classes get base abilities that grant automatic bonuses while they level AND class feats.
For instance, at level 1 the bard in PF1 gets: Bardic Performance with 4 performances (technically 2 are the same performance), Bardic Knowledge, Spells (2 known, 1/day + Bonus for CHA) / Cantrips (4 known). They then automatically gain additional strength with 2 of the performances they learn, as well as a more powerful bonus for Bardic Knowledge.
In PF2 the level 1 bard gets: 2 Compositions, Spells (1 known, 2/day) / Cantrips (4 known) and 1 Muse which grants access to an additional spell known and one of these 3 feats: Versatile Performance, Bardic Lore, or Lingering Performance. Only the Bardic Lore ability (if chosen) grows with level and only to Expert proficiency.
So basically in the playtest, abilities that were core bard are now "options" that we have to choose between. As we advance we continue to have to choose between increasing the power of those options or selecting new options. By contrast, the martial classes get their base abilities that increase (like the Rogues sneak attack) AND new class feat options.
I think there needs to be more "class" in the class' automatic abilities to allow for more "options" in the class feats.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Gaterie Gaterie wrote:
Yes, obviously.
I don't know the rules you're using, but in the rules I use, players can't play a dead PC. If the party dies, no player can play and this ends the game.
Now, the initial assertion was: "I disagree the rule is, if the casters are burned out of spell slots the adventuring day ends"; and you disagree with that. Let's look at what happens if the casters are out of spells and there's a new encounter.
First, "being out of spells" doesn't mean "being dead". Casters that are out of spells are fine, thanks for them. in the other hand, it means "the fighter (and other martials) can't get healed anymore - nor buffed nor helped in any way". In the other hand, this is the fighter's role to go into melee to protect the party. So "being out of spells" actually means "the fighter has a serious risk to die in any encounter" - ie it doesn't change much for casters, but it put a risk on non-casters……
The complete quote I was responding to was “Then everyone dies and you get to play a better game with a better DM. So what?” in response to saying a DM may still run encounters even if the party is low in resources. Based upon the context and the “with a better DM part” of the statement, it made seem that DM’s that have death in their games are worse by comparison, and that DM's should avoid PC deaths. So, not strawmaning because you left a comment without explaining your position, and that could very well be interpreted as such.
Now has far going into mechanics of being out of spells, and impact it has on party make-up. Yes, it true that a spellcaster with out spells are much less effective at supporting the team {buff spells, damaging spells ect} and then starts becoming more of a liability to the team as a whole. A fighter will now have to fight without the support of spells, while basically playing an escort mission for the now spell-less spell caster. But that situation is not one sided to the fighter, the spell less spellcaster instead of being able to contribute to the fight, and have the ability to defend themselves must now must try to survive a fight without any abilities, and whom are the most venerable to dying because they lack {most} abilities to defend themselves. So, yes, when a spellcaster runs out of spells, there is more pressure on the team, including the spellcaster themselves.
However, this situation is not one sided to spellcaster, and becoming ‘dead weight’ to the team. Lets reverse the example and say the Wizard has all there spells and the Fighter only has 1 HP left. Like the Spell-less before, the Fighter will not be able to do there job of defending the party, as a single hit will bring them down, and create even more problems for everyone as a whole. Instead the Wizard then needs to use there limited spell resources to defend the Fighter, while at the same time taking care the foe attacking them. The wizard will more likely be the target of attacks, as there protector does not have the resources to protect them, and, like the buff-less fighter in the pervious example, will be at a greater risk of dying, both due to attacks, and running out of spells. So yes, any party member running out of resources {spells, HP, ect} will have a detrimental effect on the party as a whole, and will pose a greater risk of death to everyone as a whole.
This gets applied to your examples of the night ambush as well, as a 1 HP fighter will do little to help the situation, and survivability becomes dependant on the capabilities of the wizard. However there is also the assumption within the ambush example that there is no world or player agency. For example, are there any creatures 4 kilometers away from the dungeon that would ambush a party? What are the odds that creature(s) would come across the party (just because there is a creature in the area, does not mean a fight will happen.) Did the party take percussions, say the Ranger using Survival to see if the area they are planning to camp is well traveled, and what traveled through it by the tracks left behind? Did they hide their camp? As far as the battle goes, are they using tactics that make the best of their limited resources (an easy battle can become deadly, and a deadly battle can become easy depending on how the PC’s acts.), and did they prepare for that situation? {for example, setting up in an area where they could not easily get boxed in should an ambush take place.}
As far as no one can play a dead character, yes that’s true {for the most part. I’m pretty sure there is are a couple of adventures dealing with dead characters roaming the afterlife.) But there is nothing that says a player cannot make a new character, nor does it means the games ends once everyone dies. The game changes, yes, as both players need to adjust to their new characters, and DM to the new story, but as stated before, deaths can be used to enhance the story and gameplay. Plus, going back to the idea of improvements, death can make for both better players and DMs. For example, it allows players to learn from mistakes { say letting the player know that a Wizard as a limited supplies of spells, and so should probably not be shooting Fireballs in the air each morning as a wake up call for the rest of the party, or that it’s a bad idea for the 1Hp Fighter to Leeroy Jenkins into the fight.) and allows the DM to expand on the story. So, if you meant by the “with a better DM.” meaning the DM of the game can become better for it, then I completely agree with you.
Neume wrote: For instance, at level 1 the bard in PF1 gets: Bardic Performance with 4 performances (technically 2 are the same performance), Bardic Knowledge, Spells (2 known, 1/day + Bonus for CHA) / Cantrips (4 known). They then automatically gain additional strength with 2 of the performances they learn, as well as a more powerful bonus for Bardic Knowledge.
In PF2 the level 1 bard gets: 2 Compositions, Spells (1 known, 2/day) / Cantrips (4 known) and 1 Muse which grants access to an additional spell known and one of these 3 feats: Versatile Performance, Bardic Lore, or Lingering Performance. Only the Bardic Lore ability (if chosen) grows with level and only to Expert proficiency.
I'd say that the spellcasting ability of the Bard still increases:
-cantrips keep improving as you level
- two of the Muse spells (Soothe and Summon Monster) can be heightened.
- the regular spells continue to rise in level and quantity at a consistent rate (switching between 1-2 new spells per day w/a higher level every 2 levels).
I'd say this is a lot of automatic progression baked into the game, not even accounting that the progression for Bards in PF2 goes much higher (up to 9th-level spells).
Hmm, there is a slight limit in comparison of PF1 bards, vs PF2 bards, because of differencing roles. The Bard in PF1 was the Jack-of-All-Trades class. It was definitely not as powerful in terms of spells, but arguably was a bit better in skills and defence {more so better with saves}.
The PF2 Bard is built more like a spellcaster, with subtle nods to its past Jack-of-All-Trades origins, but oddly at the cost of its spellcasting. The bard starts out with a decent selection of weapons, and light armor, along with a very good number of skills (2nd only to the Rogue). But, as PF2 seems to be shaping up to be a game of specialization, the Bard does not have the tools in this regard to keep these skills up {not additional skill increases, no weapon prof increases ect). Which leads to magic, which does increase much future then PF1. However, in comparison to other spellcasters, they are really only 75% as good {one less spell slot/spell known at each spell level), which, for the thing your class specializes in PF2, is not a good spot.
The other thing, going back to spellcasters in general, and class feats is the changes to spells in PF2. A lot of spellcasting classes in PF1 did not really get a lot of class features because Spells were suppose to be the substitute for them, and spells were {arguably Over Powered} enough to fill in that role. It is my personal belief that this thought process carried over to spellcasting classes in PF2, as they got less innate class abilities that improved over time, and less class feats, as there improvements in spellcasting would carry them as it did in PF1. However {and mind you, while I'm in the camp spells could use a slight power-up, I really don't want them to go back to the power they were in PF1 in this version of PF2} due to the lesser power of spells, this does not seem the case, as spells are no longer as reliable {and definitely not as OP} as in PF1 to carry this. While {as EberronHoward pointed out} DC's are no longer dependant on spell level allowing for more use of lower level slots, however effects are also no longer based on Caster Level but based upon the slot used, meaning there is just as much pressure on more limited higher level slots as before. Which makes there main feature seem a pretty limited one.
I'm very sorry for the long posts. {its both very interesting and very complicated subject, with just as many ways to look at even the smallest of details. After thinking about this for a little, I do not envy the people whom are doing the 1.6 update.} All though I think with all the posts I can be a bit more concise with my Rogue and Bard comment=
Because the Rogue had both innate class features and greater number of class feats, I felt less of a need to optimize him as a stat block to survive, and instead optimize him as an actual character {personality, background ect. what he was lead into what he could do.}. For the Bard, whom seemingly did not have this support, I felt the need to optimize him as a stat block 1st to survive, and then build him as a character around those choices.
Recent threads in Classes
|
