| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm deeply unsure what purpose a Gunslinger Class serves that an Archetype doesn't do better, but yes, I suspect an Archetype is in the offing even if they do create it as a Class for some reason.
I wonder if we couldn't just jam all the Grit, Panache, Luck, and Inspiration classes into a single package for PF2 which can be built in a variety of ways. Since "you have uncommon moxie/insight" is a thing that no current classes do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm deeply unsure what purpose a Gunslinger Class serves that an Archetype doesn't do better, but yes, I suspect an Archetype is in the offing even if they do create it as a Class for some reason.I wonder if we couldn't just jam all the Grit, Panache, Luck, and Inspiration classes into a single package for PF2 which can be built in a variety of ways. Since "you have uncommon moxie/insight" is a thing that no current classes do.
You could really just make them how martials spend Focus Points TBH. I'd be into that.
|
Have we gotten confirmation that the multiclassing is sticking around? I really hope so. They could potentially create a variant system for multiclassing in the more traditional level spending way, but IMO it shouldn't be a core feature.
I guess I can see how my notes and the discussion focused more on archetype archetypes than multiclassing. But my understanding of the conversation was that it assumed multiclassing archetypes were still very much a thing. E.g., the reference to the problems with PF1 multiclassing.
Archetypes. “We thought people really weren’t going to like them. But most people liked them just fine.” (But everyone hated the pirate archetype.) Fix: archetypes now have other types of feats internal. I think he means(?), spend the class feat to buy into pirate, but then you can spend a skill feat to get a pirate-specific skill feat, instead of everything running through class feats—the customization bottleneck discussed on here.
Was there a backup plan for archetypes? There was an opportunity to possibly go back to PF1-style multiclassing. This system would be more forgiving, but still some of the same problems: not good at the job your party needs you to be good at while still not being good at the job you’re trying to pick up . . . unless over time we release a lot of broken bits trying to fix that. JB talks about swapping out class feature archetypes as very possible to build in in the future, but the point here was to focus on class feats since that’s new and needs testing and that’s what you’re supposed to spend to customize your character and express your character idea.
* * *
JB: Some archetypes “want to” have skill based things, some even ancestry based things, really. And it didn’t make a lot of sense to spend a class feat on something about, say, swimming. So confirming the above hint, that archetypes give you access to whatever is in the basket: skill feat, ancestry feat, class feat, whatever. “Giving us permission tools,” kind of like the rarity system. New player doesn’t need to learn everything, just the core knowledge and the specific basket of what’s available to them at lvl 1. Over time, that basket expands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, PF1 had a bunch of archetypes for "this one does guns" (e.g. Holy Gun Paladins) so it makes a lot of sense to make "uses guns" an archetype even if Gunslinger is a class again.I'm deeply unsure what purpose a Gunslinger Class serves that an Archetype doesn't do better, but yes, I suspect an Archetype is in the offing even if they do create it as a Class for some reason.
The gunslinger also has the aspect of 'do crazy stunts with deeds and dares', even though most of them are still gun-based.
So does the Swashbuckler, though, and they are a bit more universal both in their concept and their list of deeds, so I wouldn't be surprised if they got released as a full class at some point, rather than the gunslinger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree; I think the PF1e Gunslinger would better be represented as "Swashbuckler with the Gunslinger archetype" rather than bringing it back as a full class.
|
Have we gotten confirmation that the multiclassing is sticking around? I really hope so. They could potentially create a variant system for multiclassing in the more traditional level spending way, but IMO it shouldn't be a core feature.
We've gotten confirmation that most people liked it (it got mentioned in a Twitch stream, I think). So it sticking around seems pretty much assured, yeah.
I wonder if we couldn't just jam all the Grit, Panache, Luck, and Inspiration classes into a single package for PF2 which can be built in a variety of ways. Since "you have uncommon moxie/insight" is a thing that no current classes do.
Yeah, that wold be my guess as to what they'll probably do. As for the Class's name I'm less positive, but it will probably be one thing.
You could really just make them how martials spend Focus Points TBH. I'd be into that.
I'd be mostly on board with this, but I suspect it's not what we're getting. Some people don't like keeping track of points, and don't want consumable resources on their martials.
The gunslinger also has the aspect of 'do crazy stunts with deeds and dares', even though most of them are still gun-based.
So does the Swashbuckler, though, and they are a bit more universal both in their concept and their list of deeds, so I wouldn't be surprised if they got released as a full class at some point, rather than the gunslinger.
Yeah, I'm not sure it'll be called Swashbuckler but the Panache/Grit mechanic as a Class's 'core thing' seems more likely than arbitrarily pairing it with guns.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Might have a Daredevil class that has choices of Styles that could lead toward things like a Swashbuckler, a Crack Shot(which could be bow/crossbow or take a gun Archtype), an Acrobat (focusing more on moment/defense than offence) or some other options I haven't thought of? It would have as a core aspect some sort of Grit/Panache/Ki built in. For instance a samurai might be a fighter taking a daredevil multiclass to access some Ki based abilities? Granted Ki abilities are assoicated with Monks, but it seems like they could fit in this sort of a framework too.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing is "unplayable' so that statement is meaningless. An NPC Commoner is playable. The question is whether the class is fun to play and has some non-trivial purpose in the game. Neither was true for me in PF2 and I am not alone in that opinion. IMO, Paizo didn't create a Ranger for people who played Rangers in PF1, they made one for people who don't play Rangers. Maybe those people liked it.
A PF2 Ranger is quite a bit more playable than a PF1 Commoner. When I say 'playable' I mean that you can play one in a normal PC group and not feel useless much more often than anyone else. I had a Ranger in the PC group in parts 1, 4, and 7 of my Doomsday Dawn game, and even with terrible dice luck she was a perfectly reasonable PC. Not outstanding by any means, but not terrible or anything either. She was outshone by the others, but not strongly so.
I agree with parts of your post and not others (in particular, I'll note that all 4-level casters are now spell point users, and that adding in some spell point effects on Ranger is casually easy and something they've mentioned doing)...but I agree that Ranger needs a better focus on what it is, as well as a bit of a power upgrade. Of course, it needed that focus in 3.5 and PF1, too. And debatably in AD&D before that...
Nothing is "unplayable' so that statement is meaningless. An NPC Commoner is playable. The question is whether the class is fun to play and has some non-trivial purpose in the game. Neither was true for me in PF2 and I am not alone in that opinion. IMO, Paizo didn't create a Ranger for people who played Rangers in PF1, they made one for people who don't play Rangers. Maybe those people liked it.
I can agree with that, rangers and paladins felt like big departures from their PF1 counterparts compared to the rest, sorcerers are still sorcerers, same with every other class including alchemist. But ranger and paladin did feel new... Even if i do like them a lot more than the ones from before and that both me and my players feel that they are more fun i can agree with that. Those two feel like a big departure when compared to PF1.
I mean, PF1 had a bunch of archetypes for "this one does guns" (e.g. Holy Gun Paladins) so it makes a lot of sense to make "uses guns" an archetype even if Gunslinger is a class again.Well the nice thing is that pretty much any class will also be an archetype given how multiclassing works. But I don't think the gunslinger really has enough meat to warrant a full blown class. Like, even people who wanted to be dedicated gunslingers tended to stop taking levels of it after 5.
Have we gotten confirmation that the multiclassing is sticking around? I really hope so. They could potentially create a variant system for multiclassing in the more traditional level spending way, but IMO it shouldn't be a core feature.
Wasn't the gunslinger originally going to be an Alternate Class of fighter, much like the Ninja, Samurai and Antipaladin as alternate classes of Rogue, Cavelier and Paladin, basically an extended archetype? I seem to recall something about that before Ultimate Combat came out, but then it morphed into a full class. So that might explain why it's a bit thin. And would also lend towards the idea of changing it back into an archetype.
|
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whai sword 'n' bord when u can has smash face 2h (or maybe twf)? The discrepancy in rise of attack and AC in PF1 made sacrificing offense for defense only really worth it with some cookie cutter specialised defensive builds. And we're back in the "this could work, but you'll need book A, B, X, Y and Z in order for this, pretty much iconic and straightforward build to compare to an effortlessly made greatsword user".
I dunno. I just wasn't worried that much about whether it was "worth it" or "as good as X". I contributed my fair share, did adequate damage, and I didn't feel like a failure, nor did anyone else in the party think I was.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, PF1 had a bunch of archetypes for "this one does guns" (e.g. Holy Gun Paladins) so it makes a lot of sense to make "uses guns" an archetype even if Gunslinger is a class again.I'm deeply unsure what purpose a Gunslinger Class serves that an Archetype doesn't do better, but yes, I suspect an Archetype is in the offing even if they do create it as a Class for some reason.
I wouldn't mind seeing gunslinger as a "roguish, does fancy tricks with guns" class, with a general gun archetype for people who just want to kill efficiently.
|
|
Wasn't the gunslinger originally going to be an Alternate Class of fighter, much like the Ninja, Samurai and Antipaladin as alternate classes of Rogue, Cavelier and Paladin, basically an extended archetype? I seem to recall something about that before Ultimate Combat came out, but then it morphed into a full class. So that might explain why it's a bit thin. And would also lend towards the idea of changing it back into an archetype.
I believe so.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't the gunslinger originally going to be an Alternate Class of fighter, much like the Ninja, Samurai and Antipaladin as alternate classes of Rogue, Cavelier and Paladin, basically an extended archetype? I seem to recall something about that before Ultimate Combat came out, but then it morphed into a full class. So that might explain why it's a bit thin. And would also lend towards the idea of changing it back into an archetype.
That's how it worked during the Ultimate Combat playtest, yeah.
Nothing is "unplayable' so that statement is meaningless. An NPC Commoner is playable. The question is whether the class is fun to play and has some non-trivial purpose in the game. Neither was true for me in PF2 and I am not alone in that opinion. IMO, Paizo didn't create a Ranger for people who played Rangers in PF1, they made one for people who don't play Rangers. Maybe those people liked it.A PF2 Ranger is quite a bit more playable than a PF1 Commoner. When I say 'playable' I mean that you can play one in a normal PC group and not feel useless much more often than anyone else. I had a Ranger in the PC group in parts 1, 4, and 7 of my Doomsday Dawn game, and even with terrible dice luck she was a perfectly reasonable PC. Not outstanding by any means, but not terrible or anything either. She was outshone by the others, but not strongly so.
I'd say the Alchemist fails the playability test by that standard than. My alchemist just felt like dead weight most of the time. A lot of that was the math making it so they couldn't really do anything well, so should be improved with the math changes. But other issues like losing poison on a miss, worthless splash damage from bombs, lame selection of alchemical items giving poor bonuses for short durations and often being too situational, mutagens having an onset time and punishing penalties for lackluster effects, many of the class feats feeling like false choices etc. The ranger certainly needs some love though, it's functionality and feel are both lacking. Paladin needs a complete overhaul to actually be a paladin again and not reactive armor dude.
I agree with parts of your post and not others (in particular, I'll note that all 4-level casters are now spell point users, and that adding in some spell point effects on Ranger is casually easy and something they've mentioned doing)...but I agree that Ranger needs a better focus on what it is, as well as a bit of a power upgrade. Of course, it needed that focus in 3.5 and PF1, too. And debatably in AD&D before that...
Giving spell point powers makes sense as an alternative to spells. But there is the problem with them being a bit feat starved as N N 959 mentioned previously. Using those precious feats for powers would mean you're falling behind in the other feats you need to be functional as a ranger. I think that's an issue with many of the class setups in the playtest. I'd rather classes get back some more core abilities as standard for the class, and use class feats for just customization instead of being where all your abilities come from.
I can agree with that, rangers and paladins felt like big departures from their PF1 counterparts compared to the rest, sorcerers are still sorcerers, same with every other class including alchemist. But ranger and paladin did feel new... Even if i do like them a lot more than the ones from before and that both me and my players feel that they are more fun i can agree with that. Those two feel like a big departure when compared to PF1.Ironically, I found the PF2 Paladin far more interesting (but not effective) than the PF1 version. I would never say the PF2 Paladin was an improvement. It's simply a completely different class with an approach that I enjoyed. I've posted that Paizo should take the PF2 Ranger and call it the Hunter. That way, people who enjoyed it can still play it. And people who want to play a Ranger can wait till Paizo creates something that actually feels like a Ranger.
Well... I felt the same for both of them xD
But i did always hate all classes that got 4th level casting and started without anything. My players and me enjoyed both of them a found them lot more interesting in the playtest, i mean ranger gets 2 stupid features in my opinion. Nature’s Edge and Wild Stride but getting legendary in perception is quite a differential. If snares get a small buff and rangers get a decent archer path, a viable crossbow path(The current one is not bad but it's just worse than going bow) i think the class is going in a pretty decent way.
I wouldn't mind seeing gunslinger as a "roguish, does fancy tricks with guns" class, with a general gun archetype for people who just want to kill efficiently.I mean, PF1 had a bunch of archetypes for "this one does guns" (e.g. Holy Gun Paladins) so it makes a lot of sense to make "uses guns" an archetype even if Gunslinger is a class again.I'm deeply unsure what purpose a Gunslinger Class serves that an Archetype doesn't do better, but yes, I suspect an Archetype is in the offing even if they do create it as a Class for some reason.
I think I'd prefer "roguish, does fancy tricks" was its own class and "good with guns" was an archetype you could attach to it. I'd like it if I could play the action movie character with whatever range of weapons.
Arguably though you can do fancy tricks already with the fighter, rogue, or monk, especially when you supplement them with skill feats like wall jump, cat fall, or kip up.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the PFS scenarios I played (first and second), I felt more "useless much more often than anyone else"...by a country mile. The Paladin was WAY more impactful than my Ranger, and he was played by someone who had never played any table-top RPG until he joined me for the Playtest.
From description, it sounds like that might have as much to do with being an archer as with being a Ranger. Ranged combat is profundly terrible and punitive in the playtest (at least for non-Fighters)...something I've mentioned before and have every hope they'll fix.
In my game, the Ranger went TWF and did quite a bit better. She got overshadowed, but several fights would not have been won (or not nearly as easily) without her contributions.
When I say "vision" I'm really talking about class concept which serves a non-trivial purpose. It's about having a class identity whose core abilities have a substantive impact affecting the outcome of the adventure both in and out of combat. For example, a Rogue or Cleric both posses specific skills sets which are often crucial to advancing the story. Can we say that about the Ranger?
I agree with this.
They were a trifle unfocused in PF1, but at least there were legitimate upsides...those are harder to find in PF2. Personally, I'd bring them back to their roots as skill characters (one of very few Classes to get % skills like Rogues in AD&D 2E), and give them a bunch of wilderness stuff basically free, and some extra Skill Feats and Skill Ranks. Make them a mid point between something like Fighter and a Rogue with less Skills and better martial stuff than the Rogue, but more skills and worse martial stuff than the Fighter.
I'd say the Alchemist fails the playability test by that standard than. My alchemist just felt like dead weight most of the time. A lot of that was the math making it so they couldn't really do anything well, so should be improved with the math changes. But other issues like losing poison on a miss, worthless splash damage from bombs, lame selection of alchemical items giving poor bonuses for short durations and often being too situational, mutagens having an onset time and punishing penalties for lackluster effects, many of the class feats feeling like false choices etc. The ranger certainly needs some love though, it's functionality and feel are both lacking. Paladin needs a complete overhaul to actually be a paladin again and not reactive armor dude.
Both Alchemists I saw played were actually really effective. The first, at 4th level in Chapter 2, was a pure bomber and very nasty with it, almost single-handedly dealing with the manticore, while the second was a Mutagen focused build in Chapter 6, who was extremely good at punching things to death, and could dabble in any needed role via his Mutagens.
The second, of course, was a Mutagenist post-update and thus lacked onset times...speaking of which, the update that introduced the Alchemist fields of study also improved splash damage on some of the bombs quite a bit, and the Feat to make it your Int remains good. So some of your issues seem to have been at least partially solved as of update 1.6 (though they were much more true early on...everything but bomb users with a specific build had issues early on).
That said, nobody ever used poisons because they looked terrible, and there was general agreement that the utility items were pretty bad, too. I'm not sure either Alchemist carried much of anything but elixirs of Healing, Bombs, and Mutagens...ever. Alchemist could definitely use some serious work. Unlike Ranger or some varieties of Sorcerer, though, the parts that are good and work well are actually pretty good and work pretty well, which is helpful.
Paladin could definitely use a more robust Smite-style ability just for continuity of character, and a bit less reliance on Reactions, but is otherwise more or less fine mechanically, and particularly power level-wise.
Giving spell point powers makes sense as an alternative to spells. But there is the problem with them being a bit feat starved as N N 959 mentioned previously. Using those precious feats for powers would mean you're falling behind in the other feats you need to be functional as a ranger. I think that's an issue with many of the class setups in the playtest. I'd rather classes get back some more core abilities as standard for the class, and use class feats for just customization instead of being where all your abilities come from.
Several Class abilities very much exist even as-is...but yes. Personally, I'd like to see a lot of the Skill Feat-like stuff in Rangers made inherent in the Class making them inherently great at, well, wilderness stuff, and replace that sort of thing with more directly combative stuff plus Spell Point options. That'd give you combat, spell, and animal companion options, which seems reasonable to me.
I could not agree with this more. One of the major dislikes I have with PF2 is that the feat system feels punitive, at least for the Ranger. The experience is not one where I feel like I'm upgrading my character, it's a feeling of where do I put the bandaid and stop the bleeding. If Paizo requires more feats to get spells and cast spells, I am sure I will be so disgusted with the process, I won't bother. They only thing I wanted for spells for my Ranger was Magical Knack, and that cost half of a feat. Having to "pay" for spells on a Ranger is going to be a show stopper for me.
That seems a somewhat extreme reaction. Yes, just tacking on Spell Point options to the current Ranger would have huge issues, but they don't need to do it that way. My above suggestion of making them much more skill based would allow a fair amount of space for Feat choices to be actual choices in where to focus one's power rather than 'band aids' and I think in circumstances like that, needing a Feat for spells is sort of a 'best of both worlds' for those who want a spell less Ranger (and such people absolutely exist...I generally prefer spell-less Rangers, for example).
I should point out, that "power" was never my concern. I could live with not being the best at damage, but having no purpose, no unique/needed contribution was far more demoralizing during my game play.
What you describe is exactly what I'd define as 'power' in an RPG character: An ability to effect the world in meaningful, effective, an unique ways. That's what power is. And the Ranger in PF2 needs some more of it.
Paizo nerfed ranged damage, and stuck me with a shortbow? I can accept that because in someways it makes more sense and seems more fair. I had visions of playing Doomsday and running it for others, by my experience with the unneeded Ranger killed my interest in playing PF2. And if you're reading between the lines, this was a painful experience for me. It still bothers me. I love PF1 (thought it has many flaws) I have a strong appreciation for Paizo and would rather play Pathfinder 2 over D&D 5, so I am here hoping that Paizo understands what I am conveying...what many have tried to convey.
I'm very sorry it was such a bad experience for you. That really sucks. And I definitely hope that Paizo hears the complaints about the Ranger, as well as the issues with all other Classes that have been brought up as well as all the other issues that have been brought up with everything else, for that matter.
I have every hope and expectation that they have indeed heard most of them, and will be taking measures to correct the causes of the issues. We'll see how right I am in that expectation, but signs are actually looking pretty promising at the moment.
Whai sword 'n' bord when u can has smash face 2h (or maybe twf)? The discrepancy in rise of attack and AC in PF1 made sacrificing offense for defense only really worth it with some cookie cutter specialised defensive builds. And we're back in the "this could work, but you'll need book A, B, X, Y and Z in order for this, pretty much iconic and straightforward build to compare to an effortlessly made greatsword user".I dunno. I just wasn't worried that much about whether it was "worth it" or "as good as X". I contributed my fair share, did adequate damage, and I didn't feel like a failure, nor did anyone else in the party think I was.
Plus 1,000 to this post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both Alchemists I saw played were actually really effective. The first, at 4th level in Chapter 2, was a pure bomber and very nasty with it, almost single-handedly dealing with the manticore, while the second was a Mutagen focused build in Chapter 6, who was extremely good at punching things to death, and could dabble in any needed role via his Mutagens.
My mind boggles. This is so far from my experience. Some of that might be that I am notorious for bad rolls, but I think that's mostly confirmation bias really. It was hard to hit at all.
The second, of course, was a Mutagenist post-update and thus lacked onset times...speaking of which, the update that introduced the Alchemist fields of study also improved splash damage on some of the bombs quite a bit, and the Feat to make it your Int remains good. So some of your issues seem to have been at least partially solved as of update 1.6 (though they were much more true early on...everything but bomb users with a specific build had issues early on).
Yeah, most of my experience was before 1.6. We did part 7 afterwards, but the game imploded upon all the built up frustrations with the playtest during the first fight. But I was still having a hard time hitting with my bombs and lost access to mutagens. 1.6 does improve things, but like a lot of things both doesn't go far enough and creates new problems in the process. The exclusivity of the Fields feels pretty bad to me. It makes the class loose it's versatility and only be able to focus on one aspect of the class. Conceptually, that versatility is a big draw of the class, but fields basically locks it away so you can only be good with one. Only bomber specialists get the proficiency boosts, which are vital to being able to hit. Only mutagen specialists even get access to mutagens without GM approval. And the Chirurgeon and poisoner fields are just plain bad. It feels to me that you could give all of the field abilities to all alchemists and it wouldn't be too much, and probably still wouldn't be enough to fix the class.
I'm not seeing the splash damage increases, it looks like they're still all 1 point unless you buy the feat to add int, and that feat is one of those false choices I was talking about, it's required to just be able to be semi-functional with bombs, so it's not really a choice. Int mod to splash damage should probably be the default. And there is the fact that your mods are much lower than they would be in PF1, so even INT mod for splash damage quickly falls behind.
That said, nobody ever used poisons because they looked terrible, and there was general agreement that the utility items were pretty bad, too. I'm not sure either Alchemist carried much of anything but elixirs of Healing, Bombs, and Mutagens...ever. Alchemist could definitely use some serious work. Unlike Ranger or some varieties of Sorcerer, though, the parts that are good and work well are actually pretty good and work pretty well, which is helpful.
Poisons are terrible. I tried using them a bit in part 4 and it was a failure. I tried poisoning javelins, but only trained proficiency meant I still couldn't hit, poison is lost on a miss and then there is the save that the monster would most likely make the save anyway because of how overbalanced they were. Some of this should be fixed with the math fix, but not the losing poisons with a miss. There's a feat that lets you deliver contact poisons in combat, but that's horrible because of the 1 minute onset times. It's rare to see 10 round combats, and when you do, the enemy you hit on round 1 is probably not going to be still standing on round 11 anyway. Inhalation poisons might be doable, but I didn't try because of the problem with my friends in melee being at risk. So yeah, poisoners need work.
Those utility items are a real disappointment. That's where a lot of the appeal of alchemists comes, having all sorts of weird elixirs and such to help deal with problems. But they're all so situational, and bad even in their situation. They should gain back some more of the power and flavor of the old spell-like extracts.
The alchemist concept is strong, unlike ranger and paladin. It's just the implementation was falling far short.
Paladin could definitely use a more robust Smite-style ability just for continuity of character, and a bit less reliance on Reactions, but is otherwise more or less fine mechanically, and particularly power level-wise.
Yeah, it's not so much the power but the 'feel' of the paladin which is really lacking. It just doesn't feel at all like a paladin. It's just Heavy Armor Person with reactions, not some righteous ass-kicking beacon of goodness. Retributive strike isn't a bad ability as something more you can do, but it's absolutely horrible as the signature ability of the class. The paladin needs to be proactive, not waiting around for their friends to get smacked around to trigger their ability. Basing any class around reactions is a terrible idea, and paladins in particular. And I really hate being forced into heavy armor. The 1.6 alternate paladins are not promising considering they double down on reactions and have really arbitrary focuses for each alignment. Lawful is always defensive, neutral always focused on redemption etc. This really doesn't follow from the alignment, it's just arbitrarily assigned. Paladin is a perfectly playable class, but it doesn't feel right.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My mind boggles. This is so far from my experience. Some of that might be that I am notorious for bad rolls, but I think that's mostly confirmation bias really. It was hard to hit at all.
Some of it comes down to bomb type. Bottled Lightning makes people flat-footed, so if you can hit with just one of those it sets up a bit of a feedback loop since hitting flat-footed TAC is a lot less difficult than hitting normal AC.
Some of it is obviously optimization, with a Dex of 16 at 1st level being basically required on all bombers.
And there's the stuff nobody tells you, like that you should never attack with more than one bomb per turn. Or how important buffs are if you can get them (there was a Bard in the 4th level group...that certainly helped).
And some of it is indeed luck, the attack percentages are iffy enough in the playtest that a run of bad luck can make almost anyone look pretty bad.
Yeah, most of my experience was before 1.6.
Yeah, 1.6 definitely has its own issues. I personally don't think losing Mutagens was intended, and definitely think it will be clarified to not be the case in the final version of the rules. An expanded and improved list of utility items also seems like almost a sure thing. Both of those would help the situation quite a bit.
For bomb damage, check the Alchemist's Fire, its splash damage scales to the dice, making it a reasonable option for non-bombers. Bombers still need to take the Feat, of course.
Yeah, it's not so much the power but the 'feel' of the paladin which is really lacking. It just doesn't feel at all like a paladin.
What I'd really like is for all Paladins to get a 'Smite Evil' Spell Point spell that actually boosts their attacks vs. one Evil target for a minute (note: this can be a medium bonus, like a bonus in Good damage around the Barbarian Rage bonus or a bit higher). You could make it a Class Feat to make it optional, I suppose, but I'd be just as happy with them all having it. That makes it come from the same pool as Lay On Hands, but I'm fine with that (it was already mostly true for Oath of Vengeance Paladins in PF1 anyway). Add that in and I really think a lot of the complaints go away, even if some other stuff gets toned down a tad.
I'd also strongly like them to not be as tied to Heavy Armor, and for archer Paladins to be a thing (those poor Paladins of Erastil...).
I suspect it's specifically people who got started with 3.0 and 3.5. I started with AD&D 2E (when I was around 12, if I recall correctly) and I never had much fondness for Wands as 'stick full of spells' either.I mean as a probably "old" person (I started with the D&D red box, others can out-grog me, but I'm still kinda groggy) I have very, very little fondness for how wands worked in 3.x. So it wasn't purely an age thing, I imagine.
"My Magic Wand is spent, so now it's a worthless stick" never sat well with me.
I don't think you can associate it with age. I started before the Red Box and I thought the 3.x wands were fine. Folks just have different preferences, and that's entirely cool.
That said, you could use the item creation rules to make a shovel full of spells if you didn't like a stick, and you could make a stick that had 5 charges per day if you wanted.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've only been playing RPGs for about ten years and I don't like the idea of 3.x Wands either. The fastest way to take something literally magical and suck all the wonder out of it is to make it disposable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus 1,000 to this post.Whai sword 'n' bord when u can has smash face 2h (or maybe twf)? The discrepancy in rise of attack and AC in PF1 made sacrificing offense for defense only really worth it with some cookie cutter specialised defensive builds. And we're back in the "this could work, but you'll need book A, B, X, Y and Z in order for this, pretty much iconic and straightforward build to compare to an effortlessly made greatsword user".I dunno. I just wasn't worried that much about whether it was "worth it" or "as good as X". I contributed my fair share, did adequate damage, and I didn't feel like a failure, nor did anyone else in the party think I was.
My dream for PF2e is that the people who don't worry about whether their build is any good or not and the people who optimize their murder machines to the maximum will both be able to play at the same table without anyone feeling unable to contribute.
|
|
I don't think you can associate it with age. I started before the Red Box and I thought the 3.x wands were fine.
I also thought they were fine, I'm just not invested in the idea and have no objection to changing them.
Folks just have different preferences, and that's entirely cool.
Well, sure. But a lot of people prefer things to be the way they're used to them being, and the less experience they have with alternatives the more they object to such changes. That seems to me to be the major thing behind objecting to Wands not being spells in a can.
That said, you could use the item creation rules to make a shovel full of spells if you didn't like a stick, and you could make a stick that had 5 charges per day if you wanted.
Sure. I'm not really invested in there not being consumables or the form of magic items at all...which is why I'm not invested in Wands not changing.
I started before AD&D and I never have a problem with wands being able to be consumable. I also would have as a GM happily allowed a wizard to craft a wondrous magic item that was a wand that cast a spell 5 times a day as an option if that is what they wanted, instead.
For consistency, since I'm pretty sure I've read circumstances of people having wands run out, or that they knew were nearly running out so didn't use them, in novels. As such, I'm all for there being some option for a wand that does run out, even in the new rules, although it needs not be a constant 50 charges, battery. I was relatively happy with the mechanic of overuse potentially running a wand dry, as presented in another genre. Perhaps a small number of charges a day. If you use more than half of them in a day, or two within too short a time, you run a risk of damaging its ability to recharge and unless fixed by a magical crafter, it would simply have the remaining charges, until none, at which point it is magically speaking, destroyed. Anyway, even if the default type of wand changes, which I'm fine with, I just hope they have a cheaper consumable version for story reasons that can exist.
As to comments about the Paladin, the one in the playtest isn't anything like my favorite aspects of the Paladins from 2nd edition on through 3rd edition. As I'd contemplated, it does fit the 'Knight in Shining Armor'. So that Defender concept, I can understand, but I only played one paladin that might have every really worked as in either the original or revised playtest Paladin/Champion. For me due to the numerous good deities, Paladins needed to exemplify their faith, more than be a specific type of tank. They needed to be the weapon and horn of their deity, not a shield. For me, Paladins were about Holy Smite, Detecting Evil, their code (which I feel anathema does pretty good at) and expressing their deep faith in their daily life. The reactive nature of them in the playtest seems like a gamble for play. I've done reactive character concepts before, and they were fun, so hopefully I'll be able to find time to try one out. But they weren't as inspiring as the paladins of the past games; at least for me.
Ranger, I don't know, I didn't look close enough at it really. But I have to admit in retrospect, I have frequently loved playing rangers, and realize that I never really got an inspired concept when going through the playtest for a Ranger that I wanted to try. That isn't completely telling, but it gives me a hint that it might be lacking in something.
I look forward to seeing their final versions. I hope that those things that aren't as appealing seem better in the final version, but there seems like plenty to be interested in trying out, based on the playtest. I love that they redid Alchemy to be its own thing, although now all my own self developed lore explaining alchemists in P1 are kind of shot, but I generally liked much of their direction. I also liked that higher level adventures might be able to afford more powerful Alchemical bombs, but was kind of saddened that in making them a thing, they took away the alchemists ability to 'empower' their own bombs and make them do more damage than usual. [ie. wish an alchemist and a fighter both tossing a level-appropriate alchemist fire, that the alchemist did a definitively more damage both targeted and splash than the fighter, at least certain number of times per day.]
I'll also note, while it was pointed out that Traditional Class Archetypes that swap out class features were something that wasn't needing testing, and that it would show up in the new game, I'll also point out, I'm not certain we were really promised that it would absolutely show up in the Core rulebook. There are so many archetypes that have been created over time, we won't have nearly as much in core. But as pointed out, they needed to be able to explain/include multi-classing so we will absolutely have those archetypes. They will no doubt include some prestige archetypes as examples. But the traditional Archetypes might be something that pops up in later books. However, I'd suggest that they at the same time the rules come out, potentially offer up some 'draft' rules online for some things that didn't make it into the core rulebook, but give people a taste of what will be happening with some of those things that didn't make the cut for the first book. I would think posting a couple archetype examples would be an easy win to market upcoming books and provide people with a usable view of what is coming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. I'm not really invested in there not being consumables or the form of magic items at all...which is why I'm not invested in Wands not changing.
For me I want it to be clear that "consumable magic items" have a clear and diagetic sign for how/why they aren't reusable. Like a potion- you drink it and it's gone, cool. A scroll -after you use it the writing disappears or it bursts into flame, great. A knotted cord that every time you undo one of the knots, it casts a spell - I think that's from mythology.
But "my magic stick runs out after I wave it 50 times for no apparent reason except game mechanics" rankles. I mean, this isn't Starfinder where we can have a battery status readout.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can tell, wands-as-consumables has always been a gamist thing anyway. I've never found a single fictional source, except those that were inspired by D&D, where magic wands act as canned spells with limited uses.
I would wager most people who play the Ranger are not going into it expecting to be the primary damage dealer and yet, the Playtest seemed only focused on the combat viability of the class.
I agree.
I remember the very first Pathfinder game I played. Stewart at the Family Game Store in Savage, Maryland, had decided to try running a demo game of the new Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and talked four customers, including my wife and daughter, into participating. My family returned home to report that they had liked this Dungeons & Dragons variant, but their party had been captured by orcs, so could I please create a character and rescue them in the second game session? What class better for a stealthy woodland rescue than a ranger?
My second Pathfinder character was also a ranger. My wife had liked Pathfinder enough to buy the Core Rulebook, borrow the Rise of the Runelords modules (D&D 3.5 version, but she adapted it to Pathfinder), and ask me to join the party. I had read the rulebook and thought that Paizo had an interesting vision for gnomes, so I wanted to try out a gnome character. I built a character concept: Abu had grown up in Sanos Forest in Varisia and now wanted to go out to see the world. What would be the best class for someone who wanted to travel and explore, especially when starting from a forest? Ranger, again. Rise of the Runelords had a lot of mystery and the ranger's tracking and skills were handy for that. His damage in combat was mediocre, but that was not a problem until the party composition shifted to heavy in spellcasters: What to do with a Gnome Ranger Monk?.
My mind boggles. This is so far from my experience. Some of that might be that I am notorious for bad rolls, but I think that's mostly confirmation bias really. It was hard to hit at all.Some of it comes down to bomb type. Bottled Lightning makes people flat-footed, so if you can hit with just one of those it sets up a bit of a feedback loop since hitting flat-footed TAC is a lot less difficult than hitting normal AC.
Some of it is obviously optimization, with a Dex of 16 at 1st level being basically required on all bombers.
And there's the stuff nobody tells you, like that you should never attack with more than one bomb per turn. Or how important buffs are if you can get them (there was a Bard in the 4th level group...that certainly helped).
And some of it is indeed luck, the attack percentages are iffy enough in the playtest that a run of bad luck can make almost anyone look pretty bad.
That makes sense. We only had a bard in part 2 while the alchemist was in 1, 4 and 7. The bard bonuses were pretty nice to have. I did have dex 16 at the start, but I was mostly relying on self-buffing with Quicksilver Mutagen. The percentages were really rough. I think I generally needed low to mid teens on the D20 just to hit. I'm really looking forward to seeing more of the new math. That was probably the single biggest problem with the playtest (with resonance as second). Fixing that will go quite a ways to making it a more fun game to play. As it was, we only ever felt heroic while fighting creatures several levels below us.
Yeah, most of my experience was before 1.6.Yeah, 1.6 definitely has its own issues. I personally don't think losing Mutagens was intended, and definitely think it will be clarified to not be the case in the final version of the rules. An expanded and improved list of utility items also seems like almost a sure thing. Both of those would help the situation quite a bit.
For bomb damage, check the Alchemist's Fire, its splash damage scales to the dice, making it a reasonable option for non-bombers. Bombers still need to take the Feat, of course.
I agree that the mutagen loss was probably unintended. Unfortunately there was no clarification on this from the devs. I suspect they just decided to run with it and see what data they could get from the lack of mutagens.
I'm still not seeing the splash damage for Alchemist Fire. Am I missing something? It says "Alchemist’s fire deals the listed fire damage and persistent fire damage, as well as 1 fire splash damage." The persistent damage is equal to the number of dice, is that what you're thinking of? Or do you interpret that to mean that there is 1 splash damage per die as well? It does seem a bit ambiguous, but I read that as the splash damage being fixed at 1, while the fire and persistent damage were as given in the chart.
Yeah, it's not so much the power but the 'feel' of the paladin which is really lacking. It just doesn't feel at all like a paladin.What I'd really like is for all Paladins to get a 'Smite Evil' Spell Point spell that actually boosts their attacks vs. one Evil target for a minute (note: this can be a medium bonus, like a bonus in Good damage around the Barbarian Rage bonus or a bit higher). You could make it a Class Feat to make it optional, I suppose, but I'd be just as happy with them all having it. That makes it come from the same pool as Lay On Hands, but I'm fine with that (it was already mostly true for Oath of Vengeance Paladins in PF1 anyway). Add that in and I really think a lot of the complaints go away, even if some other stuff gets toned down a tad.
I'd also strongly like them to not be as tied to Heavy Armor, and for archer Paladins to be a thing (those poor Paladins of Erastil...).
Smite Evil taking the place of Retributive Strike would help a lot. And your setup sound like a reasonable implementation of it. Retributive strike should stick around as a nice (potentially optional) extra, but the focus should be on smite. The features that add on to retributive strike should go to enhancing smite instead. That would make paladins feel much more like paladins again.
And yeah, archer paladins are certainly a thing (the Erastil Bow Paladin in our Wrath of the Righteous game was disgusting. Although a lot of that was from mythic as well as the fact that mostly we were against demons). Also with the opening of alignments, a Caden Calien swashbuckling Liberator in light armor with a rapier is a very valid concept. But I could see the concept of a lightly armored lawful paly still working too. Knight in Shining Armor isn't the only way to do a righteous avenger.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
@NN: That's an interesting analysis regarding your view of the theme or idea of the Ranger class. But please do keep in mind that others may view the class differently, or not share your evaluation of the Playtest Ranger.
You make your statements and claims in absolute and universal terms that don't acknowledge the possibility of differing views and frankly don't make sense in this context. For example, you assert that a PF2 Ranger that doesn't fully adhere to your specific vision would be "inaccurate" and on the "wrong path"—as if there's some Platonic ideal of The Ranger that any RGP class named "Ranger" must imitate (that's what a Ranger is," you insist), or be fundamentally, metaphysically flawed and a "failure" and "not a Ranger." But of course that's absurd! There's no Platonic ideal out there.
(Although there will of course be different views of what the theme/idea of the class ought to be given the tradition it's growing out of—you're expressing one such view, though without acknowledging that others might exist.)
This absolutist tendency is especially egregious where it leads you levy wild and uncalled for accusations of bad faith against the Paizo staff. You say that any Ranger that doesn't fully adhere to your specific vision would be "disingenuous" from the designers, and an attempt to "dupe" the players. C'mon now. That's neither necessary nor helpful.
Discussion of class theme, the traditions a class draws on or tries to capture, and whether the mechanics adequately capture or embody a specific thematic vision, can be interesting and fruitful. But the absolutist "my way or the highway" attitude of your post is not helpful at all. Please rein it in.
(P.S. For my own view, I pretty much agree with what MaxAstro says below.)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reality is, the Ranger does have a strong identity/vision, even through 3.5. Paizo seems to have either not recognized it, or simply chose not to promote it. Based on forums dicussions, the community at large is equally ignorant of that vision.
While you make some good points, I don't think "I know what this class should be better than Paizo or anyone in the community does" is a helpful way to express those points.
I'm personally also not very moved by tradition, so I find "the ranger should be based on the rangers in LotR because it originally was" not a strongly compelling argument either - especially going back that far. Rangers in D&D are fairly iconic for having animal companions but to my knowledge that wasn't a thing in LotR. "The ranger should be recognizable as the D&D ranger" is a stronger argument, but I still think secondary to "the ranger should be fun to play".
Everyone is going to have their own vision of what a class should be, and those visions won't always or often align, so Paizo does have to pick and choose among them; there isn't really such a thing as a "right" vision other than Paizo's because it's their game, after all. Or possibly the vision that sells the most units, but that's a rather dry way of looking at it.
Rangers are also in a tight place because they were originally woodsmen, but that's a narrow context - what does a Ranger do in a city, or in a desert, or underwater? Do you just not play Rangers in campaigns set in those places? Why have a core class that is only viable in 10% of settings?
Paizo tried to address that in 1e with things like favored terrain and more spell variety, but a fair portion of the Ranger was still clearly a forest creature.
2e's ranger seems to try to move farther away from that, which I'm all for since it widens the class's context. That said, they did make some distinctly odd choices with the class and it's definitely high on my list of classes I'd like to see straightened out for 2e.
I guess it's been two weeks since this (very informative!) interview. I wonder when we'll next hear from the design team?
I'm not really expecting much for a few months. I'm guessing that they'll probably break silence and start dropping teasers in the run-up to Paizocon. Maybe end of April. With more details coming at the con itself (maybe announcing the release schedule and launch lineup as well as the first PF2 AP).
I do remember there being floated the idea of doing a playtest post-mortum and a survey about the test itself. I'm not sure if that's still being thought about, but I'd like to see it. Right about not would be a good time for it. But the writing crunch to get PF2 done on time might prevent that from happening. And I don't think it was every really a firm proposal, just an idea of something that could be done.
My dream for PF2e is that the people who don't worry about whether their build is any good or not and the people who optimize their murder machines to the maximum will both be able to play at the same table without anyone feeling unable to contribute.Plus 1,000 to this post.Whai sword 'n' bord when u can has smash face 2h (or maybe twf)? The discrepancy in rise of attack and AC in PF1 made sacrificing offense for defense only really worth it with some cookie cutter specialised defensive builds. And we're back in the "this could work, but you'll need book A, B, X, Y and Z in order for this, pretty much iconic and straightforward build to compare to an effortlessly made greatsword user".I dunno. I just wasn't worried that much about whether it was "worth it" or "as good as X". I contributed my fair share, did adequate damage, and I didn't feel like a failure, nor did anyone else in the party think I was.
Close but no cigar; it’s often ‘those who don’t care if the character is optimal just that it can contribute. And that is not hard to do even in PF1, for all the flaws you might find.
It isn’t ‘not caring if their build is any good’ it’s ‘being satisfied with ‘good enough’
I'll be honest, the PF1 ranger was one of the few classes I engaged with purely on a "mechanic" level with basically no good overall sense on the thematics of the class. It was just "here's a package of stuff you can get if you take levels in this class and not another one."
Most of the rangers I saw were primarily "looking for feats without qualifying for prereqs" above all. Favored Enemy and terrain were mechanics I actively disliked because it put a tension between "guess what and where you will be fighting based on the premise of the campaign" and "what enemies and places is your character best at fighting, based on their backstory or personality" in a way no other class really had.
Director of Game Design
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
To claim some sort of dishonesty here is a bit far.
When looking at a class and its design, we not only looked at all of our sources (in the case of the ranger, going all the way back to Strategic Review, Vol 1, No 2) but also looking at how ideas around the class have changed over the years.
There were a lot of folks who had no love for the spellcasting. The favored enemy, which has been a part of the class since its earliest days evolved into hunting a target to make it a little more usable, and a little less like racial hatred, which was sometimes very hard to justify and uneven in the play space.
You may not agree with our decisions, but that was the process.
AN EXCITING NEW DUNGEONS & DRAGONS CLASS
By Joe Fischer
Rangers are a sub-class of Fighting Men, similar in many ways to
the new sub-class Paladins, for they must always remain Lawful or lose
all the benefits they gained (except, of course, experience as a fighter).
Strength is their Prime Requisite, but they must also have both Intelligence and Wisdom scores of at least 12 each, and a Constitution of at
least 15. The statistics regarding Rangers are:
Rangers Experience Points Hit Dice* SpelI Ability**
Runner 0 2 Nil
Strider 2500 3 Nil
Scout 5000 4 Nil
Guide 12000 5 Nil
Pathfinder 25000 6 Nil
Warder 50000 7 Nil
Guardian 100000 8 Nil
Ranger-Knight 175000 9 Cleric, 1st Level
Ranger-Lord 275000 10 +Magic-User, 1st Level
Ranger-Lord, 10th 550000 10 +2 +Cleric 2nd Level
Ranger-Lord, 11th 825000 10 +4 +Magic-User 2nd Level
Ranger-Lord, 12th 11OOOOO 10 +6 +Cleric 3rd Level
Ranger-Lord, 13th 1375000 10 +8 +Magic-User 3rd Level
*either with the standard system or the alternate system which
allows fighters 8-sided dice
**spell progression is as follows: when only 1st Level are usable,
then only one spell is usable, when 2nd Level spells can be
taken then the R-L gets 2 1st Level and 1 2nd Level, and at
3rd Level it is 3, 2 and 1 respectively.
Until they attain the 8th level (Ranger-Knight) characters in the
Ranger class are relatively weak, for they have a number of restrictions
placed upon them, These restrictions are:
- They may own only that which they can carry with them, and
excess treasure or goods must be donated to a worthy cause.
- They may not hire any men-at-arms or other servants or aides
of any kind whatsoever.
- Only two of the class may operate together.
Advantages which accrue to low-level Rangers are:
+They receive no regular bonuses for advancement due to ability,
but they automatically gain 4 experience points for every 3 earned.
+They have the ability to track the path of most creatures when outdoors, and even in dungeons they are often able to follow:
Monsters Action Regular Needs to Track
goes down a normal passage 01-65
goes through a normal door 01-55
goes through a trap door 01 - 50
goes up/down a chimney 01 - 40
goes through a secret door 01-30
he ranger so tracking must have observed the monster no more than
six turns previously when in dungeon situations. On the outdoor he has
a basic 90% chance of following a trail, with a 10% reduction for every
day old the signs are.
Because of their ability to track Rangers also are difficult to surprise,
requiring a roll of 1 instead of 1 or 2.
All Rangers gain a special advantage when fighting against monsters
of the Giant Class (Kobolds - Giants). For each level they have gained
they add +1 to their damage die against these creatures, so a 1st Level
Ranger adds +1, a 2nd Level +2, and so on.
Upon reaching the 8th and higher levels, Rangers begin to accrue a
number of advantages besides the use of spelIs already indicated.
+From 2-24 followers will join the character as soon as 9th level is
attained by him. These followers are detailed later.
+Ranger-Knights are able to employ magic items which heal or cure
disease, including scrolls.
+Ranger-Lords are able to employ all devices which deal with
Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, ESP, Telepathy, Telekenesis, and Teleportation, including scrolls.
Drawbacks which apply to the 8th and higher levels are:
-The 4 experience points for every 3 earned bonus is lost.
- Followers who are killed cannot be replaced, although regular
mercenaries can be.
-As already mentioned, if a Ranger turns Neutral or Chaotic he
loses all benefits of the class, becoming an ordinary Fighting Man.
Anybody want to go back to the lawful only rangers? Yeah.. me neither...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Joe and Max. NN you seriously need to get off the soapbox and take a breather.
Tolkien didn’t create the word ranger and it has a number of definitions. Gygax May have taken a lot of inspiration from Tolkein’s work but D&D/PF isn’t beholden to it (some consider this heresy but I’m honestly not much of a Tolkien fan, I respect him for what he did for the genre but I found his writing itself pretty meh). The definition of Tolkien’s rangers you quoted is pretty nebulous. Where does it state that rangers have spells? The talking to animals? That isn’t treated as magic in the books or in The One Ring, which is the RPG I’d recommend to a true Tolkien fan. Though I’ll warn you that even in that game being a ranger is a pretty open ended thing. More of a title than anything.
Back on topic... I do agree with the general consensus that rangers are one of if not the class that needs the most work. Their class feats are pretty uninspired, the combat ones are worse than a fighter’s and their animal companion is worse than a druid’s. At the moment traps are terrible but even if they get a boost they will likely be to niche to see widespread use. The one thing that they have and currently what defines them as different is hunt target. While favored enemy and terrain in PF1 were super useful when applicable they could easily be made useless. “We aren’t fighting aberrations or in a forest today? Well that sucks.” I understand and approve of the devs trying to make it more generalized with hunt target but it’s implementation, even post 1.6 is not great. If they’d taken a bit more from the slayer’s study target I think it’d be better and to top it off the class feats that are supposed to upgrade hunt target don’t noticeably do so.
So in general I think that hunt target needs more work. That they could use one more thing to differentiate them from other classes and maybe some extra skill feats as well. This alone may solve the problems though I suspect a slight overall power boost may be needed as well.