|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems sound on paper doesn't it? At the start of the playtest, i got invovled in a thread about Create Food / Water and the Forager skill. I tried to argue that Paizo needed to stop creating Spells that obviated entire backgrounds and skills. To which, some of the casters screamed bloody murder. They didn't want to give up anything. The fact that one interchangable spell was completely invalidating an unchangeable skill choice was irrelevant.
I wouldn't precisely say that.
My position would be that Forager needs to be better, that it needs to be casually able to feed a whole party at, say, Expert, and more people at levels beyond that (say, feed 5 people at Expert, 10-20 at Master, 50-100 at Legendary...finding food for a whole village is a Legendary act). That leave high level Create Food creating, well, more food but in terms of actual utility that's the definition of 'niche circumstance'.
Once you have that, Create Food needs very few changes to exist as-is. It will see little use outside the aforementioned niche scenarios (or a lack of anyone with Forager) simply because Forager completely obviates the need for it in most circumstances. That's the balance point I'm advocating here: Skill-based stuff should make spells unnecessary and redundant within its remit. And as long as that's true, spells like this one can continue to exist and keep the caster players happy.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you're allowing a 2nd level (in PF2) spell, cast twice, to completely duplicate the skills of someone with Legendary proficiency, and that's fair?
No. Two uses of a 6th level spell, however, is another matter (and what's needed to hit the 'feed 100 people' mark). And, actually, by the time you're Legendary you're probably mostly gonna double that to 200 (since you'll be critting a lot in the vast majority of environments)...the same as an 8th level spell. I think a Skill Feat in a Legendary Skill duplicating an 8th level spell (or doing around that well), only at-will, is a perfectly reasonable balance point.
So a 4th level casting vastly exceeds what a Legendary Forager can do. You're proposing that Paizo improve Legendary by an order of magnitude, and that still won't come close to what an equal level caster can do on any given day. And that is from casting the spell once.
Very rarely do you even need to feed 20 people, never mind 200. As long as the Skill option can be repeated at-will, and is as good as the spell in at least 95% of cases that will actually come up in a game, I'm fine with spells being a bit more 'magical' and widespread in effect when those very rare circumstances come up.
Casting time is 10 minutes for Create Food to create food for 200 creatures at 8th level. How much time do you think a GM is going to require a Legendary Forager to collect food for four others? 10 minutes?
No, probably at least an hour (I believe longer than that officially at the moment, but I'd advocate reducing it)...but who cares? Once we're talking 10 minutes to an hour, the difference in practice is almost nonexistent in practice most of the time.
As is the difference between 100 and 200 people, actually, as mentioned above.
If your fix requires an order of magnitude change to the skill system, wouldn't it suggest that maybe this is the wrong approach?
No, not at all. Forager is an extremely weak effect as compared to, say, Catfall, or the actual good Skill Feats, and widely seen as not worth taking. It being too weak is the thing most out of place here, not Create Food (a spell generally only taken in very niche circumstances) being too strong.
The fact that a spell can completely invalidate a permanent character choice functioning at its highest level is, imo, the inherent problem. It tells me that Paizo so far off the mark on this aspect of the game that you have to suggest dramatic changes to make it even debatable.
Again, I strongly disagree. A 2nd level spell invalidating a Skill Feat is definitely not ideal, but when that Skill Feat is quite weak and I'm advocating boosting it as the solution, it's also not evidence that the whole paradigm is
Remember what you said about martials being held to a standard of realism that casters are not? Do you really think people would find it plausible that a Legendary Forager could find food for 200 people in ten minutes, wherever she went, desert, ocean, outerspace? Do you think GMs would balk at that? But give it to a caster in the form of a spell and it's no big deal.
My point with that statement was that martials should not be held to such standards, or at least not as strongly as they are now, not that casters should be held to them. Holding casters to such standards makes no sense and makes the game less fun, while instead giving martials powers that are inhumanly impressive by the standards of reality (like casually hunting and foraging enough food for 200 people in a short time), instead adds to fun significantly.
The big thing with Forager to me is that you can live comfortably with it while create food has the clause: 'it’s bland and unappealing and leaves the eater unsatisfied' That actually had a lot of weight on why take forager in my table.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I couldn't disagree more. It's not an 8th level spell. It's a 2nd level spell heightened to 8th level.
Well, by the same token, it's not a Legendary Skill Feat, it's a base-level Skill Feat advanced to Legendary. I'd expect a Skill Feat that actually has a prerequisite of Legendary to be more powerful in the same way as a 'real' 8th level spell.
If I don't need to feed 200 people, I don't have to cast it at 8th level. Does the Forager get the benefit of not having the skill at Legendary just because they need to feed less people and then make something else Legendary in proficiency?
Look at it from the other facet, a 2nd level spell is allowing a caster, at higher levels to have all the skills of someone with Legendary proficiency. And that's only one spell. You're proposing that casters can have any number of these types of spells.
Well, in effect, since you've used one of your 'no prerequisite' Skill Feat choices on Forager, it's always 'prepared' at a low level, or effectively so. It is one of their weakest possible tier of Skill Feat choices.
And I am indeed suggesting that a caster can have access to a wide array of different spells...though very much not all at the same time.
You're also ignoring the fact that the Skill choice is permanent. The spell choice is not. That, alone, completely blows up this comparability.
You appear to be misunderstanding my point. My point is that martials and casters can easily be asymmetric without one being flatly superior to the other. The asymmetry comes in the following manner:
Martials have a limited array of utility effects via skills (which should be as effective as spells of the equivalent level at doing what they do), combined with flatly superior base stats making them, absent resources use and often even with it, simply better and more survivable at things like direct combat.
Casters, meanwhile, have worse stats and fewer skill-based options, but in exchange receive access to spells, which they can use to 'spot solve' a variety of problems that nobody in the party has the Skill-based stuff to do (or even stuff nobody but casters can ever do, like teleportation).
There is a possibility of parity there, despite the asymmetry, in the form of greater direct power within their area for martials, while casters receive the advantage of access to a wider variety of problem solving tools. This is a workable model.
It's not a model we're quite at yet, but we're a lot closer than PF1 was, and there've been definite signs they're heading more in that direction.
But that isn't the point. It's the mindset behind letting a 2nd level spells be unequivocally better than someone with Legendary proficiency by the time you can cast it at 4th level. It's the fact that in the thread, the casters were refusing to acknowledge the ridiculousness of that set up.
Are you sure? Can you link the discussion? From what you said they objected to you suggesting the spell shouldn't exist. I can see a number of arguments against that entirely separate from the idea that spells should always outshine martials.
Frankly, I think most people who want casters to be powerful are much more willing to accept powering up martials than they are depowering casters.
And that seems a horrible trade off considering the Skill is permanent and the Spell is not. You're also trying to insist there is some balance because of the "at-will" nature of the Skill, without asking how likely it is that any such skill will derive a benefit from at-will use. So what if I can use "at-will" if I only need to use it once or I can only use it once per day?
Almost any ability can be made more useful if you can do it at-will. But yes, having a Skill effect that can do X is less useful than a spell that can do the same in some ways. Which is why this is a two-part solution also involving martials having notably better stats in other areas like to-hit, AC, and Saves as well as more powerful Skill options that are on par with spells within their area.
Then why not reduce it to 10 minutes for the Legendary? Why because that seems silly doesn't it? So any Skill-based solution is going to be a priori limited/constrained compared to Spell based solutions.
Honestly? Yes, because verisimilitude is an issue, and feeding 200 people in 10 minutes is probably excessive for even Legendary skills thematically.
On the other hand, I doubt anyone would object to making the spell take an hour to cast. Not that, as I said, I think the distinction between 10 minutes and 1 hour is particularly meaningful in regards to casting time.
"Too weak?" You're having to improve Forager by an order of magnitude before you can even sit at the table. This isn't about increasing the size of the damage die or making the modifier last an extra two rounds, this is an order of magnitude change to a mechanic just to make it worth considering as an option versus a spell.
Order of magnitude changes happen quite a bit in regards to things like 'number of people effected' in PF2.
Dude...boosting something in the paradigm of P2 is like giving it an extra +1, not increasing it's effectiveness by a factor of 10.
Depends on the thing. Numbers, as in direct combat math, are indeed small, but things like how many people are effected by a non-combat effect often go up exponentially. Look at 'Fascinating Performance', that hits one person, then four, then 10, then an unlimited number. That's slightly lower on the low end, but higher on the high end than my suggestion.
And my point is that the restriction on non-magical solutions isn't going away. It's ingrained in how the game is set up. And while I agree that you cannot confine magic to the same small box, you absolutely can restrict the access to it. And Paizo can absolutely stop making Skills and Feats that are readily duplicated by Spells. As magic has no restrictions, it has no requirements. There is absolutely no reason why Create Food has to be able to feed 200 people in 10 minutes. Do you know how many people that puts out of work? :)
It has the requirement to enable the same stories as it did in PF1. 200 people is perhaps a bit excessive, but around 50 is necessary for continuity.
I brought up the Create Food example because it was a situation where the Skill / Spell overlap was ridiculous and still those caster advocates would not give up anything. Nobody in the thread say, "Yeah, you're right, Create Food is over the top in the face of Forager." This is the problem. People don't want to accept any diminishment in power.
Generally, people are happier to gain power rather than lose it. Which is why my suggestion is primarily to power up martials rather than powering down casters, as that is a more acceptable option to most people. It's usually more fun that way, too.
Improving Skills doesn't solve the problem. Skills will never level the playing field because they inherently are not flexible and unrestricted as Spells are. Casters are simply too powerful when they can have unfettered access to magic. No class should have that much agency. Paizo flirted with fixing it, then caved in.
Paizo never intended to 'fix it' in this sense. And they went with the option that people actually wanted (ie: magic being more powerful than the playtest in some ways), because they are a company providing a product, and not giving people what they want is generally a bad business decision.
I know that this will have little bearing on this argument but I’d like to note a couple things.
1. Create food is a 2nd level spell that does heighten but it tastes awful and spoils in 24 hours. Create water is a completely different 1st level spell that doesn’t heighten and only ever makes 2 gallons (enough for about 4 people) and it also expires after 24 hours.
2. Forager not only provides food and water for 24 hours but also provides shelter, and while not specified I assume that the food you find actually tastes like food.
Now, while still not even, things are looking a bit better between the 2. While you can if need be spend an 8th level spell to feed 200 people, you can never provide anywhere near that amount of water even if you used all of your spell slots for it.
Now don’t get me wrong. I agree with DMW that forager needs a boost, his example of it working for a 4 person party at expert sounds reasonable to me. I just think some things are being overlooked for the sake of argument.
Edit: while it’s not explicitly written in forager, the food and water found probably would last as long as they naturally would. So I think that any reasonable GM would allow the forager to save up any foraged goods if the group had other sources of food and water to use that day but the forager went out and spent a certain amount of time to do it anyway. The amount of time that would take would be up to GM discretion since no time is specified in the feat.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't need to go down the rabbit hole of Forager vs CF.
Agreed, I was just continuing to use it as an example of fixes that work without pulling the whole system out by its roots.
Its an example of a larger problem that Paizo faces:
1. There is nothing comparable to Spells for martials. You're not going to level the playing field with some other mechanic.
2. Casters aren't willing to give up their dominance over all aspects of the game.
I strongly disagree.
On #1, you can in fact make up for spells in a variety of ways, IMO. The aforementioned better stats doesn't do it on its own, but it goes a fair way, just for example.
On #2, I just think you're misdiagnosing the issue. What people refuse to give up is the feeling of efficacy they get from playing a caster and their ability to actually solve problems with magic. That's actually not quite the same as being unwilling to give up dominance. You're coming at things from the wrong angle by demanding increasing restrictions on them instead of giving increasing bonuses to martials to help them compete. Yes, some powering down from PF1's stratospheric heights is necessary...but only in the mechanics. What the spells do in-universe does not, in fact, need to change for the most part.
But it's not. This thread is an example of casters unwilling to accept less direct power.
It really isn't. The OP is to some degree, and some people will always object to any change, but the preponderance of posts on this thread are not against the idea of martials and casters being more on par.
The other problem with your solution is that it doesn't create any need for martials. Even if you give casters lower stats/less skills, you've given them the single most powerful mechanic in the game: Spells. Spells cover every facet and have few restrictions. None of what you gave to martials is needed by casters. But, martials still need casters.
Really? For what? You can do HP healing with Medicine and handle condition removal with consumables and maybe a Skill Feat. You don't actually need casters for anything else. An all martial party seems 100% viable based on what we know of PF2. They'll use magic items for utility stuff a bit more, but it's not actually necessary to do so all that often.
Now, casters will add a fair bit of versatility and be quite welcome in an otherwise martial group, don't get me wrong, but the sheer numbers a Fighter can put forth will similarly be pretty welcome in an all caster group.
Plus, Paizo isn't willing to take away the direct power. They gave it back.
That's not precisely true. Several things still actually make casters in PF2 a lot less overpowering than in PF1.
Firstly, no more spells scaling with caster level, it's all spell level now. Secondly, Save or Die effects are only actual death on a Critical Failure most times. Thirdly, as compared to optimal casters in PF1, they have significantly fewer spells per day. Fourthly, spells are now more costly than attacks, action-economy wise, which is super relevant. Fifthly, spells no longer exist to avoid basic skill or other checks (they give bonuses to such checks instead), Detect Lies provides a bonus to a Perception check to spot lies, for instance.
None of those things seem likely to change, as all were received pretty well in the playtest. Now, many spell durations seem likely to increase and other spell power levels may well rise a bit...but none of the above changes are getting rolled back at all.
When you give casters access to spells that cover every contingency in the game you obviate the need for Skills....or stats.
Uh...PF2 doesn't do this. Firstly, it prevents this by players not being omniscient. Even if spells existed for every possible scenario, you can't actually have the one you need when you need it. Wizards can come closest if they invest heavily in spellbooks and scrolls, but even they require time to swap out spells.
But also, and more importantly, many categories of challenges in the game, most obviously combat but many others as well, simply don't have a spell to auto-solve in PF2. Many require checks, like Saves and attack rolls. Being flatly better at such checks is thus a pretty big deal, and a very legitimate advantage.
I have literally seen people argue that you should never play anything but Fighter due to its number superiority, handling your need for utility with multiclassing other Classes rather than ever playing them...and those numbers only get bigger with the doubling of what Proficiency means. I think that particular example is an extreme position, but it's indicative that Fighter does something other Classes do not.
The entire point of having classes is to give each class something it can do that another class can't. Once you allow a single class or a category of classes to obviate the need for other classes, you're screwed. This is the exact problem Paizo had in P1.
I agree with this statement in principle. Spells, however, are not inherently such a feature. They can be, and largely were in PF1, but it's not inherent in their existence or how they work.
Paizo has openly admitted to Casters being too good in PF1. Casters have openly admitted to them being too good. Why? Because fairly early in a caster's careers, they had spells that could cover all contingencies and they had enough spells for the number of obstacles that might be encountered. Paizo openly admitted to this. What's changed in PF2?
The number of spells, for one thing. How well other tools overcome those obstacles as compared to spells, for another (ie: in PF1 having Sense Motive was useless if you were just gonna use Discern Lies...in PF2 the spell alone does not solve the problem).
Other factors might change as well, but those definitely have.
Well, that was worth a good chuckle because P2 isn't out yet. I thought Paizo was headed in this direction until they gave back all the damage and duration (which I knew they were going to do).
Damage and duration are some of the least significant factors in spells being problematic.
I still don't see how that makes martials necessary.
No character class or type of class is necessary, and none should be. An all martial party and an all caster party should both be viable. And, frankly, I think that's very doable. It's not quite true in PF2 at the moment, but a game where it is true is very possible.
And you haven't addressed the permanency of Skills or Feats as compared to Spells. You're suggesting that Skill options are merely "on par" with a mechanic that is far superior for spot utility. The Forager is permanently stuck with that Legendary investment. There is no swapping it out when you go for levels at a time without having to forage.
I am suggesting that individual Skill Feats be on par with equivalently leveled spells. Nowhere did I even imply that made them as good as having spells.
Indeed, I explicitly said that martials needed additional advantages to make up for spells being better. I just think having sufficient advantages to make that difference up is very possible. And that just being flatly better at basic stuff the game is predicated on (like attacks and saves) is a pretty huge advantage in its own right.
Yes, and this is why Paizo is caught between a rock and a hard place. Paizo admits that the PF1 caster was totally borked, but they want the class to tell the same stories? You can't both fix the caster and tell the same stories.
You really can. Almost all of what made casters problematic was a combination of specific mechanical stuff and martials not being as good mechanically as they were portrayed in the fiction. That makes it fixable.
They absolutely intended to fix that problem because they acknowledged it was a problem that needed fixing. Casters had too much power. They openly admitted this. PF2 Version 1 gutted utility and damage. Giving people what they want is not how you make a game that survives. It's been proven that giving people what they want actually shortens the life expectancy of interest in a game.
Depends on what you mean by 'the problem'. The intended to fix the 'overpowered casters' problem. They never intended to remove 'unfettered access to magic', which is what you stated the problem was.
And it depends on what you mean by 'give people what they want'. Giving people the things they actually want based on polling data and giving people then things they claim to want on message boards are very different things, for example.
That isn't going to work. Casters were breaking the game in PF1. You don't fix that by powering up martials.
Sure you do. It's not 100% of the solution or anything, but it's a relevant portion of it, and does quite a lot to solve many of the problems with casters in PF1. That's not armchair theorizing, either, I had a lot of martial boosting House Rules in PF1 and it helped the issue enormously, I assure you. I'm not alone in that, either.
I've said this over and over, Paizo is having to deal with the power expectations of casters from PF1. There is no way to give those people what they want and fix the problems with casters that they've openly acknowledged. The solution isn't "raise everyone else up" despite how popular that is on the forums. That's not going to work if they want to fix the problems that they addressed at the start of the Playtest.
Well, powering down casters in certain ways is, as mentioned above, still very much looking like what's going to happen. And probably is an important part of the process, but it can't be taken too far or it causes problems, so powering up martials a whole lot is probably an even more important element.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
My feelings about the balance between martials and spellcasters closely align with all of Deadmanwalking's arguments.
I've seen a lot of people calling for spellcasting to be drawn and quartered for being so strong in PF1, but there is no scenario in which the game as a whole is improved if spellcasting is left anemic and unsatisfying.
Casting a spell when it's needed should feel impactful or no one is going to play casters, and everyone who plays this game to enjoy a magical world will leave. I know for a fact that the spells during my playtest were not worth the investment, quickly ran out, and didn't provide a strong reason for continuing to play a caster. Furthermore, it did not deliver on the world I wanted to play in. Subsequent buffs to casting, especially duration, were definitely called for.
What Deadmanwalking, and the design direction of PF2, is suggesting is that reducing the occasions when a spell is *necessary* will have an enormous impact on the balance between spells and mundane solutions, especially when the mundane alternative is measurably better. Following through with proficiency gated feats of skill *will* mean martials will be able to do things that otherwise would have given the spotlight to casters.
While closer balance between martials and spellcasters is desirable, if it means magic can no longer be wondrous or satisfying, then I'll simply walk away from the system. I'd much rather let legendary characters who can arm wrestle gods perform astounding feats of skill than to kneecap spells.
Deadman, I have questions. As someone who has taken a stab at powering up skill feats, I'm wondering if you can clarify your ideal balance point for me. I've souped up Forager to a pretty large extent, though not quite as much as you suggest. What I'm specifically curious about is making skill feats as powerful as equal level spells. I've generally tried to avoid this since skill feats are at will and spells are not, but it seems like you are suggesting that this OK because it is easier to gain access to a spell than a skill feat. I'd like to use an example to clarify your position with a feat I made based off the PF1 occult skill unlocks.
Hypnotism (linguistic, mental, enchantment) FEAT 15
Prerequisites legendary in Deception, trained in Occultism
You use the power of suggestion and subtle psychic influence to alter a subject’s mind and dredge up repressed memories. Make a Deception check against the target’s Will DC for one of two effects. The target is bolstered.
Implant Suggestion: You can attempt to subtly implant a suggestion in the mind of a creature with an attitude of indifferent or better after 1 minute of continuous, calm interaction with that creature. This acts like a Suggestion spell, except the creature makes its will save against your Deception DC and there are no spellcasting actions involved.
Recall Memory: You can draw out forgotten memories from a willing subject. You spend 1 minute inducing a calming, trance-like state in the subject, after which you attempt a Deception check against the target’s Will DC. If you succeed at the check, the hypnotized creature can reroll any previously failed Recall Knowledge check to recall the forgotten information with a +2 bonus. The information must be something the subject once knew or was exposed to.
I decided to make this Legendary instead of master for two reasons. 1) The DC for hypnotism to work in PF1 was so high you needed to be at pretty high levels to pull it off. 2) The suggestion spell comes into play at level 7. While this effect can't be used in combat, it can be used at will and without any spellcasting actions drawing attention.
Point 2 is relevant here. I believe you would argue that Hypnotism should be a master skill feat BECAUSE Suggestion is available as a 7th level spell. This allows our skill dependent character to achieve the same effects as spellcasters within a limited purview at will, while the spellcaster can deal with a wider array of problems but only by consuming spell slots or scrolls.
Am I miss-characterizing your argument? Its an interesting line of thought and makes me wonder if I haven't been too tame with my skill feats still.
Something that has come up in this discussion. Spellcasters and thus spells are being compared to skills and the point being made that the spell caster gets a spell which might be able to reproduce or over-produce compared to a skill, and they have access to a theoretical unlimited number/variety of these spells.
If you go back far enough into the versions of DnD, wizards didn't used to have unlimited capacity for known spells. Based on their intelligence they had a maximum number of spells per level. Honestly, although I'm sure it would create some complaining from some players of spellcasters, I'm not sure that having some sort of cap on the number of spells they would be allowed to know.
Also, I've contemplated, having even the divine casters or other casters that typically pull from their entire list, potentially be given a certain number of spells (maybe something like 8 or 10) to choose from their spell list to represent what prayers/spells they have learned/know. This would help reduce the growth in power of the classes that such classes have as time goes on and their spell list grows. Any level they don't gain a new spell level, I'd probably allow them to pick another spell or two from their spell list and learn it.
Ironically, what if Signature skills came back in a way. But with signature skills, each time you gain a rank in a signature skill you also get a free Skill feat requiring that skill [not necessarily that rank] as a prerequisite.
Give spellcasters more limited scope of 'signature skills' and have the more mundane/martial classes have more of them or choices for them. It isn't hard to imagine a wizard or cleric or druid having a number of arcane, religion, nature skill feats according to their class, but find it rather unlikely they would have nearly as many skill feats, at least ones not directly in their specialty.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My groups tend to see things from a very party-focused standpoint. They have a toolbox as a group, more than as individuals. If the Wizard has less ability to scry, teleport, or conjure food, they all feel nerfed and like their adventure is less fantastic, I really hope PF2 casters still provide that high fantasy wonder of PF1.
I believe Clerics also had to pray at a specific time of day, so no auto-replenish after 8 hours of rest. 3.5 may have kept this mechanic, but I don't know any GMs who employed it.
Actually, this rule even propagated into Pathfinder first edition:
Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, but unlike a wizard, does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular time of day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, she must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, she must wait until the next day to prepare spells.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there magic items that can boost caster damage?
There are not. There are items that boost spell to-hit (and need to be for math reasons), but damage boosters appear nonexistent. The existence of such items would be a fine way to boost cantrip damage, IMO...but my position is independent of methodology, I just thought (and still think) cantrip damage could use a boost.
Deadman, I have questions. As someone who has taken a stab at powering up skill feats, I'm wondering if you can clarify your ideal balance point for me. I've souped up Forager to a pretty large extent, though not quite as much as you suggest. What I'm specifically curious about is making skill feats as powerful as equal level spells. I've generally tried to avoid this since skill feats are at will and spells are not, but it seems like you are suggesting that this OK because it is easier to gain access to a spell than a skill feat.
That's substantially correct. I mean, let's look at 16th level: A non-Rogue can, at best, have 1 Legendary, 4 Master, and 2 Expert level Skill Feats (in practice some of those numbers would be lower). That's the equivalent of one at-will 8th level spell, 4 at-will 4th level spells (or thereabouts), and 2 at-will 2nd level spells. That seems fine for a 16th level character, IMO. A Rogue pretty much doubles those numbers (two 8th, eight 4th, five 2nd)...but a Rogue gives up a fair amount of combat prowess for those benefits as compared to, say, a Fighter.
Additionally, a Wizard gets exactly the same skill advantages out of this as a Fighter at the moment. Which is why I'm advocating all martials getting more Skill Feats, as well as them being better.
Now, certain specific effects of 8th level spells (or even 4th level spells) are just flatly inappropriate for Skill Feats (I'd argue that most powerful area effects should remain spell-only, for example)...but the effects they have should be on that power level.
I'd like to use an example to clarify your position with a feat I made based off the PF1 occult skill unlocks.
Sure, happy to.
Hypnotism (linguistic, mental, enchantment)
This looks like two effects that should perhaps not be part of the same Feat, to me. If it were me, I'd make the 'Recover Memories' effect a Trained Occultism Skill Unlock using that skill (and probably let you self-hypnotize, and definitely make it clear that it can counter memory removal effects directly), and the Suggestion effect a Master level Skill Unlock for Deception with the Recover Memories Feat as a prerequisite.
I decided to make this Legendary instead of master for two reasons. 1) The DC for hypnotism to work in PF1 was so high you needed to be at pretty high levels to pull it off. 2) The suggestion spell comes into play at level 7. While this effect can't be used in combat, it can be used at will and without any spellcasting actions drawing attention.
I've stated how I'd argue it should be done above. Those are two separate effects and should functionally be acquired separately (though one as a prerequisite for the other is reasonable), probably with a power-up to Recover Memories to justify taking it solo.
But they aren't Legendary and should not require Legendary Skills to achieve.
Point 2 is relevant here. I believe you would argue that Hypnotism should be a master skill feat BECAUSE Suggestion is available as a 7th level spell. This allows our skill dependent character to achieve the same effects as spellcasters within a limited purview at will, while the spellcaster can deal with a wider array of problems but only by consuming spell slots or scrolls.
I would indeed agree with this statement, yes.
Am I miss-characterizing your argument? Its an interesting line of thought and makes me wonder if I haven't been too tame with my skill feats still.
No, that's substantially correct. I've always thought that to be a good balance point, particularly with defensive or utility effects.
|
|
Would you happen to know what percentage of a Fighter's WBL in PF2 is needed to keep itself relevant for damage and armor class at higher levels like 5th, 7th, 10th, 15th? Not looking for a spreadsheet, but wondering what the expectation is as determined by Paizo.
It's generally one of their highest level items at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th. As levels rise past one of those it drops until it hits the next breakpoint and then goes up again. That said, it's always one of several items.
So, at 5th, that amounts to around 20-25%, by 7th, it's only less than 10%, at 10th, it's back up to almost 20%, and at 15th it's back down to less than 15%.
So...between about 10% and 20% most of the time.
Of course, cantrips are significantly less effective than just about any maxed out martial weapon even with an extra die.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that armor and weapon, or just the weapon?
Just weapon. Armor is a universal expense. For some it takes the form of Bracers, but those are actually more expensive than normal armor rather than less.
You can technically use Mage Armor but you're basically crippling yourself and it is a terrible idea.
Cantrips are free. You just told me the Fighter has to spend 20% of its wealth to stay viable in combat at 10th level. What happens if the Fighter loses that one magic weapon? How much damage are they doing with a mundane weapon compared to a Wizard Cantrip?
Well, that's with the current system. It might well be less at many levels in the final version since they've strongly implied that some of the bonus dice are being moved from weapons to the character.
Which would also mean that the comparison goes pretty far in the Fighter's favor even sans magic weapon.
I mean, even just as-is, at 10th level, a Cantrip does 2d8+5 at most (for around +14 to hit at best)...for one hit per turn. A Fighter using a non-magical off-the-rack Greatsword is doing 1d12+5 (for +17 to hit)...for up to three hits. Assuming two attacks for the Fighter, the DPR vs. a Fire Giant (a random Level 10 enemy that will favor the Wizard) is as follows:
The Wizard has a DPR of 7.7 (this rises to 10.175 with an extra die as I suggest). The Fighter has a DPR of 9.775 (15.3 if they get one bonus die inherently rather than from weapon).
So...the Fighter is still ahead there at the moment even sans magic weapon. Adding a die to only the Wizard puts them ahead (if barely)...but only if the Fighter doesn't get one as well, which they seem very likely to have by 10th level in the final version.
I've stated how I'd argue it should be done above. Those are two separate effects and should functionally be acquired separately (though one as a prerequisite for the other is reasonable), probably with a power-up to Recover Memories to justify taking it solo.
But they aren't Legendary and should not require Legendary Skills to achieve.
It is interesting that you say this, because Scared to Death can be compared pretty directly to a 4th level spell: Phantasmal Killer. It is better in some ways and worse in others, but is also at will. You yourself have argued it was a tad overtuned. I certainly think Scared to Death is deservedly legendary.
Now, this might be more of an indictment of how nerfed the whole school of enchantment is, rather than actually undermining your point about what should be appropriate at 7th vs 15th, but it is interesting to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is interesting that you say this, because Scared to Death can be compared pretty directly to a 4th level spell: Phantasmal Killer. It is better in some ways and worse in others, but is also at will. You yourself have argued it was a tad overtuned. I certainly think Scared to Death is deservedly legendary.
Scare To Death is notably better than Phantasmal Killer, and is overtuned because it inflicts Fleeing on any successful check, with no Save to resist, something Phantasmal Killer never does on any result but a critical failure.
Its odds of killing outright are around the same, but inflicting Fleeing is actually a much better effect than the damage most of the time, as it often flatly costs the victim two turns of action economy.
Let's instead look at Maze, which is a single-target 8th level spell. Maze has no Save, but is a Concentration spell, and can be escaped with Survival checks. Assuming someone takes four turns to escape it (about average if they're good at Survival), that's 5 actions by the caster traded for 13 of the victim, and the victim suffers no other effects, and is indeed unable to be attacked while the spell is ongoing. Doing things about the caster can also free its victims.
Contrariwise, Scare To Death is 1 action to cost the enemy 6 actions (occasionally less, but very seldom lower than 5) at the moment, and also imposes nasty penalties (Frightened 2 is nothing to sneeze at), can kill if you get lucky, and allows you to attack them even while they lose the actions. Doing things to the person who used the Feat has no effect on any of these effects. Because it's one action, you can also do it to three different victims per turn if you like.
I'd strongly argue that Scare To Death is better than Maze in the playtest (removing Level from untrained skills makes Maze better...if they keep it unchanged, which we have no idea if they're doing). Which, given that Maze is an 8th level spell, supports Scare To Death being overtuned.
Also, it being overtuned is obviously a comparative statement as compared to other available options. Which it rather is. If other options are improved (like, for example, Maze being improved), then it no longer qualifies as overtuned.
Now, this might be more of an indictment of how nerfed the whole school of enchantment is, rather than actually undermining your point about what should be appropriate at 7th vs 15th, but it is interesting to me.
Nah, Scare To Death's auto-frighten is just a brokenly awesome effect easily surpassing most 8th level spells that inflict action economy disadvantages.
You're a persuasive guy for a Deadman. To the drawing board!
To combo off DMW, in addition to Scare to Death being amazing for its action efficiency, serious debuffs even if you don't crit, and so on...
Intimidate is just easier to increase than your Spell DCs. If comparing to the Playtestiary, the chance of Scare to Death getting a success against an equal level foe (assuming the PC has a +5 CHAmod and a +4 Item bonus) is ~70%. The chance for that same enemy to fail a save vs. phantasmal killer is ~35%.
A character optimized for Scare to Death gets something like a 10-15% chance to instantly kill an equal level enemy with one action, delivering severe debuffs 75% of the time even if he doesn't.
A character optimized for Phantasmal Killer gets something like a 1-2% chance to instantly kill an equal level enemy for two actions and a spell slot, and delivers severe debuffs on par with Scare to Death only ~5% of the time.
This is all true. I guess it's a good thing that the best charisma modifiers are found on spellcasters. At least they get to utilize that feat too rather than just being left in the dust. It's also a good example of why I'm reluctant to let Hypnotism out of the bag too early.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is all true. I guess it's a good thing that the best charisma modifiers are found on spellcasters. At least they get to utilize that feat too rather than just being left in the dust. It's also a good example of why I'm reluctant to let Hypnotism out of the bag too early.
Looking at Hypnotism, I think it is a tad overpowered (at any level), and inconsistent with other Skill Feats, to provoke a Save against Deception DC with no skill check (since that's effectively up to a +5 Save DC beyond what casters can achieve on spells due to items). It should require a successful Deception check first. That makes it more consistent with other Skill Feats and definitely slots it in at about 7th level. Yes, it's probably still harder to resist than Suggestion, but it also takes a minute to do, and the difference isn't so stark.
Of course, any or all of the factors that make that true could be changed in the final game.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like your optimism. But saying you can do it doesn't mean you can. At the risk of repeating myself, the Forager example is meant to illustrate the core problem: There is no substitute for "magic." Consider that when you look at Forager on its own, or CF on its own, neither one of them seems inherently broken. Skills/Feats have never been over the top and Spells frequently are. As you said 200 people at 8th level is more about the continuity of what the spell could do. It's only when we compare them together do you have to invoke orders of magnitude in an attempt to level the field. One starts asking how did Paizo let this happen? I don't think this is a result of incompetence or malfeasance, but it is a by-product of the design process that's used for non-magic mechanics vs Spells.
No. Not the process. The assumptions. People are used to Feats not doing seemingly magical things. Very used to it, in fact. And that bleeds through until people become used to the possibility of Feats doing precisely that.
But assumptions can be changed. Indeed, changing core design assumptions is a large part of what a new edition is all about (hence the difference in monster design, for example).
When I started recreationally tracking my '87 325is, I started modifying the car. I easily spent three times the value of the car in modifications. At one point, an experienced driver told me to stop throwing good money after bad. He said, I would be far better off simply buying an M3 and stop trying to make a 325 drive like one. Yes, I can get the 1/4 mile times the same, I can put in a turbo and get better power to weight, but the a 325 isn't designed to drive like an M3 and it never will.
This analogy really doesn't apply. Given that this is a new edition, we're not talking retrofitting existing vehicle designs. A better analogy is that we're designing an entirely new set of vehicles from scratch. And they don't have to perform exactly the same to be equally good, either. One being faster but another more maneuverable, and a third having better gas mileage are all perfectly acceptable as long as equal numbers of people can look at any one of them and say 'This one's the best for me.'
Skill/Feats are not designed to compete with Spells. More to the point, the game isn't designed to make Skills and Feats comparable to Spells. Even if Paizo goes and individually tweaks every Feat and Skill to try and measure up, they're adding a layer of overhead and fudge factor that is not going to be sustainable moving forward. Refusing to recognize that is only going to cause more problems down the road. Trying to make non-magic bridge the gap to magic, is forcing a square peg into a round hole. Yeah, you can get out the Dremel and make it work, but you're forcing a mechanic to support a paradigm it wasn't design to support. That's not good design.
This was true in PF1. It is not necessarily true in PF2. Indeed, many Skill Feats in PF2 very precisely were designed to 'cross the line' into magic and it works quite well. Not all Feats that were so designed were equally well designed, and some are weaker than they should be...but that's true of spells, too. There is not some vast and uncrossable gulf between the two as you imply here. Designing Feats to be as powerful as spells is eminently doable.
You've conflated two separate arguments. That may be my fault as things tend to get mixed up in long threads like this. I'll bring up an example to illustrate one point and then get stuck on some side point. heh.
There are two independent thoughts at work here:
1) Because of Spells, casters trivialize the level appropriate obstacles (what I meant when I said "dominate the game."
2) Because of Spells, casters obviate other classes.
Both of these come from the same source, the agency and efficacy of spells, but they are two separate problems. I've probably entangled them in my discussion without making it clear when I was talking about one versus the other.
Paizo, to my understanding, has identified a need to address both of these. They have been more forthright about #2 as a specific caster problem. Where as #1 has been more generalized and resulted in global nerfs and the flat math.
My statement that players are unwilling to give up "dominance in the game" is about class efficacy in overcoming obstacles. That observation is not countered by the fact that no one objects to martials being improved. Improving martials doesn't change #1 or #2. The fact that a four Fighter party might be boosted to be just as robust as four Wizards, does not change #1 or #2, you've just made the problem worse because now you have another class that has #1 and #2 as an issue.
You're rather radically misstating the first issue. The two issues you're referring to are optimized characters trivializing challenges, and spells making non-spellcasters trivialized.
The first is not actually about spells. Optimized Fighters were also a problem, as was anyone who optimized for a specific skill, and a host of other examples. It is also not fixed by powering down, or powering up, PCs. It's fixed by flattening the curve, by making all level 10 characters closer in power to each other so you can properly calibrate threats to them. Powering up martials to be closer to spellcasters absolutely helps with this every bit as much as powering down spellcasters, the only important thing is that all level 10 characters are in the same power range.
The second issue is the one this thread is discussing, and is frankly the only one I've been addressing previously because the first is pretty close to solved in PF2, and has nothing directly to do with spells.
Again, that doesn't address or counter my assertion. I'm not claiming the casters want the power all for themselves, I am saying that people who identify with those classes, as a community, aren't willing to surrender agency or efficacy. That is very normal behavior in class-based games. I've seen it MMO's and every other genre where people attach themselves to a class.
I suppose your assertion is then that the whole game requires a lower power level to be functional? In that case, my answer is much simpler: No it doesn't. Even if you want a lower chance of success, you can as easily power up the adversaries as power down the PCs.
Yes, you need them for any number of things your specific martials aren't prepared for and can't get prepared for because of permanent choices. If my healer Barbarian is teamed up with another healer Barbarian, neither one of us can drop the healing Skill and pick up more utility or damage. Casters absolutely can. My Barbarian can't go to the store and buy the scroll of Communal Resist Energy. My Ranger went archer and the Fighter went archer? I don't get to just swap out my ranged feats for melee. We have no meat shield and that means we're screwed. There's no flexibility. You pick up a caster and it can plug all kinds of holes.
Are you talking about pick up games ala PFs where you don't know party composition? Because 4 Wizards (or four Bards, or four Sorcerers...) can screw that situation every bit as much as 4 martials. You need things to frontline other than just spell choices, for example. So these examples fall a bit flat.
And 'healer Barbarian' requires precisely one Trained skill, and is a better option if two people have it anyway. So...that particular example falls even flatter.
And such games are hardly the norm, anyway. Most games the party are built at least somewhat together, IME.
Your solution is to dump a boatload of skills/feats on the martials, but there's no reasonable amount you can give that you're going to cover those all those holes because once someone chooses them, they're fixed. You yourself said, a martial should not share the caster's total agency. I agree. But then you can't turn around and claim we can/should solve the disparity.
Yes, I can. Flexibility is one measure of character power, but not the only one. The most flexible character is not always the best. My assertion is that you can readily make martials whose advantages make up for the disadvantage of lower flexibility in most circumstances, and are flatly better in some.
And that's all we need for the Classes to be balanced.
That's not accurate. The caster is problematic because of Spells/magic. My Fighter being better or awesome at Jumping doesn't make it necessary or prevent a caster from being able to overcome any obstacle that expected a Legendary jumper.
It is accurate. They're problematic in PF1 because too many spells obviated the need for skills and the like, or won fights automatically. Neither of those facts are inherently true or necessary in PF2, and indeed they seem not to be heading in that direction at all.
It's the details of how spells work mechanically that make them overpowered in PF1, not the fact of their existence.
I disagree and so does nearly 40 years of D&D-style games. D&D is designed around needing a diverse party. The game was never designed so that four Dwarven fighters would be as effective as a balanced party. The fiction associated with genre also reinforces the concept of a party being diverse and success being dependent upon that very diversity. Advocating that the game should eschew that requirement is, imo, a step in the wrong direction.
No. The game is predicated on it being most optimal to have a diverse party, and that is indeed a good thing. It being necessary has not been true for some time, and making it less true is a pure benefit. PF2 has done a pretty fair job of taking things in this direction, too. I assure you that of all the PC groups in my Doomsday Dawn game, those without a Cleric for healing absolutely noticed that absence...but they still did just fine without one.
Having a Cleric would've, in many cases, been optimal but wasn't necessary. And that's exactly how it should be.
I strongly disagree. Neither should be viable. Insisting that they should means you're allowing a tremendous amount of encroachment and that undermines a class based system. There's nothing wrong with Paizo saying, yeah...you need casters, martials, and skill monkeys to expect success and failure to bring one means you comeback empty handed or maybe you don't come back.
This attitude often forces people to play characters they find unappealing and is generally not much fun. A party is, and should be, more effective when they have all the standard roles filled...but it shouldn't be required for baseline functionality. And, indeed, it is not.
Forcing players to choose different classes is going to give the game a much higher pay-off than letting people play whatever and always succeed. It forces Paizo to do a much better of designing the classes to be fun and to complement one another. There's a huge social and financial pay-off for Paizo if players have to work together to solve problems as opposed to letting them all solve it as individuals.
Who said anything about always succeeding? Even the most optimal party can and should fail sometimes, and less optimal ones (including the all martial party) should fail a bit more often...but 'a bit more often' and 'this is suicide and completely unviable' are actually very different things.
Classes can be different and do different things without making any of them absolutely required to succeed at particular tasks. The all Fighter party has almost no in-combat healing, for example...but they can manage without it and go on to win. And that's exactly how it should be.
Boosting maritials doesn't solve any of the problems with casters in PF1. At best it keeps other classes from feeling trivialized, but it doesn't stop casters from trivializing them. My Fighter being able to pick locks comparable to a Knock spell doesn't do anything to stop a Wizard from out-damaging me. The only thing you've accomplished is my Fighter trivializing Rogues. Where does that carousel end?
I assure you, I never said it fixed the problem. I said it helped, which it did. And you can easily boost both Fighter and Rogue so that nobody who played one felt the other did 'their thing' better than them.
At the start of Playtest, sure. Now, I'm not nearly convinced. Even before the updates, my level 5 PFS missioned was flat-out owned by the three casters in the group, one of which never even picked up a weapon.
The plural of anecdote is not data, but if we're sharing those, I'll note that several non-casters did very well indeed in my Doomsday Dawn game, with who was most effective having little to do with whether they were casters or not.
And I went into some detail about how there's no evidence of many of the spell changes being rolled back.
But powering up martials doesn't fix[ the problems Paizo identified. Sure, it makes people who play martials happy, but making them more like casters seems ill-advised when Paizo just acknowledged that the agency and efficacy of casters were a huge problem.
No, they didn't. They acknowledged that all characters did that at high levels because the game had broken math. But as mentioned above, Fighters casually soloing main villains in melee was very much part of the issue, which was not restricted to casters. Casters were certainly worse, but you're the one conflating PF1 problems here. Trivializing encounters and casters being overpowered were not the same issue, though they were certainly interrelated.
They've almost completely fixed the 'trivializing encounters' issue by fixing the math, IMO, something that does not seem to be changing. But even if they hadn't it's actually a divergent issue from the spellcaster thing.
They key here, is that Paizo admitted that casters were trivializing the game itself. As you acknowledge, Paizo needed to nerf them. Piazo did it...then massively undid it. Yes, you identified some changes, but how are you convinced they've solved the problem?
I'm not convinced they've 'solved the problem' with casters, I'm convinced it's possible to do so within the framework they have established. I'm also not at all sure we agree on what the issue in question actually is.
Let's try this out.
Hypnotism FEAT 7
(concentrate, enchantment, linguistic, mental, occult)
Prerequisites master in Deception, Unlock Memories skill feat
You use the power of suggestion to program a command into the mind of an unaware victim. You can attempt to implant a suggestion in the mind of a creature with an attitude of indifferent or better after 10 minutes of continuous, calm interaction with that creature. Make a Deception check against the target’s Perception DC.
Success The target is subject to a Suggestion spell, except the creature makes its will save against your Deception DC and there are no spellcasting actions involved. Like the spell, the creature is aware you were trying to manipulate it only on a critical success.
Critical Success As a success, but he creature treats the result of its save as one step worse.
Failure The target finds your behavior strange; treat this as a Failure to on a check to Lie.
Critical Failure As a failure, but the creature realizes you are trying to manipulate it and reacts accordingly.
If you’re legendary in Deception or Occultism, it only takes 1 minute of calm interaction to implant a suggestion.
I'm tempted to lower the default 10 minutes back to the original 1, because I forgot Suggestion only works for a minute on a failure. 10 minutes to generate a one minute effect seems... odds.
I'm considering
|
|
I dunno. You can theoretically try and try until it works, to some degree, which is pretty powerful. 6 attempts in an hour is pretty potent.
I'd probably be inclined to change both, capping it at once per person per day but dropping it to a minute (3 actions and doable in combat if you have Legendary), but leaving it as is would also work.
Other than that, looks good to me.
Ah, I lost the bolstered bit somewhere in those changes. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it working in combat, even at Legendary. Seems counter-intuitive to the idea of hypnosis requiring someone to be somewhat receptive. Then again if this is supposed to be Scared to Death but for liars...
What about making the combat thing an actual Legendary feat with this as a prerequisite? I'm not a fan of feat trees/taxes, but this actually seems worth it to me.
Edit: You could also let the Legendary feat apply more powerful enchantment spells. Perhaps Dominate out of combat?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My feelings about the balance between martials and spellcasters closely align with all of Deadmanwalking's arguments.
I've seen a lot of people calling for spellcasting to be drawn and quartered for being so strong in PF1, but there is no scenario in which the game as a whole is improved if spellcasting is left anemic and unsatisfying.
Casting a spell when it's needed should feel impactful or no one is going to play casters, and everyone who plays this game to enjoy a magical world will leave. I know for a fact that the spells during my playtest were not worth the investment, quickly ran out, and didn't provide a strong reason for continuing to play a caster. Furthermore, it did not deliver on the world I wanted to play in. Subsequent buffs to casting, especially duration, were definitely called for.
What Deadmanwalking, and the design direction of PF2, is suggesting is that reducing the occasions when a spell is *necessary* will have an enormous impact on the balance between spells and mundane solutions, especially when the mundane alternative is measurably better. Following through with proficiency gated feats of skill *will* mean martials will be able to do things that otherwise would have given the spotlight to casters.
While closer balance between martials and spellcasters is desirable, if it means magic can no longer be wondrous or satisfying, then I'll simply walk away from the system. I'd much rather let legendary characters who can arm wrestle gods perform astounding feats of skill than to kneecap spells.
This perfectly sums up a lot of my point of view too. Magic should be magical. The playtest nerfed it into the ground and then nerfed it some more so it no longer was. I don't even play casters (my first full caster in about 10 years of playing Pathfinder weekly is coming up next month), and I found the casting nerfs incredibly painful. Partly because I have a view like Lyee mentioned above, focusing on the abilities available to the party as a whole. And what's been said of what's going to be improved for the final doesn't seem like it goes nearly far enough. Individual spells certainly need improvement. Durations are painfully bad. But what about number of targets? Haste only gives a single target unless you boost it to 7th(!) level now. And the dramatically reduced number of spell slots combined with the need to heighten sound like it's going to stay. And those together really cut into both raw casting ability by a huge amount, and the versatility, because you can't have as many options prepared "just in case."
It's often mentioned as a goal that casters shouldn't be able to be better than martials at doing damage, and shouldn't be better than skillful characters at utility... so what's left for them to be good at? Are they just Grease-monkeys slinging battlefield control for a few rounds until they run out of juice? There's a lot of talk about what casters shouldn't be able to do, but no real mention of what they are allowed to do. This goes with another criticism I have of the playtest that too much attention is on keeping people from being too powerful, so that nobody really is all that powerful at all. Focusing on limits instead of possibilities leaves you with uninspiring possibilities and many limits.
Although part of my view that they went too far with nerfs and don't sound like they're going to return enough power, comes from the fact that I actually never saw casters dominate PF1 like everyone always claims is the default. They're incredibly useful and have great versatility, but the others aren't just there to protect the caster. In fact, it's the ungodly damage that martials can dish out that really catches attention in our games, while the casters largely support them in combat and provide utility outside of combat. The most dominant casters I've seen are pet classes like Druids and Hunters with a buffed up animal companion. And that only involves a handful of spells and letting the pet be a combat monster. Animal companions, familiars and summoned creatures were also nerfed into the ground with no indication of being improved. And it's never the martial characters that force resting, they're just limited by the healing they can get. It's the casters who run out of spells. And with the reduced slots + heighten, that's going to happen much more often. The 10 minute work day seems to be moving to 5 minutes.
Casting did need to be reigned in a bit, so there weren't so many spells that obsoleted other classes, but things went way too far, and there still seems to be calls for more. In numerical terms, if PF1 casters power level was a 10, then I'd like to see them around an 8, while the playtest was more like a 4 or 5.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This perfectly sums up a lot of my point of view too. Magic should be magical. The playtest nerfed it into the ground and then nerfed it some more so it no longer was. I don't even play casters (my first full caster in about 10 years of playing Pathfinder weekly is coming up next month), and I found the casting nerfs incredibly painful. Partly because I have a view like Lyee mentioned above, focusing on the abilities available to the party as a whole. And what's been said of what's going to be improved for the final doesn't seem like it goes nearly far enough. Individual spells certainly need improvement. Durations are painfully bad. But what about number of targets? Haste only gives a single target unless you boost it to 7th(!) level now. And the dramatically reduced number of spell slots combined with the need to heighten sound like it's going to stay. And those together really cut into both raw casting ability by a huge amount, and the versatility, because you can't have as many options prepared "just in case."
Durations are definitely improving, and I suspect that number of targets may as well, at least on some spells. General spell power level is going up from what they've said. The Heighten stuff is staying, as are lower numbers of spells than PF1, but as long as the spells are actually good those seem very reasonable changes to me.
It's often mentioned as a goal that casters shouldn't be able to be better than martials at doing damage, and shouldn't be better than skillful characters at utility... so what's left for them to be good at? Are they just Grease-monkeys slinging battlefield control for a few rounds until they run out of juice? There's a lot of talk about what casters shouldn't be able to do, but no real mention of what they are allowed to do. This goes with another criticism I have of the playtest that too much attention is on keeping people from being too powerful, so that nobody really is all that powerful at all. Focusing on limits instead of possibilities leaves you with uninspiring possibilities and many limits.
Well, they shouldn't be better than skillful characters within that character's area...but the average PF2 party sans Rogue covers less than half the skills in a maxed out fashion at most levels (even one with a Rogue tends to cover something like 10 skills out of 17 or 18 most levels). That leaves a fair amount of skill stuff that you're just not great at as a party and can use spells to cover for. Plus you're not without skills of your own as a caster (they're the one with 2 of those 8 or 10 maxed out skills). Plus there are spells that provide utility skills cannot do (like telportation or raising the dead).
Also, in combat, they're actually by far the best at area damage, control effects (many of which in no way need to be heightened to be effective), and buffs (yes, even now, with Mirror Image and Bards in general being great, for example). And are pretty much the only in-combat healers. All of which are actually super good and useful.
Although part of my view that they went too far with nerfs and don't sound like they're going to return enough power, comes from the fact that I actually never saw casters dominate PF1 like everyone always claims is the default. They're incredibly useful and have great versatility, but the others aren't just there to protect the caster. In fact, it's the ungodly damage that martials can dish out that really catches attention in our games, while the casters largely support them in combat and provide utility outside of combat. The most dominant casters I've seen are pet classes like Druids and Hunters with a buffed up animal companion. And that only involves a handful of spells and letting the pet be a combat monster. Animal companions, familiars and summoned creatures were also nerfed into the ground with no indication of being improved.
The issue with this is that it's purely due to nobody having made a caster dedicated to damage dealing. An Inquisitor, Magus, or Wild Shape Druid or several other casters can out damage most martial characters basically at will. They have to expend resources to do it, generally, but not at an unsustainable rate. And they can do this while still doing all the non-combat stuff if they want.
And animal companions (though not familiars) are actually probably getting upgraded. They were noted as too weak by the folks at Paizo. The action economy seems likely to stay, but the stats also seem likely to go up.
And it's never the martial characters that force resting, they're just limited by the healing they can get. It's the casters who run out of spells. And with the reduced slots + heighten, that's going to happen much more often. The 10 minute work day seems to be moving to 5 minutes.
Not really. Healing is now unlimited with Treat Wounds and cantrips allow casters to husband their spells for fights where they actually need them. IME, it makes taking breaks less necessary and common even in primarily caster groups.
Casting did need to be reigned in a bit, so there weren't so many spells that obsoleted other classes, but things went way too far, and there still seems to be calls for more. In numerical terms, if PF1 casters power level was a 10, then I'd like to see them around an 8, while the playtest was more like a 4 or 5.
I'd peg casters in the playtest as a solid 6, maybe even a 7 after the damage boost. But I definitely agree on the basic principle of wanting them to be an 8 rather than either above that like PF1 or below it like the playtest.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This perfectly sums up a lot of my point of view too. Magic should be magical. The playtest nerfed it into the ground and then nerfed it some more so it no longer was.What has how powerful something is (which is where your 'nerfed' argument goes) got to do with whether that thing is magical (something that can't be done by mundane means)?
Magic doing only useless things doesn't feel very magical, IMO.
I don't feel that the playtest was as bad as Doktor Weasel seems to in this regard, but complaining that low enough power levels make magic feel less magical is a totally reasonable complaint in and of itself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This perfectly sums up a lot of my point of view too. Magic should be magical. The playtest nerfed it into the ground and then nerfed it some more so it no longer was.What has how powerful something is (which is where your 'nerfed' argument goes) got to do with whether that thing is magical (something that can't be done by mundane means)?
It's more about the feel. There are plenty of things that can't be done by mundane means that would be really boring as magic. By Magical I mean feeling impressive, and wonderous. An unseen servant that lasts one minute and requires concentration like a remote control drone, doesn't feel very magical to me. Being able to conjure up an autonomous unseen servant to brew and serve tea while you chat with your guest or go off and clean your tower while you work in the lab, does. That's actually one of the spell nerfs that bothers me the most, because it robs a rather low powered flavor spell of it's entire point of existing. Wizards being able to have magic butlers is just a nice bit of magic that was removed from the world.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On this board, I discovered what I now call the RD solution to maximum enjoyment within PF1's caster/martial disparity :
Start as a martial, have great fun until just before the casters become more fun to play (and martials end up boring). Get your martial killed. Create a caster as your new PC. Great fun continues.
I want PF2 to annihilate this kind of metagaming.
I want to play martials that can do awesome things and do not feel obsolete because there is an optimized caster in the party.
I want to play a blasting caster that can contribute to the party's victory as much as his martial teammates through his chosen specialty.
I have rather good hopes that PF2 will enable all these :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. Healing is now unlimited with Treat Wounds and cantrips allow casters to husband their spells for fights where they actually need them. IME, it makes taking breaks less necessary and common even in primarily caster groups.
And it's never the martial characters that force resting, they're just limited by the healing they can get. It's the casters who run out of spells. And with the reduced slots + heighten, that's going to happen much more often. The 10 minute work day seems to be moving to 5 minutes.
Wait wait wait.
Hold up."Its not the fighters, its the casters causing the 10 minute adventuring day"
"No, you're wrong because its the neither of those problems exist."
The point was that when casters run out of spells, resting happens. This is a fundamentally verifiable point. Fighters just need more healing, and provided that it is infinite (which, tada, treat wounds effectively is), the fighter is never going to call for a rest, therfore resting is dependent on daily resources (i.e. spell slots)
But according to you, spell casters will never call for a rest either because they have cantrips.
What? No. That's wrong. Consider:
Fact: If a caster only has cantrips available (because he's out of spell slots), they're going to call for a rest, because otherwise they'll be too weak to be effective.
Observationally: A caster hoarding spells for later and relying on only cantrips is fundamentally indestinguishable from a caster that has no slots left (from an external observer that cannot see the caster's available spells). If he's not using them, then he doesn't need them, and therefor need not rest when all out.
These two statements are mutually exclusive. Pick one.
(And everyone is already b&+!+ing about cantrips being trash.)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was stating the difference between PF1 and PF2, which was that the '10 minute adventuring day' became longer rather than shorter over the edition change. The point I responded to said it got shorter, and I disagreed with that.
I never disagreed that you stop for the day when the caster runs out of spells, I just said that happened after a longer period of time in PF2 than PF1 (because cantrips are useful enough to prolong the number of encounters it takes to run out).
And no, your final point is a false binary. You see, spells are, to some degree, a safety net. You can get by in some fights, and many turns within fights, without them, but sometimes you can't, and those times are not predictable. If you have spells left, cantrips allow you to husband them, only using them when necessary...but when you run out? It often becomes almost suicidally risky to continue since any fight could be the fight you need a spell to win or survive...only you don't have it.
Cantrips are strong enough to carry you through many turns in combat, but usually not whole fights, and certainly not whole difficult fights. Which means they prolong the time you can keep fighting (since you aren't casting a full spell every turn or anything), but do not suffice to make you as effective as you may need to be on your own.
There are exceptions to this, but that's the general way it works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was stating the difference between PF1 and PF2, which was that the '10 minute adventuring day' became longer rather than shorter over the edition change. The point I responded to said it got shorter, and I disagreed with that.
But it did, you have approximately half the spells you had, and they are worse to boot (yes, they are buffing them, but you'll never convince me they'll get back to PF1 levels), if nothing because of need for heightening. You also have less in wands (or not at all considering latest news). Cantrips are just not enough to make up for the loss from PF1. The only thing that now lasts longer is hp healing for no-magic parties which can potentially go indefinitely thanks to Treat Wounds (since magic ones got by with wands of CLW).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you play the Playtest with the same strategies as PF1e, the day is definitely shorter.
If you adapt your strategies to the new system, it's definitely longer. I've been able to run a fair bit more encounters before my party started looking for a rest than I typically see in 1e.
I think that will only be more true in the final product.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to play a blasting caster that can contribute to the party's victory as much as his martial teammates through his chosen specialty.
I'm honestly hoping they just implement what I consider to be the obvious solution:
Make blasting spells do more than just damage for those that specialize in blasting.
It makes little to no sense to me that fire, ice, electricity, acid, and force damage spells do not have some "alternate" effect on the battlefield and opponent.
For one, thematically, this is prevalent in literally most fantasy literature, movies, and games.
Two, it gives incentives for blaster casters to pick up multiple types outside of weaknesses/resistances that have definable metrics.
Frosting the ground to make it slick makes sense. Combusting items or catching fire makes sense. Structural damage from acid to the ground/structure that causes difficult terrain makes sense.
That way you can still leave the Martials to their role as primary damage, while also allowing Casters to provide "off-damage" with a splash of SoS/BFC on say Critical Success attack rolls or Critical Failure saves.
Now that option is still on the table with Class Feats for Casters, but I'm not sure it's something they'd consider, since they've heavily nerfed a great deal of the SoS/BFC spells.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it did, you have approximately half the spells you had, and they are worse to boot (yes, they are buffing them, but you'll never convince me they'll get back to PF1 levels), if nothing because of need for heightening. You also have less in wands (or not at all considering latest news). Cantrips are just not enough to make up for the loss from PF1. The only thing that now lasts longer is hp healing for no-magic parties which can potentially go indefinitely thanks to Treat Wounds (since magic ones got by with wands of CLW).
As MaxAstro notes, it depends on how you play. Generally speaking, you need to cast spells less often in PF2 than PF1, since your cantrip and other non-spell options are comparatively superior (both because the spells are less powerful and because the cantrips and other options are more so).
If you cast a spell every round, yes, you'll run out quicker...but that's a terrible and suboptimal tactical choice, rather than something the system encourages.
Spellcasters are certainly less powerful than in PF1, but how powerful you are and how long you can go between rests are very different things and, played at all optimally, PF2 casters can go significantly longer while still contributing every combat round.