Has anyone heard about there being a Sorcerer or Wizard focused on a specific type of elemental damage? In PF1e, you could convert a variety of damage types to your chosen one to expand your spell selection while remaining thematically on point. Was there something like that in the Playtest or mentioned for the full 2E?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing we did to drastically help the single-element character is something unrelated to character options: significantly curtail elemental resistances and immunities and add more elemental weaknesses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing we did to drastically help the single-element character is something unrelated to character options: significantly curtail elemental resistances and immunities and add more elemental weaknesses.
Future-hypothetical-Kineticist is very happy about this as well.
One thing we did to drastically help the single-element character is something unrelated to character options: significantly curtail elemental resistances and immunities and add more elemental weaknesses.
Now when I look at Outsiders like demons it's not gonna be. "It doesn't matter what your element is, you're screwed. Just some harder than others."
Evocation didn't need that with how unimpressive the damage was on average (without optimizing).
So yay! I like these news~
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I do hope you added a few character options. There's no ice-based spells until mid-high level. How thers ary least one level 1 cold spell that can scale
Well I do hope you added a few character options. There's no ice-based spells until mid-high level. How thers ary least one level 1 cold spell that can stack
There's a cantrip.
Do cantrips scale?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do cantrips scale?
Yeah.
A nice lv1 blast for all of the elements would be nice. Burning Hands, Snowball, Shocking Grasp ... Something for Acid would be nice.
Do cantrips scale?
Automatically. ;)
I'm planning on converting my current player's characters to 2E, and one is playing an ice focused caster. It's certainly good to know that she won't have to switch to fire so often to avoid cold resistance!
She's actually a Crossblooded Rime/Water Tattooed Sorcerer and Shadowcaster Evocation Wizard, who turns all her spells to cold and tries to land free slows.
I'm finding that a multiclassed Sorcerer Wizard is still good value in 2E, with the extra spell slots and extra punch some of the Sorcerer feats have for damage.
Just missing some cold spells in the Playtest, but I'm sure there's more in the full 2E.
One imagines elemental bloodlines and such will be a thing eventually but they aren't a top priority for the CRB. It basically demands 4 separate bloodlines unless the differences are truly token, like draconic. And frankly at that point there's not much blue sky between elemental and draconic. I'd rather wait for them to get expanded into something unique for each element.
This isn't damage conversion, but sorcerers and wizards can pick a feat that allows you to ignore 10 points of energy resistance. That seems to take care of most creatures that aren't outright immune to something.
Personally I'd like Cone of Cold moved to 3rd level to finish the Fire-Lightning-Ice triangle (just absorb Ice Storm into it), plus like some others said, said elemental spells for 1st, 6th, and 9th levels too (something like Ice Age as an Meteor Swarm equivalent). Relatively uncommon elements like acid, poison, and sonic can come online on a slightly slower pace, with good old force element sporadically appearing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do cantrips scale?Automatically. ;)
I think you mean, automagically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing we did to drastically help the single-element character is something unrelated to character options: significantly curtail elemental resistances and immunities and add more elemental weaknesses.
I am actually a little sad to hear this. I felt that designing enemies with a high variance of weaknesses vs. resistances produced more interesting combat strategies (with resistances favoring big hits and weaknesses favoring many small hits). I would have perhaps have preferred it if elemental specialist just got class feats that both mitigated enemy resistances and enhanced enemy weaknesses.
Or is this talking more about PF1=>PF2 rather than PF2 Playtest=>PF2?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing we did to drastically help the single-element character is something unrelated to character options: significantly curtail elemental resistances and immunities and add more elemental weaknesses.I am actually a little sad to hear this. I felt that designing enemies with a high variance of weaknesses vs. resistances produced more interesting combat strategies (with resistances favoring big hits and weaknesses favoring many small hits). I would have perhaps have preferred it if elemental specialist just got class feats that both mitigated enemy resistances and enhanced enemy weaknesses.
Or is this talking more about PF1=>PF2 rather than PF2 Playtest=>PF2?
Yes, PF1 to PF2. Basically if it makes sense to resist something or is associated with that thing, it does, but not like "this thing has nothing to do with electricity but we decided it was immune/resistant to electricity anyway." This was particularly bad for poisons. Sure, the poisons that affect a human vs. a dog vs. a plant and so on are realistically very different, but even then, it's not an immunity to poison. By just allowing our fantasy poisons to work differently and on more different species, we substantially increase the enjoyment for poisoner characters. Undead and constructs? Yeah, of course they're still immune. But we didn't need so much else to be immune too.
Yes, PF1 to PF2. Basically if it makes sense to resist something or is associated with that thing, it does, but not like "this thing has nothing to do with electricity but we decided it was immune/resistant to electricity anyway." This was particularly bad for poisons. Sure, the poisons that affect a human vs. a dog vs. a plant and so on are realistically very different, but even then, it's not an immunity to poison. By just allowing our fantasy poisons to work differently and on more different species, we substantially increase the enjoyment for poisoner characters. Undead and constructs? Yeah, of course they're still immune. But we didn't need so much else to be immune too.One thing we did to drastically help the single-element character is something unrelated to character options: significantly curtail elemental resistances and immunities and add more elemental weaknesses.I am actually a little sad to hear this. I felt that designing enemies with a high variance of weaknesses vs. resistances produced more interesting combat strategies (with resistances favoring big hits and weaknesses favoring many small hits). I would have perhaps have preferred it if elemental specialist just got class feats that both mitigated enemy resistances and enhanced enemy weaknesses.
Or is this talking more about PF1=>PF2 rather than PF2 Playtest=>PF2?
I understand now and I laud these changes.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand now and I laud these changes.Yes, PF1 to PF2. Basically if it makes sense to resist something or is associated with that thing, it does, but not like "this thing has nothing to do with electricity but we decided it was immune/resistant to electricity anyway." This was particularly bad for poisons. Sure, the poisons that affect a human vs. a dog vs. a plant and so on are realistically very different, but even then, it's not an immunity to poison. By just allowing our fantasy poisons to work differently and on more different species, we substantially increase the enjoyment for poisoner characters. Undead and constructs? Yeah, of course they're still immune. But we didn't need so much else to be immune too.One thing we did to drastically help the single-element character is something unrelated to character options: significantly curtail elemental resistances and immunities and add more elemental weaknesses.I am actually a little sad to hear this. I felt that designing enemies with a high variance of weaknesses vs. resistances produced more interesting combat strategies (with resistances favoring big hits and weaknesses favoring many small hits). I would have perhaps have preferred it if elemental specialist just got class feats that both mitigated enemy resistances and enhanced enemy weaknesses.
Or is this talking more about PF1=>PF2 rather than PF2 Playtest=>PF2?
Sounds good! A basic thought behind it is: PF1 had too many immunities that were either unpredictable or super-ubiquitous. If we lower the amount of arbitrary extra immunities, we increase the fun for theme characters who use those kinds of , while simultaneously allowing ourselves to crack down on 'arms-race design' of "Well these immunities are so unfair, then fine, this new feature ignores immunities" and then "Well too many things grant the ability to ignore immunities so actually this immunity can't be ignored by abilities that ignore immunities" and so on that we saw in PF1.
Sounds good! A basic thought behind it is: PF1 had too many immunities that were either unpredictable or super-ubiquitous. If we lower the amount of arbitrary extra immunities, we increase the fun for theme characters who use those kinds of , while simultaneously allowing ourselves to crack down on 'arms-race design' of "Well these immunities are so unfair, then fine, this new feature ignores immunities" and then "Well too many things grant the ability to ignore immunities so actually this...I understand now and I laud these changes.Yes, PF1 to PF2. Basically if it makes sense to resist something or is associated with that thing, it does, but not like "this thing has nothing to do with electricity but we decided it was immune/resistant to electricity anyway." This was particularly bad for poisons. Sure, the poisons that affect a human vs. a dog vs. a plant and so on are realistically very different, but even then, it's not an immunity to poison. By just allowing our fantasy poisons to work differently and on more different species, we substantially increase the enjoyment for poisoner characters. Undead and constructs? Yeah, of course they're still immune. But we didn't need so much else to be immune too.One thing we did to drastically help the single-element character is something unrelated to character options: significantly curtail elemental resistances and immunities and add more elemental weaknesses.I am actually a little sad to hear this. I felt that designing enemies with a high variance of weaknesses vs. resistances produced more interesting combat strategies (with resistances favoring big hits and weaknesses favoring many small hits). I would have perhaps have preferred it if elemental specialist just got class feats that both mitigated enemy resistances and enhanced enemy weaknesses.
Or is this talking more about PF1=>PF2 rather than PF2 Playtest=>PF2?
Short Version: I can just play a pyromancer without crying and the enemies that actually resist fire are gonna be the obvious ones.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Short Version: I can just play a pyromancer without crying and the enemies that actually resist fire are gonna be the obvious ones.
Correct! Now if your GM is a jerk or you are very unlucky, you could wind up in "The Red Dragon's Diabolic Pact: a Campaign of Brimstone and Hellfire." But no more will you run into, what did the guy who ran the analytics on the boards find out it was, 75% of monsters past a certain level were fire immune or resistant in PF1?
|
Short Version: I can just play a pyromancer without crying and the enemies that actually resist fire are gonna be the obvious ones.Correct! Now if your GM is a jerk or you are very unlucky, you could wind up in "The Red Dragon's Diabolic Pact: a Campaign of Brimstone and Hellfire." But no more will you run into, what did the guy who ran the analytics on the boards find out it was, 75% of monsters past a certain level were fire immune or resistant in PF1?
Yeah, it was bad in PF1.
... but is that campaign name a euphemism for Age of Ashes tho?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Short Version: I can just play a pyromancer without crying and the enemies that actually resist fire are gonna be the obvious ones.Correct! Now if your GM is a jerk or you are very unlucky, you could wind up in "The Red Dragon's Diabolic Pact: a Campaign of Brimstone and Hellfire." But no more will you run into, what did the guy who ran the analytics on the boards find out it was, 75% of monsters past a certain level were fire immune or resistant in PF1?Yeah, it was bad in PF1.
... but is that campaign name a euphemism for Age of Ashes tho?
I just thought of the worst possible situation for team fire, not associated with Age of Ashes!
I just thought of the worst possible situation for team fire, not associated with Age of Ashes!Short Version: I can just play a pyromancer without crying and the enemies that actually resist fire are gonna be the obvious ones.Correct! Now if your GM is a jerk or you are very unlucky, you could wind up in "The Red Dragon's Diabolic Pact: a Campaign of Brimstone and Hellfire." But no more will you run into, what did the guy who ran the analytics on the boards find out it was, 75% of monsters past a certain level were fire immune or resistant in PF1?Yeah, it was bad in PF1.
... but is that campaign name a euphemism for Age of Ashes tho?
Going to the City of Brass is probably worse!
|
|
I just thought of the worst possible situation for team fire, not associated with Age of Ashes!Short Version: I can just play a pyromancer without crying and the enemies that actually resist fire are gonna be the obvious ones.Correct! Now if your GM is a jerk or you are very unlucky, you could wind up in "The Red Dragon's Diabolic Pact: a Campaign of Brimstone and Hellfire." But no more will you run into, what did the guy who ran the analytics on the boards find out it was, 75% of monsters past a certain level were fire immune or resistant in PF1?Yeah, it was bad in PF1.
... but is that campaign name a euphemism for Age of Ashes tho?
Phew. I'm not a pyromancer type at all, but figured I should ask with that particular hypothetical campaign title ... :-O
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going to the City of Brass is probably worse!I just thought of the worst possible situation for team fire, not associated with Age of Ashes!Short Version: I can just play a pyromancer without crying and the enemies that actually resist fire are gonna be the obvious ones.Correct! Now if your GM is a jerk or you are very unlucky, you could wind up in "The Red Dragon's Diabolic Pact: a Campaign of Brimstone and Hellfire." But no more will you run into, what did the guy who ran the analytics on the boards find out it was, 75% of monsters past a certain level were fire immune or resistant in PF1?Yeah, it was bad in PF1.
... but is that campaign name a euphemism for Age of Ashes tho?
Red dragons are chaotic evil, so they need a lawful evil go-between to help broker their Diabolic Pact in this hypothetical doomsday for pyromancer campaign. I'll give you a free turn to guess who (pardon the wordplay). But at least in this hypothetical adventure I just made up, you get to discover the secret romance between Ymeri, Queen of the Inferno, and Mephistopheles, Lord of Hellfire and then fight them in a tag-team brawl.
Red dragons are chaotic evil, so they need a lawful evil go-between to help broker their Diabolic Pact in this hypothetical doomsday for pyromancer campaign. I'll give you a free turn to guess who (pardon the wordplay). But at least in this hypothetical adventure I just made up, you get to discover the secret romance between Ymeri, Queen of the Inferno, and Mephistopheles, Lord of Hellfire and then fight them in a tag-team brawl.
Ragathiel wants his backstory back. :p