If everyone is going to feel like wizards are perfect with a +1 item at level 4 and another +1 at level 13, I don’t think that would massively unbalance the class/make everything else garbage, but I don’t see that really fixing the perception of the class and my biggest question would be:
How to prevent enemy casters (one of the most common NPCs) from using those numbers at level +2 or 3 from TPKing the entire party with minimal effort?
Edit: Specifically, what happens when your level 5 party runs up against a level 7 wizard? Will you be happy that the wizard can one shot your barbarian with their blasting spells?
Is it really that terrible for casters to realize that one trick in their bag of tricks (blasting) is of limited effect against one type of enemy, unless the party plans around it? ( at 120ft, a party luring a boss out into range can kite it into oblivion with blast spells like magic missile and ranged attacks). Things my party has managed against powerful melee monsters 2 times in published adventures.
The problem with thinking +1s here and there will fix the situation of wizards vs higher level enemies is that they have a much bigger effect against lower level enemies, which is what the party will usually be when they encounter wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Donovan gets my point and present it with better nuance. I was just pointing out that in a lots of ways, Wizard is not fun anymore. They seem underpowered for the first time in 20 years, and even more in comparaison to the other classes, even the casters ones in PF2.
On top of that a lots of spells are nerfed or just plain bad. It make me sad to see that they streamlined the spell list but you still got three different spell for Curse/Disease/Poison. A simple overcast Restoration would have worked, it increase even more the healbot Divine list. Save or suck are finish. And it sucks out a great deal of the fun of playing a casters, big buffs are nerf like haste, things that were useful for the martials too.
You lack diversity (of course it is only Core book, I know, but still the lack of diversity feels real to our group) when you used to go Chronomancer Transmutater with a subschool.
Now the Martials feel amazing. Fighter is just awesome, Monk too. Casters, and especially Wizard (but I will even add Sorcerers and Clerics here) were overnerfed like they deserved it for being powerfull during 20 years of DND. And it is an issue when no one wants to go caster at your table. Or when you cant’t achieve the fantasy you got in mind for your character. Battle Mage specialized in Evocation should be stronger at Evocation than it is now.
In PF1 Martials got big moment when they were buffed, and shred that boss with a full attack or a insane critical. Casters got they clutch plays and their big save DC where they turn someone into stone. Now we got Martials with even more utility, and a caster that get to Fear 1 a boss. That is so underwhelming.
The nerf was too hard. The options are not enough. Some spelllist urgently deserve new spells, strong ones. And the math of the system, sir far, are better for the Martials than caster in think. No, casting True Strike should not be your default before an attack spell. Or you should have more spells.
Pathfinder 2 is a very good game, more particularly for the DM and the ease of predation, shenanigans and the like. But so far, except Bard and Druid, caster feel like a failure for me. We need quickly more options. And strong ones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How to prevent enemy casters (one of the most common NPCs) from using those numbers at level +2 or 3 from TPKing the entire party with minimal effort?
Simple, just remove the inherent +2 (or more) they seem to have above PC casters...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if you had an argument with more substance than "I don't want to make a character that does what I want it to do, I just want it to do exactly that," it would be a lot easier to engage with this.
And if these are insults, man, I don't know what is going on. So far I've explained that you're being combative and argumentative and asked if you cleaned your bathroom.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I have a lot more ideas after reading the more "constructive" responses
I was actually just playing around with this because of the responses in this thread. Guess I should toss my charts up there instead of placeholders.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who played 5e as a rogue, 5e felt very balanced to me.
I think it is very important to understand why you feel this way.
5e removed (from 3rd or 4th edition) a lot of the specialization dials that characters (and especially casters) had to fine tune their characters into highly focused machines at their area of specialization. All a wizard really has in 5e is their spell selection and items, and then some incredibly specific class features for school specialization that essentially put your character on a rail of expected abilities.
PF2 gives you choices about your abilities as you progress through the game. Adding dials that significantly adjust things like accuracy are very tricky to do without making them mandatory if the math of the game is balanced towards assuming you have them or trivializing encounters when your party has them and it is not assumed you will.
PF1 was destroyed at higher levels because the underlying structure of the 3.x system was "just add more of these math adjuster opportunities and everything will work out fine."
The essence of rocket tag that I ever experienced was always who's caster is going first? (hint: It's mine, because I am a diviner, I always go in surprise rounds and have obscene bonuses to initiative). Because if it is mine (and it will be), your martial (and the rest of your party) isn't doing anything thing, or if I don't have the encounter on lock down with my first combat spell (because my entire party is already buffed), my party is teleporting away before you have a chance to do anything, and you will not be able to find us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I have a lot more ideas after reading the more "constructive" responsesI was actually just playing around with this because of the responses in this thread. Guess I should toss my charts up there instead of placeholders.
Man I love that! Thanks for sharing. Yeah, these guys have some great ideas, and SOME of the critics are just as helpful, because it makes me watch for the spell list of a new player, who might feel week because of the noted faults/Limitations of the class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man I love that! Thanks for sharing. Yeah, these guys have some great ideas, and SOME of the critics are just as helpful, because it makes me watch for the spell list of a new player, who might feel week because of the noted faults/Limitations of the class.Personally, I have a lot more ideas after reading the more "constructive" responsesI was actually just playing around with this because of the responses in this thread. Guess I should toss my charts up there instead of placeholders.
A player at my table used a level 1 Burning Hands last week. Our party is level 10. There was a bit of silence before the other spellcaster pulled him aside to point out the flaws in his spell choices. Game day this week, so we'll see what's changed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A player at my table used a level 1 Burning Hands last week. Our party is level 10. There was a bit of silence before the other spellcaster pulled him aside to point out the flaws in his spell choices. Game day this week, so we'll see what's changed.Man I love that! Thanks for sharing. Yeah, these guys have some great ideas, and SOME of the critics are just as helpful, because it makes me watch for the spell list of a new player, who might feel week because of the noted faults/Limitations of the class.Personally, I have a lot more ideas after reading the more "constructive" responsesI was actually just playing around with this because of the responses in this thread. Guess I should toss my charts up there instead of placeholders.
This is the area where I think that PF2 spell casting has the most room for valid critique, but it is also the thing that I like best about it:
PF2 spell casting is already (with the Core rulebook and now Gods and Magic) a whirlwind of options that are very nuanced and capable of being combine in many different ways. Some of those ways are incredibly powerful. Some of those (a level 1 burning hands spell) are incredibly not powerful.
I think that playing a caster well, eventually, is possible for a new player if they get to start that character at level 1. Throwing a new player into a high level caster is just as much of a nightmare situation as it was in PF1, and in some ways more (in other ways less).
But to remove that swinginess is pretty much the one nerf to casting that I really don't want want to see. What spells you pick and how you use them together should matter. The idea that each spell is equal to any other choice, no matter what slot it is memorized in, would be the death of the caster to me.
How to prevent enemy casters (one of the most common NPCs) from using those numbers at level +2 or 3 from TPKing the entire party with minimal effort?Simple, just remove the inherent +2 (or more) they seem to have above PC casters...
How do you remove this from the NPC built like a PC?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you remove this from the NPC built like a PC?How to prevent enemy casters (one of the most common NPCs) from using those numbers at level +2 or 3 from TPKing the entire party with minimal effort?Simple, just remove the inherent +2 (or more) they seem to have above PC casters...
Don't build your NPCs like PCs if you want them to be in combat, enemies are not created like players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I think an item that gave +1 to only spell attack rolls would be fine. Probably good enough that it would be a "must have" item for a lot of casters, but I think it's not so good that every caster would pick it up. And with the way NPCs are built, too, I don't really worry about that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone degraded the Alchemist from the playtest on, and Jason responded by writing Fall of Plaguestone, showing exactly how powerful a bunch of alchemists can be in world working together.
How long before we get a very challenging module or AP chapter where the party is fighting an entire wizard enclave?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone degraded the Alchemist from the playtest on, and Jason responded by writing Fall of Plaguestone, showing exactly how powerful a bunch of alchemists can be in world working together.
How long before we get a very challenging module or AP chapter where the party is fighting an entire wizard enclave?
The REREturn of the Runelords
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The REREturn of the Runelords
Electric Arc Boogaloo
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone degraded the Alchemist from the playtest on, and Jason responded by writing Fall of Plaguestone, showing exactly how powerful a bunch of alchemists can be in world working together.
How long before we get a very challenging module or AP chapter where the party is fighting an entire wizard enclave?
SPOILER Alert: They are going to hit with their spells, because they will probably outlevel the group and have busted spell attack. Because they are monsters with more levels than the players.
The other way around will not work, they would probably only get Fear 1. But at least the Cleric will have the opportunity to try to remove the condition x)
Trolling aside, I think that the system protect a lots of big boss from save or suck, but is particualry hard on the players. Wich means that in a meaningfull encounter, yes, the boss Necromancer could kill you in one deadly spell, as you would just make him bleed from his nose. Yes it is balanced, but it is not fun.
If spells are not going to be strong anymore, and that martials are fun, intuitive, strong, and thematic, at least go wild on the focus spells and classe feats for the Casters.
A good example for me of well built casters are the Druid and the Bard. Druids can have a pet, polymorph bonus or survival specialization. Bard have some of the best skill economy in the game, and they can always use what they are great at to do other things.
Clerics can heal and be subpar at everything else. Sorcerers and Wizard can...? Cast spells? Sometimes quietly? Maybe even once or twice in a campaign use a counterspell? Have a (...) familiar?
When I saw PF2 I was so hyped about the Sorcerer able to have different spell list. So in Plaguestone I played a noble girl from Cheliax, with the Infernal Pact. I was representing my character as throwing Hellfire on people, and use Charm and Suggestion on important NPCs. Well, I used heal, Guidance, and failed my Incapacitation Charms.
Next adventure, now I am playing a Gnome Ranger. Well I can tell you the difference is painfull for the Sorcerer. Same goes for our Wizard Dwarf from Plaguestone, a friend of mine, who now play Human Barbarian. So yes it is personnal experiences, but still.
I remember my Mesmerist from PF1 Reign of Winter or my Cleric from Curse of Stradh 5e, and my Sorceress felt miserable.
Our Bard feels ok, but he is a skill monkey before being a caster, and skills are strong now.
We have a 36 pages long post on the forums about the subject of Wizard, and maybe even Spells, being weak. In maths, or in flavor, or both. That is probably indicate an issue somewhere. Even if we disagree on the solutions.
As a quick fix, I decided at my table to give the potency bonus from runes to the casters (between +1 and +3 like the martials) to attacks, and to add a Power Rune (same prices/level than a potency rune) who add +1-+3 to the DC of spells.
So fa we are at the +1 DC and attack and it seems to improve the feeling without getting broken, we will see in the higher levels. I am considering removing the Incapcitation Trait, but I restrained myself so far, following some advices other forum users gave me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Question for SteelGuts: When going with your spells, what sorts of debuffs did your target have? What was your strategy when going in? (Also, Clerics don't counteract the frightened condition?)
I think a big thing that people are forgetting is that spellcasters need to be mindful of "soft targets" just as much as martials now. They just have to worry less when they face an enemy who has a prominent poor save. Your spell slots are more valuable (and impactful) than a martial's Strike, so you should throw them away if you (or your group) hasn't done at least a token gesture towards debuffing the enemy.
EDIT: Clerics/Divine casters can Remove Fear, but actually using it on the Fear spell seems excessively wasteful. You want to use that on frightened conditions that have a long duration.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's talk about 'spotlight'. Wizards don't have any right now.No class does. That’s a good thing.That's bull.
Fighters, Rangers, and Barbars all shine in combat. Rogues, Rangers, and Bards all shine in skill challenges. Sorcerers and Bards both get to shine bright in social challenges.
Classes get spotlights in 2e.
That’s not intrinsically from their class though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@SteelGuts
Clerics can effectively:
Sorcerers can effectively:
Wizards can effectively:
I do think that wizards are the weakest caster in the game, but they're still a caster which automatically makes them decent. But I heavily disagree with your standpoint that clerics and sorcerers are weak, as a person who GMs for both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't build your NPCs like PCs if you want them to be in combat, enemies are not created like players.How do you remove this from the NPC built like a PC?How to prevent enemy casters (one of the most common NPCs) from using those numbers at level +2 or 3 from TPKing the entire party with minimal effort?Simple, just remove the inherent +2 (or more) they seem to have above PC casters...
Sure, for your average 15 seconds in the spotlight character I agree. But for a decent arch villain who will be shining outside of combat, but eventually drawn into combat, it is nice to be able to build them like a PC, something the developers deliberately intended to be possible.
"Don't make them wizards, because they will be too powerful," runs contrary to a lot of what is being presented in this thread. Wizards have wonderful places to shine. Luckily, "wiping out groups of organized and powerful enemies by themselves" is not one of them, because that would make rocket tag the only game in town.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How to prevent enemy casters (one of the most common NPCs) from using those numbers at level +2 or 3 from TPKing the entire party with minimal effort?
Worth noting that this is kind of already a thing, just the other way around.
The values in the monster creation guidelines for spell attacks are generally a couple points higher (with exceptions at a few breakpoints) than the values PCs get.
So rather than an enemy wizard built with PC rules being unduly strong, giving them an extra +1 or 2 would just put them more in line with an enemy wizard built solely using monster creation rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ruzza: We had if my memory are correct, a Frigthened 1 from a Warrior Intimidate check, a +1 from Guidance and maybe another +1 from another source. Not sure about the last one. We did average check, like 11-13 on the final boss of Plaguestone, was not enough. And she succed all her save checks easily against CC, and I did not pick a lots of effect even on fail because I was not as aware as I am now about how save worked.
@Salamileg:
Ok now compare that to 5e or PF1.
What a Cleric, an Inquisitor or a Warpriest (espcially the last one can do compare to the PF2 Warpriest): Hit reliabily with Bull Strenght and Divine Favor and Bless and a multiple of other numerical buffs. Use Immobilize Personn (and increase that DC with whatever) and Coup de Grace. Use for evil one strong negative energy channeling through the weapon. Have a tons of strong Domains/Inquisitions, some of them way stronger than a lots of flavorfull but weak domains now. They can also become really good at melee or range, use WIS for attack on some weapons with divine styles, and have a very very very flexible spell list, way more than now. Buff with Evangelist like a Bard. Gains more spells from other list than now (one for each level of spell). Use subdomains. Make stat B used stat A with whatever shenanigans to use your best stat.
In 5e:
A cleric can be a beast at AC, use Guding Bolt for good blasting and buff in the same spell, use a very powerfull Bless spell on the whole group, and cure all afflictions with only one spell. Cleric is with Bard probably one of the strongest 5e Class. They can have Counterspell, Invisiblity and Fireball depending on their domains. You want to really see the differences between a cleric in robe and a warpriest? Look at the Domains in 5e.
So you are going to tell me, and that would be adequate, than you have to compare Cleric from PF2 to other class in the same system. And now you watch a Fighter, and you heal. The Heal thing is not even a joke, the spell is one of the best in PF2, so good in fact and versatile that Healing is probably going to be one of the best value you can get from a spell slot. That, and the fact that you go from okayish to bad at anything else, make de facto the Cleric a healbot. You can of course, always try other things. But you will probably be always less likely to succed with the same panache as a cleric from PF1 or 5e. And your martials mates will probably succed more.
The equivalent of middle attack bonus (Inquisitor, Magucs,...) being Expert in PF2 is I my opinion not enough because you lack the sheer number of numerical buffs theses classes had. And why a Muticlass Archetype can bring you to Master with spells, but not Master with Weapon? Seems very unfair, again.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now the Martials feel amazing. Fighter is just awesome, Monk too. Casters, and especially Wizard (but I will even add Sorcerers and Clerics here) were overnerfed like they deserved it for being powerfull during 20 years of DND. And it is an issue when no one wants to go caster at your table. Or when you cant’t achieve the fantasy you got in mind for your character. Battle Mage specialized in Evocation should be stronger at Evocation than it is now.
So let's get things straight here.
A 5th level wizard casting the 2nd-level Acid Arrow is equivalent to a ranged fighter. With True Strike, they nearly double the damage of that fighter.
A 5th level wizard casting the 3rd-level Fireball against 3 enemies of the same level + using Force Bolt/cantrips will output the same damage as the optimized dragon barbarian with a greatsword over two turns.
This is basically the worst level for a wizard to compare to a martial.
How strong do they have to be before you're satisfied?
How will that not outshine everyone else in the party (again)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't build your NPCs like PCs if you want them to be in combat, enemies are not created like players.How do you remove this from the NPC built like a PC?How to prevent enemy casters (one of the most common NPCs) from using those numbers at level +2 or 3 from TPKing the entire party with minimal effort?Simple, just remove the inherent +2 (or more) they seem to have above PC casters...Sure, for your average 15 seconds in the spotlight character I agree. But for a decent arch villain who will be shining outside of combat, but eventually drawn into combat, it is nice to be able to build them like a PC, something the developers deliberately intended to be possible.
"Don't make them wizards, because they will be too powerful," runs contrary to a lot of what is being presented in this thread. Wizards have wonderful places to shine. Luckily, "wiping out groups of organized and powerful enemies by themselves" is not one of them, because that would make rocket tag the only game in town.
if make a vanilla wizard villain without special magic items, he is gonna die in 1 round.
If is not vanilla is not a PC.
I disagree.
If I want my 7th level archvillain to be able to string a chain of different spells together against my 4th or 5th level PCs, making her like a PC allows me to pick a wide array of spells to do interesting things.
Those inherent bonuses on Monster built NPCs are there to cover for the ways PCs take strategic advantage of the battlefield because they have sessions of practice working together as a team (lets leave PFS out for this discussion). As an adventure writer, I don't want every room to have monsters that have to explain their tactics to the GM everytime to the point that the GM has to try to memorize a bunch of things that aren't likely to matter, that is why I use the monster builder rules for 95% of the monsters.
But If I want a boss that is going to have that 3 paragraph battle tactic advice and it is going to include round by round advice for how to take advantage of a spell list that includes way more spells than you add on a Monster NPC, then the PCs rules are there for that.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So let's get things straight here.A 5th level wizard casting the 2nd-level Acid Arrow is equivalent to a ranged fighter. With True Strike, they nearly double the damage of that fighter.
A 5th level wizard casting the 3rd-level Fireball against 3 enemies of the same level + using Force Bolt/cantrips will output the same damage as the optimized dragon barbarian with a greatsword over two turns.
This is basically the worst level for a wizard to compare to a martial.How strong do they have to be before you're satisfied?
How will that not outshine everyone else in the party (again)?
It's pointless, there is no learning purpose here, only ranting.
>If AOE spells are good; Nah, the attack spells are the bad ones. I dont want to use only AOE>Use true strike; Nah, expending every slot on true strike is bad design.
>Actually the damage is not that inferior to the fighter, and in some situations, even higher; Nah, useless class, ruined and everyone has abilities and feats, while the wizards only have spells that miss.
It's incredible, frankly, how everything goes back in a circle in this thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A 5th level wizard casting the 2nd-level Acid Arrow is equivalent to a ranged fighter. With True Strike, they nearly double the damage of that fighter.
While it doesn't change your overall math much, it is worth noting that that's assuming three rounds of persistent damage, with the Fighter in question not appearing to have taken any feats and forfeiting their third action. As well as neither combatant doing anything on those subsequent rounds.
So there are a few asterisks to add onto that statement.
Clerics can effectively:
Heal, as you said. Buff their allies. Debuff their enemies. Have solid out of combat utility, particularly with divinations. Serve as a solid blaster in any game that heavily features undead or fiends. Have a wide variety of focus powers thanks to the domains system. Be a decent melee combatant (not as good at melee as the dedicated classes, but still better than most other casters).
Suprisingly, in that edition Cleric are not that great at buffing/debuffing.
They lack a lot of the good buff (like Haste) unless provided by their God, the one they have are pretty much all on the Occult list as well, and as you can't cumulate status bonus, a Bard in the party is just plain better at it.
(not counting that Cleric are the only ones without the free sustain feat, probably to avoid comboing with Warpriest).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What a Cleric, an Inquisitor or a Warpriest (espcially the last one can do compare to the PF2 Warpriest): Hit reliabily with Bull Strenght and Divine Favor and Bless and a multiple of other numerical buffs. Use Immobilize Personn (and increase that DC with whatever) and Coup de Grace. Use for evil one strong negative energy channeling through the weapon. Have a tons of strong Domains/Inquisitions, some of them way stronger than a lots of flavorfull but weak domains now. They can also become really good at melee or range, use WIS for attack on some weapons with divine styles, and have a very very very flexible spell list, way more than now. Buff with Evangelist like a Bard. Gains more spells from other list than now (one for each level of spell). Use subdomains. Make stat B used stat A with whatever shenanigans to use your best stat.
Numerical buffs in PF1 could bring a warpriest or cleric up to decent attack levels, but were much better employed on the Paladin, who could also smite and ignore all the complicated resistances that creatures were given to attempt to create some sense of balance. All those numbers could be applied to everyone, so they were always best applied to the most specialized player at the table. Getting rid of them was a massive step away from having your cleric just feel like buff and heal bot.
Debuffing is far more fun in PF2 than it was in PF1 because in PF1 debuffing was a waste of time if you just had a save or lose spell that was going to hit with full effect and more than 75% accuracy. It is much more of a tactical game than just, pick all the feats, items and spells that make you unstoppable at your one specialized thing and never worry about the possibility that your one specialization is going to not work, until it does fail to work and your party dies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All those numbers could be applied to everyone, so they were always best applied to the most specialized player at the table. Getting rid of them was a massive step away from having your cleric just feel like buff and heal bot.
Generally, though some popular ones like Divine Favor were self only and Bless was AoE.
I think the mechanics behind buffing/debuffing are unequivocally better in PF2, but melee clerics can feel a bit frustrating to play in PF2, mostly down to PF2's accuracy system (and maybe partially because of the game's odd proficiency system).
Melee wizards and sorcerers have similar issues, but you can't really compare to PF1 because wizard with a sword wasn't really a thing at all in that edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the mechanics behind buffing/debuffing are unequivocally better in PF2, but melee clerics can feel a bit frustrating to play in PF2, mostly down to PF2's accuracy system (and maybe partially because of the game's odd proficiency system).
I have read a lot of arguments based on the accuracy, and frankly, it doesn't surprise me, in PF1 accuracy wasn't a thing... characters (At least the ones formulated in forums by mad rpg scientists) didn't ever miss, and if they did, they were called badly made.
I always thought the 40-60 range of hit was Fair, but It's clear now that it is not like that to everyone. Depending on the dice can be a lot more fun for new players, veterans might think that they have less input in their success.I like though that the base game is hard, and depends on the tactics of every player. In your own game, you can also fight only against weaker enemies, and make it feel more like PF1.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rolling recall knowledge isn't a fun or exciting thing to do, it takes my actions and I'm the only one who even cares. It's important maybe, if your party gives a damn, but that doesn't make it fun in any way. Cleaning your bathroom is important.
I think rolling Recall Knowledge and thus knowing things is very fun and exciting. I've had huge amounts of fun with that as a major aspect of my character's schtick in a variety of games. I've seen and played with a variety of people who feel the same.
The fact that you don't enjoy it is something true of you, not of everyone, and a good sign that maybe Wizard (and other Classes defined by their knowledge) aren't a good fit for you, rather than an objective issue with Wizard.
Not that it matters anyway, the bard is better at this than you.
Not really. A Bard who grabs Bardic Knowledge (ie: not every Bard ever) is good, and their version applies to everything, but most Bards have low enough Int + Trained Lore that the Wizard is at least as good in the Int skills even if the GM is reducing DC.
But more importantly...why are these characters in the same party unless you want two people to split knowledge duties? That's sharing the spotlight, but so is having a Barbarian and Fighter in the same group in many ways, and its equally obvious that it'll happen.
Trust me when I say they are done right about once a session because my spell are limited and miss half the time.
What spells are you using? The good spells for this you'll hit with as much as 90% of the time, because they still do something solid even on a Save and don't have Incapacitate. Slow leaps immediately to mind as an example.
Yay! I can spend my money to buy a ton of spells so that I can use my limited resources to counterspell. Enemy casters will of course always have more spells than you, and counterspell doesn't even work every time, but this is so much fun.
You just didn't respond to the Weaknesses thing. Also, counterspell only uses resources you want to use, you are never obligated to do it...but when you do you trade not using an action for the enemy wasting a turn if you do it right. That's solid. It's not an every combat thing, but it can be good, and it's definitely a spotlight move.
If we remove spell substitution, fly, and invisibility from the game will you let wizards be fun? The potential that a wizard can solve a non combat challenge is not a guarantee they will solve every non combat challenge. Like I said, I get to solve a problem maybe once or twice in a 4-6 hour session. And I have spell substation!
What other characters do you have? The more non-combat focused characters you have the less any one will solve of such problems. This is another example of the Wizard feeling bad not because they don't have a spotlight role, but because too many people in the party are competing for the same spotlight role. Which is a problem certainly, but not really a bad aspect of Wizard per se.
Also, I'm in no way against Wizards being fun, even by your standards. I'm totally on board with them getting damage-increase Feats on par with Dangerous Sorcery, items to increase spell attacks, better Focus Spells, and a host of other things. I also just think that several Wizard builds do fine as is.
You seem to forget that 10 minuets is enough time to just let the normal skill characters solve the freaking challenge without you.
It is if they can do so with minimal risk. That's not always gonna be the case.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have read a lot of arguments based on the accuracy, and frankly, it doesn't surprise me, in PF1 accuracy wasn't a thing... characters (At least the ones formulated in forums by mad rpg scientists) didn't ever miss, and if they did, they were called badly made.
I always thought the 40-60 range of hit was Fair, but It's clear now that it is not like that to everyone. Depending on the dice can be a lot more fun for new players, veterans might think that they have less input in their success.
That's fair. It's definitely a subjective thing.
In my opinion, being able to do something reliably and moderately effectively generally feels better than being able to succeed at tasks, but unreliably. Especially when it comes to things that run off limited resources, but even for other activities I think it feels kinda bad to run a high risk of doing nothing on your turn because the math is so tight.
I also think that if the math is tuned too tightly for specialists, it can wall off characters who aren't maximized. Obviously you want specialists to feel good, but if the numbers are too tight dilettante characters can feel like they don't have a place in the system and that's bad too (Starfinder is really bad at that when it comes to skill DCs).
PF2 certainly is no Warhammer Fantasy RPG in that regard (where it's not unreasonable for everyone in a fight to go several rounds just having you and your opponent miss each other), but I do think for certain types of checks the high variance can feel frustrating and detract from the stories the game is trying to tell.
All those numbers could be applied to everyone, so they were always best applied to the most specialized player at the table. Getting rid of them was a massive step away from having your cleric just feel like buff and heal bot.Generally, though some popular ones like Divine Favor were self only and Bless was AoE.
I think the mechanics behind buffing/debuffing are unequivocally better in PF2, but melee clerics can feel a bit frustrating to play in PF2, mostly down to PF2's accuracy system (and maybe partially because of the game's odd proficiency system).
Melee wizards and sorcerers have similar issues, but you can't really compare to PF1 because wizard with a sword wasn't really a thing at all in that edition.
Inspire courage probably was made too good in PF2 in comparison to what spells can do, and that does create some weird balance issues. Why does bless as a spell take 2 actions to start, only begin with a 5 foot emanation, and only affect attack rolls, taking a first level spell slot? Is that really an equal trade off for the one action a round to give all allies in 60ft the same bonus but also to damage rolls, and saving throws against fear? How many rounds does the cleric have to stay adjacent to 2 or more allies before the action economy gained from not concentrating on the bless spell disappear into movement? It feels like bless could have been a +1 to attack rolls in a 20 ft radius for 1 minute and people would still prefer inspire courage because having a one action action to do each round that feels that useful to the whole party really makes you feel like you are using the 3 action economy.
But this taps in to my frustration at having so many focus powers and abilities that are almost identical to an ability something else gives, which is more of an aesthetic complaint than a mechanical one, even if I do feel that it is inevitable that having 5 ways to do the same thing will always result in one of them being better than the others.
Back on track, the sooner we can get more single action spells, the better for every caster class. Folks just need to be prepared for them to be half as impressive as what a 2 action spell can do, which is tough to justify when you are picking from such limited spell slots.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think that if the math is tuned too tightly for specialists, it can wall off characters who aren't maximized. Obviously you want specialists to feel good, but if the numbers are too tight dilettante characters can feel like they don't have a place in the system and that's bad too (Starfinder is really bad at that when it comes to skill DCs).
I Agree... In PF1 we play underoptimized 15point buy builds. And the APs just come to life in that low power level. (At least for us, as a player I prefer a more frustrating game)
In PF2, not having a 18 Main stat feels bad, I think, the game is tuned for max use of resources because that is what players end up doing, and if the game cannot take it, it breaks later.I think is a compromise, and I'm sure it needs tunning, but I believe more on the adventure side. Many have said that Age of Ashes is too hard. But PFS has some true cakewalk adventures as well... So I guess they are still calibrating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think that if the math is tuned too tightly for specialists, it can wall off characters who aren't maximized. Obviously you want specialists to feel good, but if the numbers are too tight dilettante characters can feel like they don't have a place in the system and that's bad too (Starfinder is really bad at that when it comes to skill DCs).
I Agree... In PF1 we play underoptimized 15point buy builds. And the APs just come to life in that low power level. (At least for us, as a player I prefer a more frustrating game)
In PF2, not having a 18 Main stat feels bad, I think, the game is tuned for max use of resources because that is what players end up doing, and if the game cannot take it, it breaks later.
I think is a compromise, and I'm sure it needs tunning, but I believe more on the adventure side. Many have said that Age of Ashes is too hard. But PFS has some true cakewalk adventures as well... So I guess they are still calibrating.
Age of Ashes feels way easier than Fall of Plaguestone. But I am also a fan of the difficulty meter pushed up to hard and that was nearly impossible to do in PF1 APs past book 2 unless the GM was willing to do a lot of work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Age of Ashes feels way easier than Fall of Plaguestone. But I am also a fan of the difficulty meter pushed up to hard and that was nearly impossible to do in PF1 APs past book 2 unless the GM was willing to do a lot of work.
JB Adventures are always hard. Having some nightmare memories of his level in Emerald Spire.
Yeah, I like that is super Hard. And that miss chance, of 40-60% it's present in PF1, in levels 1-3. You hit on a 12-20, I mean, remember those AC16 Goblins in ROTR. Its the same feeling, but now you cannot "cheat" away from the difficulty, it's always present.I keep reading stories of characters moping the floor with Karzoug, with the Black Sovereign, with Deskari... Now, is just not possible. Those guys are going to be terrifying no matter what, and you will have to combine all of your resources to win.
I'm playing Iron Gods PF2, and every Boss encounter has been amazing. (And yes, I have a wizard player, and it's quite effective)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if make a vanilla wizard villain without special magic items, he is gonna die in 1 round.
If is not vanilla is not a PC.
I disagree.
If I want my 7th level archvillain to be able to string a chain of different spells together against my 4th or 5th level PCs, making her like a PC allows me to pick a wide array of spells to do interesting things.
Those inherent bonuses on Monster built NPCs are there to cover for the ways PCs take strategic advantage of the battlefield because they have sessions of practice working together as a team (lets leave PFS out for this discussion). As an adventure writer, I don't want every room to have monsters that have to explain their tactics to the GM everytime to the point that the GM has to try to memorize a bunch of things that aren't likely to matter, that is why I use the monster builder rules for 95%...
A BBEG Serial Killer level 7 Wizard with Silent Spell, maxed out stealth as his second skill, Invisibility 4, and Swift Sneak should be able to cause some serious havoc if the PCs don't know his MO before the fight and prepare several Fairy Fires/Glitterdusts. That character should be able to pick off a PC or two before escaping cleanly versus the majority of level 5 parties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A BBEG Serial Killer level 7 Wizard with Silent Spell, maxed out stealth as his second skill, Invisibility 4, and Swift Sneak should be able to cause some serious havoc if the PCs don't know his MO before the fight and prepare several Fairy Fires/Glitterdusts. That character should be able to pick off a PC or two before escaping cleanly versus the majority of level 5 parties.if make a vanilla wizard villain without special magic items, he is gonna die in 1 round.
If is not vanilla is not a PC.
I disagree.
If I want my 7th level archvillain to be able to string a chain of different spells together against my 4th or 5th level PCs, making her like a PC allows me to pick a wide array of spells to do interesting things.
Those inherent bonuses on Monster built NPCs are there to cover for the ways PCs take strategic advantage of the battlefield because they have sessions of practice working together as a team (lets leave PFS out for this discussion). As an adventure writer, I don't want every room to have monsters that have to explain their tactics to the GM everytime to the point that the GM has to try to memorize a bunch of things that aren't likely to matter, that is why I use the monster builder rules for 95%...
Just having the villain hitting them with Nightmare arbitrarily after she finds out about them sounds like a lot of fun too.
EDIT: Or outcast's curse. A villain that will have no problem getting away from PCs and just plaguing their existance until they agree to do something terrible for her would be a lot of fun to encounter.
Just having the villain hitting them with Nightmare arbitrarily after she finds out about them sounds like a lot of fun too.
EDIT: Or outcast's curse. A villain that will have no problem getting away from PCs and just plaguing their existance until they agree to do something terrible for her would be a lot of fun to encounter.
My favorite thing I thought of was blinding the party casters then casting confusion on the party martial.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always been a huge fan of knowledge rolls and monster identification.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because as it stands its not even guaranteed to help you, before you could ask for a stat or abilities, now you are just given "something helpful". With no choice in the matter.
This part is factually untrue. PF1's guidelines on what you got from successful Knowledge checks never specified you got specific stats, and indeed doesn't even say you the player get to pick what you get.
A lot of GMs (including myself) let you do so, but it's not anywhere in the rules, and they can do it just as easily in PF2, if they choose to.
Casters have no room to improve because any improvement is seen as "you want to break casters". No matter how much casters need it or how much fun they are having.
Then what you propose? What could be a way to improve the wizard with what you have, with the current rules. What option would allow you to have fun with the class (Realistically speaking of course)