| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are we having pcs fight each other and not monsters?
As far as I know NPC's can be built just like PC and are eligible creatures you can fight.
Eh I try to discourage pc vs pc fights because it build bad blood. Also I really don't thinkg D&D has ever truely been balanced around pvp.
NPC Vs PC however another story but I do prefer monster fights.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether or not one PC can beat up another PC really doesn't mean anything about the relative potency of those classes though. Like a level 20 rogue's 6 legendary skills and scads of skill feats won't necessarily show up in a PC grudge match, but "skills" are a big portion of what makes rogues good.
Like the only reason this is interesting is wizards *never* lost these theorycraft arena fights in PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of these are still kind of silly, as this isn't "Arena Death Fights: Second Edition", but a cooperative roleplaying game.
No, they are simply not conclusive. A starting point for determining whether a class is underpowered is to line them up and knock them down. Just because no one scenario is conclusive doesn't mean it's silly.
I still disagree about the power you ascribe these spells. It just doesn't work like that in any reasonably likely scenario. Charm has a 60% chance of working against 12 WIS fighter as long as you don't get hostile is not very useful in a typical scenario. It only works if there is only one creature to charm and you have to keep it civil.
A dazzled fighter can still kill a wizard that isn't dazzled. You can't just "move away and attack from a distance, easily defeating the fighter." If you start adding in variables like the wizard can move away and the fighter has to just stand there, then the wizard is better, but if the fighter can also move and perhaps even leave and then come back, the wizard is even more toast than before because it's the same fight, but with one less spell available.
Spending two actions to tell the fighter to run away isn't a net gain. Fighters are better than wizards both close up and far away. AC is typically 4 higher, to hit is generally 2 higher, damage is typically 4 higher, hit points are generally 8 higher. If the wizard's "great" spell doesn't land, he's mincemeat and if it does land, he's probably still dead. For example, say the wizard casts command and has a 50% chance of making the fighter run away for one action, 10% to run away for three actions, and 40% the fighter ignores the wizard. The fighter on average hits with a 6 (25% crit, 50% normal hit) and deals around 10 damage (over half of the wizard's hp). With three swings, better than even odds of taking out the wizard either with two hits or one crit. If he had to run away for a round, he moves back and makes two attacks with even odds of killing the wizard. The vast majority of the time Command does nothing or does relatively little to forestall the inevitable.
Also, which of these "great" spells are you going to memorize for the day?
It becomes more interesting when you team the wizard up with other characters and do a death match, but I don't think they help their group nearly as much as one more fighter does. Moreover, good tactics now seem to me to be to flank the fighter and take him out, then go after the wizard. It is telling that in 1e you would at least geek the mage out of respect. Now it doesn't matter much, though if you are close and he has a spell slot or two unspent, you may as well swat him because it isn't terribly difficult.
The only nice thing I can say about wizards is they are more fun to play than before. They just shouldn't have been made so weak as an over-reaction to wizard hate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah but it isn't a typical encounter.
Depends on the game/setting. I've seen games were 90%+ fights were vs NPC's.
Maybe if they were fighting multiples. But one vs one fighter vs wizard seems to be choosing the absolute worst scenario and then using it to declare the wizard is bad.
The same could be said of a single pc vs a monster too though. AS to the particular scenario, I don't really have a comment: my post was that it being a PC[NPC] alone didn't disqualify the scenario.
Fights against multiple slightly weaker (or boss and some minions) are far more the wizard's forte and not at all out of place with the encounter rules.
True, but your post was monster vs PC not numbers or relative strengths: so it could be a solo monster vs a solo PC[NPC].
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are we having pcs fight each other and not monsters?As far as I know NPC's can be built just like PC and are eligible creatures you can fight.Yeah but it isn't a typical encounter. Maybe if they were fighting multiples. But one vs one fighter vs wizard seems to be choosing the absolute worst scenario and then using it to declare the wizard is bad.
Fights against multiple slightly weaker (or boss and some minions) are far more the wizard's forte and not at all out of place with the encounter rules.
Agreed. Wizards are good at taking out the trash and can do so with great efficiency once they get fireball.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But one vs one fighter vs wizard seems to be choosing the absolute worst scenario
1v1 Fighter versus Wizard is a worst case scenario for the Wizard?
Things really have changed since PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But one vs one fighter vs wizard seems to be choosing the absolute worst scenario1v1 Fighter versus Wizard is a worst case scenario for the Wizard?
Things really have changed since PF1.
well if they were at fist level it could of still been bad for the wizard maybe even 2nd level. :P (in pf1*)
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end I made the call to stay with PF1E after consulting with my players.One could wonder why you're posting in the Second Edition part of the forum if you've already decided not to play it?
Seems like you're more interested in stirring up trouble (by posting hyperbolic claims about the new edition) and accusing the developers of being disingenuous than providing constructive feedback (positive or negative).
It seems quite clear that you're not interested in Second Edition (as you've also just admitted), so I think it's best to just ignore your grumblings.
Totally your prerogative. But if you think that people who are unhappy that the game is moving in a direction they disagree with are not allowed to post a bit about it in the week of release, you might want to take some lessons on free speech. I had some opinions I wanted to express and I've mostly done so, so after this I can leave you PF2E fans to your love fest.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
How are you not attributing feeling and opinions onto the designers? You literally just complained about someone doing that to you and my attempt to back them up. What am I missing ?
(Someone is going to have to explain to me why forming an opinion even if it involves assumptions about others is wrong when no one claimed anything is fact. Perhaps I am not processing it as it is late where I am and it has been a long week and I have forgotten how that original part started )
I took care to delineate that section of my post as just my opinion and I never talked about how the designers felt about anything, just that in my opinion they went into the design process with a certain goal and stuck to it, despite getting a good amount of pushback on the forums. I also pointed out that it is completely possible that the surveys were much more in favor of their changes than forum opinion, so I already admitted that I could be wrong. Not sure what else you want me to do to try and be fair in my assessment, without just shutting up and not saying anything at all.
Also it is a massive assumption to assume about forum feedback.. The designers definitely read the forums. That is what they are on record as saying. You are free not to believe them and it sounds like you don’t . But they always knew some people would never want to move
Where did I say that the devs don't read the forums? Stop putting words in my mouth or read more carefully. Sorry if I sound irritated, but it's really taxing trying to have a decent discussion when people start irrationally accusing you of things you haven't done.
As politely as possible can I ask you intentions in the 2E board if you never intend on playing it to even try and see if you are right or wrong? I am obviously not saying you can’t post here as I have no right to do that but I am just wondering why ?
It's the bloody release week of the new edition and I am taking some time out of my day to voice opinions I have about it. The new edition went into a direction I disliked already in the playtest and before moving on with my life, I want to state at least that I am disappointed that I won't be supporting Paizo anymore (outside of the AP's... for now). I mean, is that a principle that you have never encountered before in your life? Dissatisfied customers?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have played a great deal of second edition: the entire Playtest, as well as a 2e version of Rise of the Rubelords that started in January
Probably my favorite typo of the day. :p
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its fine to be a dissatissfied customer, but it is down right rude to Paizo to come in and make extreme statements that will severly turn off people investigating. There is a difference in saying you are dissatisfied with the new product and will be sticking to the old for x,y and z reasons, and saying things like " It is conceptually another game than PF1E, 3E and 3.5, it just is wearing the skin of those games like a loose hanging fleshsuit."
It's the bloody release week of the new edition and I am taking some time out of my day to voice opinions I have about it. The new edition went into a direction I disliked already in the playtest and before moving on with my life, I want to state at least that I am disappointed that I won't be supporting Paizo anymore (outside of the AP's... for now). I mean, is that a principle that you have never encountered before in your life? Dissatisfied customers?
But... it is. I used a bit of a shocking turn of phrase at the end, because that was the first day of the release and my feeling of disappointment was pretty high at that time.
But the game conceptually is very far removed from the 3.X engine which Pathfinder 1E very clearly still used. Things like "level to AC", the extremely modular feat system and many other of the mechanical changes make the game a highly different experience than playing any of the 3.X/1E versions of the game would give you in the past. Yeah, you still get levels and hence that's the "loosely hanging fleshsuit" part of it.
And, honestly, if you think one or two people voicing their discontent for a few days (I definitely plan to stop as soon as people stop throwing punches at me) will turn off people in the long term, then your confidence in the new edition seems to be almost criminally low.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its fine to be a dissatissfied customer, but it is down right rude to Paizo to come in and make extreme statements that will severly turn off people investigating. There is a difference in saying you are dissatisfied with the new product and will be sticking to the old for x,y and z reasons, and saying things like " It is conceptually another game than PF1E, 3E and 3.5, it just is wearing the skin of those games like a loose hanging fleshsuit."
It's the bloody release week of the new edition and I am taking some time out of my day to voice opinions I have about it. The new edition went into a direction I disliked already in the playtest and before moving on with my life, I want to state at least that I am disappointed that I won't be supporting Paizo anymore (outside of the AP's... for now). I mean, is that a principle that you have never encountered before in your life? Dissatisfied customers?But... it is. I used a bit of a shocking turn of phrase at the end, because that was the first day of the release and my feeling of disappointment was pretty high at that time.
But the game conceptually is very far removed from the 3.X engine which Pathfinder 1E very clearly still used. Things like "level to AC", the extremely modular feat system and many other of the mechanical changes make the game a highly different experience than playing any of the 3.X/1E versions of the game would give you in the past. Yeah, you still get levels and hence that's the "loosely hanging fleshsuit" part of it.
And, honestly, if you think one or two people voicing their discontent for a few days (I definitely plan to stop as soon as people stop throwing punches at me) will turn off people in the long term, then your confidence in the new edition seems to be almost criminally low.
Don't like the modular feat system huh
Completely disconnected from PF1's paradigm huh
Hey magnuskn how do you feel about rage powers
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Criticism is totally necessary. If a new edition of something you like goes on a direction you don't like, is logic to complain about it.
On general I'm liking 2Ed, but there are things I dislike, and others I have to made a decision still. But I can get why people can come and say "I don't like this change" when something they liked changed. Is NOT a totally unrelated thing to the one they liked, is on theory an evolution and improvement. And while I agree than on general there IS an improvement, I can easily see the reason to complain about some magic changes.
I find harder to understand the people that seems to believe that only positive feedback can be said. Some people have been quite rude to others that just said their opinion on quite polite manners. I even dare to say that developers appreciate to hear different opinions more than an echo chambers of praises.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't like the modular feat system huh
Completely disconnected from PF1's paradigm huh
Hey magnuskn how do you feel about rage powers
They are pretty nifty for that one class. I also like Unchained Monk ki powers and Slayer talents and so on. But those classes also got lots of fixed class features which gives them their identity. I'm not trying to say modularity is bad, but the focus (I'd personally say "overfocus") of PF2E on it is one of the factors which did push me away from it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I've just never felt the need to go to the pages of products I personally don't like to voice my discontent past dropping a review or a single post. Never have I hung around for days trying to convince people that the things they like are bad.
I would have walked away after about three days, but people just keep throwing punches and I don't take that lying down.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are pretty nifty for that one class. I also like Unchained Monk ki powers and Slayer talents and so on. But those classes also got lots of fixed class features which gives them their identity. I'm not trying to say modularity is bad, but the focus (I'd personally say "overfocus") of PF2E on it is one of the factors which did push me away from it.
For the record, I counted Class Features on the playtest Barbarian as compared to the PF1 Barbarian. They had about as many. They have more now than they did then.
Modularity is definitely a PF2 priority, but it's on top of defining Class features, not instead of them.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Criticism is totally necessary. If a new edition of something you like goes on a direction you don't like, is logic to complain about it.Yes.
I find harder to understand the people that seems to believe that only positive feedback can be said.No one believes that, but there’s a difference between criticisms/negative feedback and insults.
Some people have been quite rude to others that just said their opinion on quite polite manners.I don’t care how “polite” someone is, insults and wrapping your criticisms in demeaning language completely dismisses whatever point you were trying to make.
I even dare to say that developers appreciate to hear different opinions more than an echo chambers of praises.
You must not have been paying much attention if you think the playtest till now has been an echo chamber. Or that if people aren’t throwing insults about something they don’t like then it’s “praise” no matter how scathing their commentary on the subject is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not talking about the playtest. The playtest certainly has the fault on the other side; too much negativity. I'm talking about NOW. I believe that developers would be interested on criticism on the final version too.
Edit: Insults are wrong on EITHER side, of course.
|
|
Let's follow up my last post and look at Barbarians and compare, actually:
Counting Trap Sense and DR each as one feature (which they are, just a scaling one), PF1 Barbarians have 10 features (Rage, Fast Movement, Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense, Damage Reduction, Greater Rage, Tireless Rage, Mighty Rage). They'd have 18 if you counted each point of DR or +1 of Trap Sense separately.
PF2 Barbarians have 12 not counting raising Proficiencies that don't provide evasion equivalents or other bonuses beyond the +2 or Weapon Specialization (Rage, Instinct, Deny Advantage, Brutality, Juggernaut, Raging Resistance, Mighty Rage, Greater Juggernaut, Indomitable Will, Quick Rage, Devastator). If you include all Proficiency ups and Weapon Specialization they have 17.
That's definitely not less features in PF2 to any meaningful degree.
Now, Champion compared to Paladin would have less inherent features as it gave some up to have Class Feats, but PF1 Barbarian and Slayer in no way have more Class Features than a PF2 Barbarian or Ranger.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's follow up my last post and look at Barbarians and compare, actually:
Counting Trap Sense and DR each as one feature (which they are, just a scaling one), PF1 Barbarians have 10 features (Rage, Fast Movement, Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense, Damage Reduction, Greater Rage, Tireless Rage, Mighty Rage). They'd have 18 if you counted each point of DR or +1 of Trap Sense separately.
PF2 Barbarians have 12 not counting raising Proficiencies that don't provide evasion equivalents or other bonuses beyond the +2 or Weapon Specialization (Rage, Instinct, Deny Advantage, Brutality, Juggernaut, Raging Resistance, Mighty Rage, Greater Juggernaut, Indomitable Will, Quick Rage, Devastator). If you include all Proficiency ups and Weapon Specialization they have 17.
That's definitely not less features in PF2 to any meaningful degree.
Now, Champion compared to Paladin would have less inherent features as it gave some up to have Class Feats, but PF1 Barbarian and Slayer in no way have more Class Features than a PF2 Barbarian or Ranger.
Well, I guess I got suckered into comparing a class which got a bit more in features than it lost. Given that it is one of the melee classes which apparently needed help, it's not a great wonder. Still, if I count all the modular stuff on the Barbarian, I count 20 modular things on the PF1E Barbarian (10 rage powers, 10 general feats) and 32 modular things on the PF2E Barbarian (11 Barbarian feats, 10 skill feats, 5 general feats, 5 ancestry feats, 1 background choice).
The modular stuff isn't even one of the bigger negatives of PF2E for me, so I don't think I'll find it too productive to make a big discussion out of this. But it's definitely there.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I guess I got suckered into comparing a class which got a bit more in features than it lost.
To be clear, this is actually a full third of the Classes (Alchemist, Barbarian, Rogue, and Fighter). I think Wizard and Sorcerer may fall into this category as well, though I'd have to check.
Given that it is one of the melee classes which apparently needed help, it's not a great wonder. Still, if I count all the modular stuff on the Barbarian, I count 20 modular things on the PF1E Barbarian (10 rage powers, 10 general feats) and 32 modular things on the PF2E Barbarian (11 Barbarian feats, 10 skill feats, 5 general feats, 5 ancestry feats, 1 background choice).
Oh, it has far more modular choices in PF2, and I never said otherwise (though if including Background in PF2, you should include Traits in PF1, narrowing the gap slightly). My objection was to your contention that they gave something up for those extra options. They did not.
If your objection is to modularity in and of itself, PF2 is definitely the wrong game for you. Also, I'm pretty sure you're in a very small minority to object to PCs getting more modular options in and of itself.
The modular stuff isn't even one of the bigger negatives of PF2E for me, so I don't think I'll find it too productive to make a big discussion out of this. But it's definitely there.
What you said was that even Classes like Barbarian that had Talents in PF1 gave up core features for modularity in PF2. I though that an error worth correcting.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have strong opinion on 2e yet, but people in general definitely aren't good at handling things contrary to their opinions. Like, people feel they are personally attacked if someone disagrees with them or that the disagreeing opinions threaten their entire hobby :p I guess its partially because it is true that sometimes devs get discouraged by vocal minority and that upsets the people who weren't part of the vocal minority, but its kinda hard to tell who is minority and majority in internet conversations overall until few months have passed anyway.
I just find it kinda weird how defensive people are on either edition. One of them is too new to know how it works in practice, but playtest did do few things bad so its understandable that people are apprehensive about it. The 1e edition on the other hand is the one where my players seem to like it overall, but complain that its objectively unbalanced system that needs house rules to work better <_<
I can actually understand why people are so sensitive about complaining, I'd sometimes would like to just enjoy this hobby without hearing debates on faults of something our party is going to play anyway, but you can't stop people's right to complain about stuff :p I think everyone should learn more patience regarding that kind of stuff even when you heavily disagree.(and that also means tolerating people not agreeing with your criticism without resorting to ad honinems and generalizations)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, it has far more modular choices in PF2, and I never said otherwise (though if including Background in PF2, you should include Traits in PF1, narrowing the gap slightly). My objection was to your contention that they gave something up for those extra options. They did not.
Well, my actual original statement was that the high amount of modularity for every class was one of the things I didn't quite like, then some dude went "OH, BUT RAAAAGE POOOOWERS!" and what I tried to say (but apparently did not) was that Barbarians, Slayers and some others are classes which have some modularity but still a high class identity beyond that. Now, you correctly point out Barbarians actually gained features, but, at least for me at first glance at the character table, the old Barbarian seemed to be a more iconic representation. But we are getting now into the "just my opinion, man" territory, which I definitely will acknowledge is highly subjective and not exactly based on empirical evidence.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. I personally feel that, modularity aside, all the PF2 Classes have some pretty defining and iconic features. They're not quite the same ones as in PF1 in all cases, but they're definitely there.
I'll not dispute that. And, once again, it's just one of the things which made me go "nope" on changing to 2E. In effect, a lot of the classes actually gained something, but some crucial classes lost defining stuff ("weaker magic all around" is pretty defining for the two arcane classes). The poor Alchemist just got dragged into a dark alley and beaten up until it died and now the shambling corpse of it has stumbled out again. Not sure why one of the best and most successful original creations did in 1E had to be mangled like that.
Fair enough. I personally feel that, modularity aside, all the PF2 Classes have some pretty defining and iconic features. They're not quite the same ones as in PF1 in all cases, but they're definitely there.I'll not dispute that. And, once again, it's just one of the things which made me go "nope" on changing to 2E. In effect, a lot of the classes actually gained something, but some crucial classes lost defining stuff ("weaker magic all around" is pretty defining for the two arcane classes). The poor Alchemist just got dragged into a dark alley and beaten up until it died and now the shambling corpse of it has stumbled out again. Not sure why one of the best and most successful original creations did in 1E had to be mangled like that.
So I have had no interactions with the alchemist over the playtest or current, but what’s the bullet points on the issues?
I’m not being obtuse, I really don’t know. I’ve read them but it’s like I don’t fully understand how they work now, in pF1 it just sort of “clicked” easier but that’s probably because I was more familiar with the overarching rules so things like “extracts work like...” was building on knowledge.
Are they bad? They seem to be weirdly clunky based on all the feedback I’ve seen with various issues with bulk, mutagen builds, bomb throwing. I thought being able to truly main heal as an alchemist was going to be awesome!
And isn’t the new poisons supposed to be really good? I think you’re more like a true caster now in a sense because of all they bring to the table.
The game has made every class grow wider instead of deeper when it comes to power. Being able to do a lot if different things is going to have a lot of value.
I dislike d4s as well. I'd be quite happy if they were never used again, because a d8/2 is easier to roll (and pick up for that matter).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a roughly a 50/50 shot of my three first level spells contributing.
Sometimes, a lot of level 1 enemies have low saves in the +3-5 area though, even on the high end that means you'll be passing more than you fail with a base DC of 16 and those numbers are going to be even better against level 0 or -1 enemies, which the game kind of expects there to be a decent number of. Plus for a lot of spells, failure doesn't mean you get nothing anymore. A lot of the fail effects are pretty unimpresive, but it's better than having the spell fizzle.
So I have less of a limited resource
I'm not sure that's really true either. Your PF1 wizard has 4 spells per day and your PF2 wizard has 3, but the PF2 wizard also gets a focus spell from their school that you can probably cast every single combat. Mileage varies on how useful that focus spell is, but that alone lets them keep up with your PF1 wizard example.
The PF2 wizard also gets drain bonded item automatically, which gives them four spells per day anyways. A PF1 wizard can get that too and take the lead again, but a lot of wizards in PF1 don't take that option while it's just an automatic thing in 2.
Less tangibly, there's also the spell substitution thesis, which makes it a lot easier to make up for preparing the wrong spell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Name me one fantasy novel where they do this. Heck I’ve read my share of forgotten realms books (as well as the original Dragonlance) and even there they didn’t. I’m sure Raistlin would be really badass if he buffed Caramon with multiple spells before every battle. Prebuffing is a joke and I’m glad it’s been curtailed.
I always found pre-buffing to be realistic...
If you or I were fantasy character's about to go into a dungeon and fight some aberrations, we'd stack up as many bugs as we could afford, because we value our lives somewhat and want every edge. It's realistic, even if it's not the trope.
But, if you want a novel specifically, check out The Land series of LitRPGs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has seriously derailed, and grown rather rude. Magnuskn and I are allowed to dislike the changes to magic, and disliking it doesn't invalidate our right to be here. Geez. It's an open forum.
No one has said that you're not allowed to dislike the changes. The manner in which these complaints are worded, by some, is the biggest issue people seem to have.
I get a limited number of non-cantrip spell slots, and then I'm pretty much done for the day.
Erm, same as PF1.
In PF1 I could do that by pumping my spell DCs.
At higher level, yes. Now your DC automatically rises with your level, actually making your lower level spells more impactful even at higher level.
I could cast mage armor at the entrance to the dungeon and fire off one of my three spells per encounter knowing I'd made an impact.
How is that different than now? Well, except that now your Mage Armor lasts all day, vs. the 1 hour at 1st level in PF1.
So I have less of a limited resource, it has a smaller/weaker effect, I can't be certain that it will be impactful, and the adventuring day is longer. That doesn't feel wizardly. That doesn't feel heroic. That doesn't fit with the narrative of most fantasy literature, nor with the feel of about 20 years of 3.x. This is why we're upset.
You potentially have the same amount of your limited ressources (actually more, if you count over the whole day as you can regain your focus points).
You couldn't be certain that you would be impactful in PF1 either. In other words, you actually have more options now at 1st level than in PF1, so how do you feel less wizardly and heroic?Yes, if you sit down and do the math on the d4 cantrips they aren't as horrible as they seem, but the d4 is a bad first impression. Especially when casters in the playtest were rolling d8s, and in 5e they're rolling d8s and d10s. I said before, that's bad PR. The d6 isn't that much more damage, isn't as off-putting, and hurts less when you step on it. It would have been, in my opinion, a better decision.
Acid Splash is d6 + 1 damage, with the possibility of persistent damage.
Chill Touch is d4 + spellcasting modifier (usually +4).Electric Arc is d4 + spellcasting modifier (usually +4) on up to TWO targets.
Produce Flame is d4 + spellcasting modifier (usually +4), with the possibility of persistent damage.
Ray of Frost is d4 + spellcasting modifier (usually +4) with a potential speed penalty.
Telekinetic Projectile is d6 + spellcasting modifier (usually +4).
Sorry, but your complaint seems disingeniuous. Even the d4 cantrips all have your spellcasting modifier added.
(plus the potential for a once or twice per encounter chance of doing a whopping 3d10+8 points of damage at a range of 500 feet - dwarven ancestry using Hand of the Apprentice with a pick)
There also aren't very many cantrips themed to each school. It's hard to feel like a necromancer if you can only cast one necromancy spell in a day. It's hard to feel like a conjurer if you can only summon one creature in a day.
What? You can summon as many creatures as you have spell slots to memorize Summon spells.
My preference would have been to make magic weaker, but at will. The kineticist did this very well.
That's basically what your cantrips do! Before you were complaining that they were too weak, now you're proposing that there should be a "weak" option that you can use all the time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What made 4E D&D wizards great was the condition infliction and controller (moving foes around) aspects.
Imho, Paizo missed an opportunity to make spells do this.
In addition, I think the fantasy roleplaying game has evolved from "memorization" as a ruleset. The most famous wizard of them all (not you, Harry), Gandalf, didn't spend hours poring over some spellbook, and wasn't limited to what he had prepared.
Paizo had the opportunity to fix this too. The 3.5E Spirit Shaman picked from spells available for the day (communing with spirit), and then could cast any of those using any or all of the spell slots. Each morning when you prepare, you select those available that day. Then you could use ANY, and repeat them.
I played an aberration sorcerer in playtest, and was horrified that my very limited resources (often were save negates) weren't on par with a martial who could do essentially the same thing, any number of times.
Wizard was my favorite class in 1st AD&D - 3.5E; I haven't played one in 1E PF, and don't imagine myself playing one in 2E. I did however, play an arcanist, which I think, though broken in some respects, represents what a wizard should be. I wish they had just ported arcanist as the new wizard, into PF 2E, and rebalanced it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one has said that you're not allowed to dislike the changes. The manner in which these complaints are worded, by some, is the biggest issue people seem to have.
People are unhappy on both sides, and the internet isn't exactly known for moderating expression. And, of course, people recognize the harsh statements from the other side and fail to perceive the provocation being created by their own side.
But, at the end of the day, the pro-2E folks are the ones with the most to lose. The ship may have sailed on the product itself. But if there are some people on the fence, being reconcilitory and open to other points of view will do that little bit to sustain the fanbase.
Or, fans can dig in and drive the wedge deeper.