The Martial's Edition ?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Your actions are worth less far than the big boss's actions. If you're facing a solo threat, spending 2 actions to make them take 1 less actions is a good deal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Henro wrote:
Your actions are worth less far than the big boss's actions. If you're facing a solo threat, spending 2 actions to make them take 1 less actions is a good deal.

And now you have to factor your chances of doing nothing. To cast Dominate on a boss is a very efficient way to lose your action for no effect.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

It's been acknowledged a couple times already that there are far, far better options for this specific purpose than Dominate, but by all means latch on to it even harder - it's a great look.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
Henro wrote:
Your actions are worth less far than the big boss's actions. If you're facing a solo threat, spending 2 actions to make them take 1 less actions is a good deal.

And now you have to factor your chances of doing nothing. To cast Dominate on a boss is a very efficient way to lose your action for no effect.

Last post you were talking about how slow was "worse than useless" because you were trading 2 actions for 1 of theirs on the first round it was active. My counterpoint was pertaining to that.

Casting dominate on a boss doesn't seem like a good idea since it has the incapacitation tag, I agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Henro wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
Henro wrote:
Your actions are worth less far than the big boss's actions. If you're facing a solo threat, spending 2 actions to make them take 1 less actions is a good deal.

And now you have to factor your chances of doing nothing. To cast Dominate on a boss is a very efficient way to lose your action for no effect.

Last post you were talking about how slow was "worse than useless" because you were trading 2 actions for 1 of theirs on the first round it was active. My counterpoint was pertaining to that.

Casting dominate on a boss doesn't seem like a good idea since it has the incapacitation tag, I agree.

The boss has some chance of crit success the save - on top of his 50% success chance; especially if Will isn't his weakest save.

In the other hand, any fighter can trip the monster - 1 action vs 1 action. He has to succeed (while the wizard only requires a succeeded save). In the other hand, the fighter may get a +2 bonus (flank), +item bonus (trip trait and magic weapon), and other buffs/no-save-debuffs. What are the buffs one can apply to spell DC, what are the no-save-debuffs (like flank) one can apply to saves ?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
In the other hand, any fighter can trip the monster - 1 action vs 1 action. He has to succeed (while the wizard only requires a succeeded save). In the other hand, the fighter may get a +2 bonus (flank), +item bonus (trip trait and magic weapon), and other buffs/no-save-debuffs. What are the buffs one can apply to spell DC, what are the no-save-debuffs (like flank) one can apply to saves ?

Seems to me like a trip fighter and a slow-caster could work together to really debilitate a powerful opponent. If a boss monster only gets 1 action per turn they are pretty screwed.

I would argue the best "buff" to spell DC a caster gets is targeting weak saves, which amounts to about +3/+4 compared to targeting AC. I let my players use recall knowledge to learn about saves (and I would argue doing so is a good idea) so YMMV.

Other than that, a lot of debuffs like frightened, sickened and the ability debuffs weaken saves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The fighter also loses an action if he critically fails a trip, and trip also interacts with his multiple attack penalty so there's some very real danger of that unless he burns his best damage dealer for it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

When Fighters can cast Invisibility or Teleportation or some other strong utility spell without any significant investment towards being able to do so, I'll concede this edition being thrown to the Martials.

Until that happens, it's not a Martial Edition. And with the additional MAD requirements, as well as investing multiple feats over the course of several levels just to be able to do this once or twice over the course of an adventuring day, it's not going to happen.


Captain Morgan wrote:
The fighter also loses an action if he critically fails a trip, and trip also interacts with his multiple attack penalty so there's some very real danger of that unless he burns his best damage dealer for it.

improved knockdown solves that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
When Fighters can cast Invisibility or Teleportation or some other strong utility spell without any significant investment towards being able to do so, I'll concede this edition being thrown to the Martials.

Teleportation is uncommon. ie the normal rule is: the wizard can't cast it because he can't get it.

This isn't an edition where wizard can do awesome stuff while fighter can only hit stuff 5 feet away, this is an edition where no one can do anything special except when the DM grants a special permission. Once DM's special permissions are involved, I can guaranty my fighter can access teleport and plane shift as well as anyone else - to write some BG isn't a problem.

But you're right, invisibility is a thing. Can we list all special thing a normal wizard can do in pf2?

Liberty's Edge

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:

That's wrong and you know it. That's pure theorycrafting.

You would be right if fights were usually 10-rounds-long - but it's not the case and you know it.

Sure, in practice most fights last less than a minute and have less than 10 foes. Indeed, I never said otherwise.

But 'hits for the whole fight, vs. all foes in the fight' (which is the usual effect of failed Saves on the 6th level version) is a great effect. I was rather assuming that went without saying.

Also, and before we get into the breakdown of Slow, I'd like to just say, again, that it's an example. It's not a good spell under all circumstances and versus all possible foes...but it doesn't have to be, because you don't just get one spell. You get a fair variety even as a spontaneous caster, and can use them as appropriate on foes they will be good against.

Gaterie wrote:
In a non-infinite-duration fight, assuming the creature fails the save, after one round it's worse than useless (you lose 2 actions, the creature loses 1), after two round it's useless (you and the creature lose 2 actions), it become slightly useful at round 3 (depending on how much you value "pay 2 actions right now - and a slot etc - so that the enemy will pay more action in the course of 3 rounds).

This is false. It assumes that the creature's actions are worse than or equal to yours. This one doesn't have the Incapacitate trait so it's useful on bosses...whose actions are often worth a lot more than yours. In many cases, a PC giving up their turn to cost a boss an action is a great result.

And even on on-level foes, many have multiple action activities available, the removal of which hurts them more than you spending one turn on this hurts you.

And even in terms of non-boss encounters, fighting a single foe is a far from unusual situation, and any time you outnumber the enemy and think it's worth spending a spell, Slow can be a very solid option.

Gaterie wrote:
Now, you have to factor the chance the creature succeed its save.

That's always a factor, certainly, but even the 'success' condition can be quite good vs. a boss or vs. the right other foes. This is especially true since monster offense tends to be very high (though within PC range) while their AC tends to likewise be low (though again, within PC range), which makes removing actions from them especially good.

Gaterie wrote:
And, more importantly, factor the fact the third action is the least useful action in a round (due to MAP, non-repeatable action, two-actions activities like spell, etc : most creature do the same damages with 2 or 3 actions). Maybe slow is useful if it's coupled with a tripping fighter - costing two action every round to the enemy - , and maybe it is the key to achieve a three-action lock. But all by itself, slow is worthless.

It really isn't.

Again, many foes have two action activities that are very impressive and scary...but don't involve movement. Starting a combat with Slow reduces a Marlith (for example) from 8d8++16+1d6 to 3d8+13+1d6 (or reduces them from attacking the whole party to just one member) assuming they need to move (which is not a large assumption).

It also makes any enemy with spellcasting have to choose between spells and attacks, rather than getting to do both. This is actually viciously damaging if they're good at both (and many are). Heck, it's how the PCs in my playtest game defeated Ramlock (the main villain). Reducing him from having both a nasty melee attack and spells every round to having to choose hurt his offense a lot and that's hardly unique to him (many particularly scary foes have both). Now, they didn't use slow to do that...but they could've.

Versus a pure spellcaster foe, what it does is trap them. They cannot both move and cast, and that restriction really hurts most casters who aren't good at physical combat when they have an enemy in their face.

Even if none of these conditionals are true, just being not in melee when the enemy's turn comes up makes it effectively their second action it costs them (since they have to move, then attack at -0, not move then attack at -0/-5). That's less worth it, but still not nearly as bad as you're implying. And, as mentioned above, you could use a different spell in cases like this where a different spell might be better.

Gaterie wrote:
And once again, concerning level 6 spell, I'll think about a reroll when I'll play a campaign reaching level 15, lol.

Level 6 spells kick in at level 11. And level 3 spells, which is what slow actually is, kick in at 5th.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
Teleportation is uncommon. ie the normal rule is: the wizard can't cast it because he can't get it.

This isn't quite how Uncommon stuff works. Yes, you need GM permission, but Uncommon stuff is available all the time in published adventures and the GM is encouraged to give it to PCs who want it.

That's really not the same as a Fighter somehow getting an inherent teleport ability, something the rules don't even really have provisions for outside multiclassing.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's really not the same as a Fighter somehow getting an inherent teleport ability, something the rules don't even really have provisions for outside multiclassing.

You might be surprised... http://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=21

And only 3 levels behind Wizard.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:

You might be surprised... http://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=21

And only 3 levels behind Wizard.

I should've said 'outside archetypes', I suppose. Yes, that works, though it eats a minimum of three Feats and gets you a very limited number of spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I should've said 'outside archetypes', I suppose. Yes, that works, though it eats a minimum of three Feats and gets you a very limited number of spells.

6 spells, 1 cantrip, 2 skill upgrades (including early upgrade to Expert skill(s)). For 3 feats. Pretty decent, given you can grab things like True Strike, Haste, etc.

And also Teleport.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:

6 spells, 1 cantrip, 2 skill upgrades (including early upgrade to Expert skill(s)). For 3 feats. Pretty decent, given you can grab things like True Strike, Haste, etc.

And also Teleport.

Absolutely, at 14th level. It's a good set of Feats. But you could actually do most of that with multiclassing, which I mentioned in the post you responded to.

A 14th level actual arcane spellcaster would have 28 spells, and could double up and use a particular one of them more than once per day at need. Which is where I was going with the whole thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will say that generally speaking caster archetypes feel a lot more interesting and engaging than martial ones.

Gaining a whole bunch of utility spells, even if they're only once a day, for a couple of feats feels a lot more impactful than the couple of points of weapon damage my wizard gets with fighter MC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's funny, because I find casters way ahead martials. Other people find martials way ahead casters. It looks to me it's a matter of personal preference, which tend to prove everything's perfectly balanced.


My player that used a Evocation Wizard did fine in the Fall of Plaguestone, because his to go spell was Grease it managed to do some fun interactions with the group.

Spoiler:

Against Harold instead of going to him, my players did the ranged game with Grease in the middle of the room, making Harold having to go to them instead because he was with disadvantage using a crossbow against the bows and cantrips of the players, he had to take an extra action to reach them because of grease in the way.

Against the blind dogs in the rotten tree the players smoked out the animals out with a small fire and the Wizard put grease in the opening that made one of the dogs trip and then proceeded to be hitting both with Electric Arc each turn after.

Color spray was used often too, but he always prepared only one of this spell and heightened when at lvl 3, at lvl 4 he prepared hideous Laughter in the place because I accidentally slipped that would be the last day running that module and so he was expecting a boss. A small metagaming but I really don't mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
It's funny, because I find casters way ahead martial. Other people find martial way ahead casters. It looks to me it's a matter of personal preference, which tend to prove everything's perfectly balanced.

Yeah That is the way I look at it. If half the people are saying wizards are still too strong and the other half saying fighters are too strong I just average them. If you wanna say wizards aren't as strong as they were now that I agree with but I wanted the nerf of the full casters anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:


Yeah That is the way I look at it. If half the people are saying wizards are still too strong and the other half saying fighters are too strong I just average them. If you wanna say wizards aren't as strong as they were now that I agree with but I wanted the nerf of the full casters anyways.

Is it half and half though?

I certainly believe a lot of the stuff in this thread is pretty hyperbolic, but from my experience it's been more like an argument between people saying wizards are fine and people saying they suck. SuperBidi is the first person I've encountered on this or any other forum who believes that they're overpowered.

So I'm not sure that "they even out" sentiment really holds here.


Not in this thread no but I wasn't limiting myself just to this thread.


Neither was I.


Hmm well when you get a good statistical analysis I'll definitely look over and take your research into consideration but I don't honestly care enough to go though with a tally sheet and put a mark per one way or the other I see on every thread and forum I frequent.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I think more people are complaining about Wizards being bad than are saying they're overpowered, but that number is inevitably skewed by the fact that they're objectively less powerful than they were last edition.

Any reduction in power from the previous edition, and there'd be some people saying they sucked now even if they were still the most powerful Class in the game, just because of the between edition comparison.

Personally, I think Wizard is fine, and certainly much closer in power level to Fighter or Rogue than those Classes were to Wizard in PF1.


That does seem reasonable. I'll concede to that point for now. Hmm I'm just going to have to igther run for one or play one and see first hand. I will say I always expect wizards to start out weak and become super powerful at high levels. because that is how I have always seen it work.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There's also likely something to how some fraction of the wizard partisans are going to be people who gravitate to the class because it is the most powerful thing in the hands of someone who knows how to pilot it. When the Wizard is brought down to the level of everyone else, they feel like something has been taken from them.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
There's also likely something to how some fraction of the wizard partisans are going to be people who gravitate to the class because it is the most powerful thing in the hands of someone who knows how to pilot it.

Okay, but why the Wizard specifically, then? Clerics and Druids were absolutely right up there with them in PF1 (and sorcerers weren't exactly that far behind), but the criticisms of those classes tend to be much more specific and less prevalent than the ones about Wizards.

Deadmanwalking wrote:


Personally, I think Wizard is fine, and certainly much closer in power level to Fighter or Rogue than those Classes were to Wizard in PF1.

I'd generally agree if you didn't include Fighter there, Fighter kind of seems out of whack at the moment even compared to other martials (I also think the way they did Rogues in this edition is bad for the game overall, but that's sort of a tangential issue).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Level 6 spells kick in at level 11.

At level 11 a full caster can cast two level 6 spell and that's it. If all lower-level spell are worthless - and it seems to me all lower-level spells are worthless, the fact l3 slow is considered as a good spell shows how low the bar is - , then I don't think a character able to do 2 useful activities each day is better than a fighter.

But i agree: if you factor none of the weakness of the casters (weak spells, limited resources, access gated behind rarity etc) then they are the best class ever.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The other phenomenon I see is when people make snarky comments I immediately want to be on the opposite side of them whether I agree or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
- and it seems to me all lower-level spells are worthless,

Ah there's your problem, your wrong about a fundamental aspect of the games design.


Squiggit wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
There's also likely something to how some fraction of the wizard partisans are going to be people who gravitate to the class because it is the most powerful thing in the hands of someone who knows how to pilot it.
Okay, but why the Wizard specifically, then? Clerics and Druids were absolutely right up there with them in PF1 (and sorcerers weren't exactly that far behind), but the criticisms of those classes tend to be much more specific and less prevalent than the ones about Wizards.

Because people are actually saying casters are weaker than martial, and the answer is usually "wizards are awesome and using slow to trade two actions for one action is the best thing ever". It's the same in every thread; there's a thread about an article comparing casters and martials, and it seems the only comparison done in the artcile is "wizard's blast damages vs martial's damage".

That's really awesome.
"Casters are weak.
- No, wizards are fine.
- Wizards are weak as well.
- The fact you're talking about wizards proves other casters are fine.
- dafuk?"

I'll give you one thing: clerics make strong healbot. Because that's what people missed in 1e: healbot.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
I'd generally agree if you didn't include Fighter there, Fighter kind of seems out of whack at the moment even compared to other martials (I also think the way they did Rogues in this edition is bad for the game overall, but that's sort of a tangential issue).

Fighter is very good, but their DPR isn't hugely higher than other martials and their Saves are worse than any other Martial. I don't think they're as overtuned as others do.

As for Rogue, I think we need to wait to look at Investigator before we make any judgments on the way they've been done.

Gaterie wrote:
At level 11 a full caster can cast two level 6 spell and that's it.

Or three. Certainly 3 if we're talking about a class dedicated to spellcasting like Wizard or Sorcerer. Only two for a Druid or Bard...but of course, they can both have other options. A properly designed Bard is very useful even while casting no non-cantrip spells whatsoever, I assure you.

Gaterie wrote:
If all lower-level spell are worthless - and it seems to me all lower-level spells are worthless, the fact l3 slow is considered as a good spell shows how low the bar is - , then I don't think a character able to do 2 useful activities each day is better than a fighter.

Low level debuffs are often very good. Indeed, vs. a boss or other singular foe, level 3 slow is as good as the level 6 version, just as one example. Low level buffs and utility spells are also fine. And cantrips are a perfectly reasonable thing to do as well, albeit not as good as a martial's attack routine.

You seem utterly set on any time people argue a spell is good ignoring all the other good spells. Slow is a fine debuff, but it's not uniquely so, or the most powerful spell of its level, or anything like that. It's just a single spell picked as an example.

Gaterie wrote:
But i agree: if you factor none of the weakness of the casters (weak spells, limited resources, access gated behind rarity etc) then they are the best class ever.

Nobody here is arguing casters are the best class ever. Their Proficiencies in weapons, armor, Perception, and saves lag in general behind martials, as does their single target and at-will damage. Martials are sincerely better at some things than casters are this edition and should be.

But only some things. Casters are much better at buffs, debuffs, utility effects, dealing with large numbers of opponents, and nova-ing with their limited resources. And likewise, this is as it should be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
In the other hand, any fighter can trip the monster - 1 action vs 1 action. He has to succeed (while the wizard only requires a succeeded save). In the other hand, the fighter may get a +2 bonus (flank), +item bonus (trip trait and magic weapon), and other buffs/no-save-debuffs. What are the buffs one can apply to spell DC, what are the no-save-debuffs (like flank) one can apply to saves ?

Without going into the whole discussion, just a small correction: Flanking (and flat-footed in general) does not help with Trip in any way. It reduces only the target's AC, not its Reflex DC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Is it half and half though?

I certainly believe a lot of the stuff in this thread is pretty hyperbolic, but from my experience it's been more like an argument between people saying wizards are fine and people saying they suck. SuperBidi is the first person I've encountered on this or any other forum who believes that they're overpowered.

So I'm not sure that "they even out" sentiment really holds here.

I haven't said overpowered, I have said way ahead martials.

The thing is: Most martials are useless half of the time. Their main attributes are Strength, Dexterity and Constitution, which governs 4 skills, 2 of them being trivialized by low level magic (it looks like Stealth is no more trivialized by magic, but I haven't looked at Invisibility closely).
They also rarely have out of combat abilities out of their classes.
Compared to spellcasters, who cumulate high Intelligence, Charisma or Wisdom, all linked to 4 usefull skills + spells which are giving you a great versatility, they look extinct to me.

Then, you roll initiative, and you expect martials to shine and casters to sit and look. And it's not even the case. There will be fights where the Wizard will throw a Fireball on tight packed enemies, fights where your Cleric will maintain everyone thanks to healing, fights where the Sorcerer will make your Champion fly so he can keep his whole efficiency. And at the end of the day, I just don't wanna play most martials, because I have no fun doing nothing half of the time and not even getting all the attention the other part.

I think current state of the rules is fine. Because, depending on what's your main concern, you'll choose martials over casters or casters over martials. If enough players choose one or the other, you have a balanced party, and everyone plays "the most overpowered class" :)


Blave wrote:
Without going into the whole discussion, just a small correction: Flanking (and flat-footed in general) does not help with Trip in any way. It reduces only the target's AC, not its Reflex DC.

I stand corrected.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Consider that a solo boss has 3 actions per turn, and the party has 12 between them. If you spend 2 actions to make the boss lose 1 action, the party loses 1/6 of its total actions and the boss loses 1/3. So you effectively made him lose twice the proportion of total actions for his turn than you spent.

Preventing 3-action routines is super strong. If your party moves away on their turn and forces the boss to chase them, you can prevent 2-action routines too, with the boss only getting a single action to attack (assuming melee boss here of course, but the general idea applies that it messes with boss tactics).

In short, framing as "2 actions for removing a third attack" misses the fact that the one action you remove is worth much more than the two actions you spend, and that three Strikes is not usually a tactic employed by boss monsters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I will say I always expect wizards to start out weak and become super powerful at high levels. because that is how I have always seen it work.

I did some math, and yes.

Casters are still weak at low levels, and still strong at high levels.
Mainly, burning hands -> fireball -> cone of cold -> meteor swam all deal the same damage a fighter would against a single target, but the number of targets they can hit grows much faster.

Also, fighter and barb seem to deal the same amount of damage. One -hits more, the other hurts more, but the average damage nearly identical. Havn't looked at rogue/monk/ranger yet.


Mellored wrote:
Also, fighter and barb seem to deal the same amount of damage. One -hits more, the other hurts more, but the average damage nearly identical. Havn't looked at rogue/monk/ranger yet.

From what I've seen, fighter does more damage to APL+2 and higher enemies. Although the numbers for monster creation weren't official back then so maybe they can be rerun with the official numbers. I'm just going off memory here though, I could be wrong.


BellyBeard wrote:
Mellored wrote:
Also, fighter and barb seem to deal the same amount of damage. One -hits more, the other hurts more, but the average damage nearly identical. Havn't looked at rogue/monk/ranger yet.
From what I've seen, fighter does more damage to APL+2 and higher enemies. Although the numbers for monster creation weren't official back then so maybe they can be rerun with the official numbers. I'm just going off memory here though, I could be wrong.

That is probably true. But on the flip side, barbarian probably does more to lower level creatures.

I was using at-level creatures as a base. And they came out even.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:

stuff (the quoting system of those forums is seriously...)

if your group and you don't LIKE CC effects, that's on them, not on the edition.

Hideous laughter, since the first moment the bard of my group spotted it, has been a staple for him.

And it has saved the group way more than once.

and that's disregarding the fact that you seem to imply that aoe damage is useless in this edition, when it's 1000% more important than in any other edition due to how most encounters are designed and how vicious lackeys can be when you also have a boss to face.

as you said, you "like" one particular aspect of playstyle/storytelling, anything that even so slightly veers aways from that, it's "terrible" for you. So "for you and your group only" casters are bad. That has nothing to do with objectively looking at casters vs martials in the edition though.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fighter is very good, but their DPR isn't hugely higher than other martials

They kind of are. Generally speaking most other characters can only really attempt to keep up with the Fighter in ideal conditions, even if those conditions require fighting specific enemies or eating large penalties to AC to pull it off. The fighter does all day long what every other class in the game can only dream of doing... The PF2 fighter is built to 'own combat' based on the PF1 philosophy of the class having nothing to do out of combat, but that's not really the case anymore.

Quote:
As for Rogue, I think we need to wait to look at Investigator before we make any judgments on the way they've been done.

I'm pretty sure the Investigator will be another Skill Class. I just think that, given the way PF2 is balanced, having Skill Classes at all, and the necessary gatekeeping of skills required to protect that niche, ends up being bad for the game. In the same way that Fighter Feats make PF1 an overall worse game because of the way that informed game design.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:


I'm pretty sure the Investigator will be another Skill Class. I just think that, given the way PF2 is balanced, having Skill Classes at all, and the necessary gatekeeping of skills required to protect that niche, ends up being bad for the game. In the same way that Fighter Feats make PF1 an overall worse game because of the way that informed game design.

How so, I dont see anything in the skill feats that indicates extra chains or delays have been implemented so that rogues can be artificially good at skills.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Quote:
- and it seems to me all lower-level spells are worthless,
Ah there's your problem, your wrong about a fundamental aspect of the games design.

I think a lot of veterans are missing that spell DC's are completely disconnected from the level of the spell being cast. This makes which spells are good in low level slots in high level play pretty much the reverse of what it was in PF1 - outright save or sucks with no scalability like Slow do the same thing from when you initially get it all the way to level 20 without having to put it in a higher spell slot.


Squiggit wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fighter is very good, but their DPR isn't hugely higher than other martials

They kind of are. Generally speaking most other characters can only really attempt to keep up with the Fighter in ideal conditions, even if those conditions require fighting specific enemies or eating large penalties to AC to pull it off. The fighter does all day long what every other class in the game can only dream of doing... The PF2 fighter is built to 'own combat' based on the PF1 philosophy of the class having nothing to do out of combat, but that's not really the case anymore.

Quote:
As for Rogue, I think we need to wait to look at Investigator before we make any judgments on the way they've been done.
I'm pretty sure the Investigator will be another Skill Class. I just think that, given the way PF2 is balanced, having Skill Classes at all, and the necessary gatekeeping of skills required to protect that niche, ends up being bad for the game. In the same way that Fighter Feats make PF1 an overall worse game because of the way that informed game design.

"Fighting specific enemies" for the Ranger just means their Hunted Target, which is basically always, and the Barbarian has a huge advantage in hit points plus resistance in an edition where even maximum AC will still get hit and crit quite often. This makes up for taking lower AC by quite in a bit in my experience. Our playtest dwarf barbarian in light armor and low dexterity was the last one standing against the sea serpent, and actually pulled the unconscious fighter and Paladin out of the thing's throat.

Champion and monk may not deal quite as much damage, but they do other things better than the big 3 damage dealers. Tanking, protecting allies, and healing for the champion, and mobility, control, and magic on the monk.


Let us not forget that by lvl 10 a fighter could have his raise shield stance, which means the same ac as a monk/champ who doesn’t use shields.

Or eventually, 2 less armor but 3 actions instead of 2.

All of this while maintaining a better weapon proficiency.

So a fighter AC would be way better than ranger/barbarian (also because of heavy armor).

However I do agree that, given the high monster attack modifiers, it is common to be hit, even as a tank. That's why extra HP are definitely good.

On the other hand we have to remember that a champion is meant to have 6 more ac than a barbarian, and 3/5 than a dal wield ranger.

But it needs to wait till lvl 7 to be optimal.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
They kind of are. Generally speaking most other characters can only really attempt to keep up with the Fighter in ideal conditions, even if those conditions require fighting specific enemies or eating large penalties to AC to pull it off. The fighter does all day long what every other class in the game can only dream of doing...

This isn't really true, though. Rangers, Rogues, Monks, and Barbarians all come very close to equaling Fighter damage output vs. on-level opposition (though Rogues only do so via Sneak Attack), and of those, Ranger and Rogue are only a point behind in AC, Monk is often higher, and Barbarian can be equal (with Animal Instinct), and have more HP regardless. Champion is legitimately lower on offense, but have higher defense.

Squiggit wrote:
The PF2 fighter is built to 'own combat' based on the PF1 philosophy of the class having nothing to do out of combat, but that's not really the case anymore.

I disagree with this. The PF2 Fighter is focused very specifically on accuracy with a slight sideline in AC. That's not 'combat', it's a subset of combat. As noted, they pay for this in terms of Saves (another important aspect of combat), as well as, IMO, in lack of non-combat features (not that most people have too many). Others do better at HP, raw damage, AC, and every other aspect of combat other than accuracy.

Squiggit wrote:
I'm pretty sure the Investigator will be another Skill Class. I just think that, given the way PF2 is balanced, having Skill Classes at all, and the necessary gatekeeping of skills required to protect that niche, ends up being bad for the game. In the same way that Fighter Feats make PF1 an overall worse game because of the way that informed game design.

Eh. Everyone can do Skill stuff pretty well, and as others note there aren't a lot of weird Feat chains to make Rogues artificially valuable.

51 to 100 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / The Martial's Edition ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.