So the second round of errata is on it's way probably in a few months by the way the devs were talking about it. So what do you guys think it's glaring and deserves an errata?
Not sure about glaring but parts of the Alchemist? They seem to have some proficiency issues
And some of the fields should arguably be able to pick a different stat boost such as Strength for mutagenist.
Perhaps it will also get something that allows it's familiar to develop? That seems like an oversight doesn't it?
Not sure either will happen. But the designers mentioned something about a Reddit blowup over Alchemist recently. I recall there being lots of threads being created arguing about alchemist but I did not read them
Not sure about glaring but parts of the Alchemist? They seem to have some proficiency issues
And some of the fields should arguably be able to pick a different stat boost such as Strength for mutagenist.
Perhaps it will also get something that allows it's familiar to develop? That seems like an oversight doesn't it?
Not sure either will happen. But the designers mentioned something about a Reddit blowup over Alchemist recently. I recall there being lots of threads being created arguing about alchemist but I did not read them
Yeah alchemist just feels lackluster i guess? I can't point my finger where but proefs seem like a nice place to start, the familiar i am guessing it can be made in a better way by giving better familiars on APG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for me, I think time has come for them to say something about shields ( whatever the outcome ).
Yeah, some way to progress some magical shields is quite a bit needed. I mean something like the magical one that gives a circustance bonus to save is fine without it. But some shields like the lion one or the thorn one without progression feels really bad...
Aside from wording clarifications? I'm pretty much still hoping for an Alchemist fix. I think that's both possible and really desirable.
Fix their remaining 'do nothing' abilities, and then put them on Martial proficiency progression for bombs/mutagen attacks, and you're most of the way there IMO.
They'd still have some resource progression issues (I feel like they're starved for reagents early on, and beyond flush lategame) but I think their miserable-to-play issues would be mostly resolved...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hoping for some clarification on how many free hands Battle Medicine requires.
|
Things I HOPE are in the next wave:
Adding the appropriate Traits for Familiars and Animal Companions which actually MAKE them Animal Creatures (or not in some cases such as Alchemist and Wizard where the Familiar need not actually be an Animal.) As it stands neither of these are granted the Animal Trait that enables them to be valid targets for Spells and Effects that Target Animals.
A nice solid buff-patch for Alchemist at large. I don't REALLY care how they do it but they need help big time, especially Churgeion who despite being given an "out" of spending the vast majority of their Skill Training in Medicine is still 100% required to invest in it because they cannot use Crafting in place of Medicine for the purposes of Skill Uses and Feat Prerequisites.
Does the Basic Crafter's Book contain any Alchemical Items from the Equipment Chapter? If so, how are you going to Replace the pointless free Formulas that are given to all the Alchemist Specialties?
Clarification indicating that a Magic Item that is Activated to cast a Spell MUST state "Innate" if it's going to be treated as such. Currently, by strict RAW reading ALL Scrolls, Staves, and Wands contain Innate Spells and this is a MASSIVE problem for all Classes except Bard/Sorcerer. This clearly isn't RAI but since the Innate Spell rules are so vague and also incredibly specific on how the DC and Spell Attack must be calculated it overrides the normal Cast a Spell Rules. FIX PLEASE!
Do you need 1 Formula in order to make all 10 levels of Spells? Do you need 10 Formulas to make all 10 levels of Spells? Do you need 10 Formulas per Casting Tradition for all 10 levels of Spells? Do you need a Formula for EVERY DISTINCT Spell you can put in a Scroll? Do you need a DIFFERENT Specific Formula for EVERY LEVEL of a given Spell for Heightening purposes? Depending on the correct interpretation this means there are somewhere between 1 & 10,000+ unique Formulas for scrolls.
Tweaks/Overhaul to how the Sturdy Shield functions or enabling PCs to Craft/Buy different Unique Magic Shields that are also Sturdy.
Ancient Elf Nerf (Come on guys, you know it's broken just admit it was a mistake, you're ALREADY seeing a HUGE flood of Ancient Elves in PFS in disproportionate numbers.)
ADDING A BRAND NEW SECTION - Explaining that weapons of differing Size Categories does NOT change the Weapon Damage Dice. This is quite possibly the common misconception that PF1, 3.X, and 5E players come into PF2 having.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want the sentence that tells those three people off in the corner, "No, rolling a natural 20 does not give you an automatic critical success."
No, it hasn't been. No number of streams, Q&A sessions, or panels can change the rules as printed in the actual books. Only errata can do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am hoping we start to see some Bestiary errata. *Looks over at Clay Golem's Ancient Curse*
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ancient Elf Nerf (Come on guys, you know it's broken just admit it was a mistake, you're ALREADY seeing a HUGE flood of Ancient Elves in PFS in disproportionate numbers.)
Honestly, Ancient Elf has never seemed better to me than Versatile Human.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ancient Elf Nerf (Come on guys, you know it's broken just admit it was a mistake, you're ALREADY seeing a HUGE flood of Ancient Elves in PFS in disproportionate numbers.)Honestly, Ancient Elf has never seemed better to me than Versatile Human.
Or Half-Elf Multi-talented.
Things I HOPE are in the next wave:
Adding the appropriate Traits for Familiars and Animal Companions which actually MAKE them Animal Creatures (or not in some cases such as Alchemist and Wizard where the Familiar need not actually be an Animal.) As it stands neither of these are granted the Animal Trait that enables them to be valid targets for Spells and Effects that Target Animals.
A nice solid buff-patch for Alchemist at large. I don't REALLY care how they do it but they need help big time, especially Churgeion who despite being given an "out" of spending the vast majority of their Skill Training in Medicine is still 100% required to invest in it because they cannot use Crafting in place of Medicine for the purposes of Skill Uses and Feat Prerequisites.
Does the Basic Crafter's Book contain any Alchemical Items from the Equipment Chapter? If so, how are you going to Replace the pointless free Formulas that are given to all the Alchemist Specialties?
Clarification indicating that a Magic Item that is Activated to cast a Spell MUST state "Innate" if it's going to be treated as such. Currently, by strict RAW reading ALL Scrolls, Staves, and Wands contain Innate Spells and this is a MASSIVE problem for all Classes except Bard/Sorcerer. This clearly isn't RAI but since the Innate Spell rules are so vague and also incredibly specific on how the DC and Spell Attack must be calculated it overrides the normal Cast a Spell Rules. FIX PLEASE!
Do you need 1 Formula in order to make all 10 levels of Spells? Do you need 10 Formulas to make all 10 levels of Spells? Do you need 10 Formulas per Casting Tradition for all 10 levels of Spells? Do you need a Formula for EVERY DISTINCT Spell you can put in a Scroll? Do you need a DIFFERENT Specific Formula for EVERY LEVEL of a given Spell for Heightening purposes? Depending on the correct interpretation this means there are somewhere between 1 & 10,000+ unique Formulas for scrolls.
Tweaks/Overhaul to how the Sturdy Shield functions or enabling PCs to Craft/Buy...
What would you suggest on ancient elf?
I am hoping we start to see some Bestiary errata. *Looks over at Clay Golem's Ancient Curse*
I am not fully up to speed with all the system terminology. What is the problem here?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or Half-Elf Multi-talented.Ancient Elf Nerf (Come on guys, you know it's broken just admit it was a mistake, you're ALREADY seeing a HUGE flood of Ancient Elves in PFS in disproportionate numbers.)Honestly, Ancient Elf has never seemed better to me than Versatile Human.
Ancient Elf seems like a great trap for characters who aren't willing to wait till second level to get that dedication. They're trading a potentially unique/hard to replace racial ability for early access to something which can't be followed up on until 4th anyway...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not actually errata, but a dev comment: "if you're bothered by shields, re-imagine non-sturdy shields as totems, icons, or holy symbols. That is, stuff you present towards the enemy but where it's natural they'd break if used to block with". Problem solved, no rules changes necessary.
Or you know, "Imagine them as realistic, normal shields, which were destroyed when used to directly block attacks in battle as opposed to deflecting them. You know, like real weapons and armor."
I'm not normally a simulationist, but the idea that all shields should be durable when used to absorb blows is... kindof silly.
|
|
For Ancient Elf I personally suggest having it consume their 1st Level Ancestry Feat and granting Training in 1 Lore Skill of the PCs choice.
As it stands it's one of the VERY few Heritages that grants you a Feat, and not only that, it gives it to the PC a whole level early, PLUS it's a CLASS Feat.
Regarding Vesitile Heritage, AE blows it out of the water. The power scale of feats goes Class/Archetype > Ancestry > General > Skill for the system and AE not only grants a strictly better "tier" of Feat than Versatile does, it also gives it to the PC a whole level early meaning that at Level 2 the Character no longer has to trade their Second Level Class Feat in order to Multiclass at all and loses ZERO ground when it comes to improving their Class Role.
I challenge anyone here to find even a single option in the ruleset that grants the PC as much mechanical advantage and a head start on their concept at level 1 as Ancient Elf. It's not even close, so much so it's in the same boat as the 5E "Variant" Human.
I am hoping we start to see some Bestiary errata. *Looks over at Clay Golem's Ancient Curse*I am not fully up to speed with all the system terminology. What is the problem here?
A Clay Golem's Cursed Wounds has a counteract level of 10 on a 10th level monster, which is unusually high and definitely out of reach for a 10th level party. For more details, there are threads here, here, and here on the subject.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or you know, "Imagine them as realistic, normal shields, which were destroyed when used to directly block attacks in battle as opposed to deflecting them. You know, like real weapons and armor."I'm not normally a simulationist, but the idea that all shields should be durable when used to absorb blows is... kindof silly.
So are you also advocating for weapons to break when they hit monsters made of solid rock?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So are you also advocating for weapons to break when they hit monsters made of solid rock?
Or you know, "Imagine them as realistic, normal shields, which were destroyed when used to directly block attacks in battle as opposed to deflecting them. You know, like real weapons and armor."I'm not normally a simulationist, but the idea that all shields should be durable when used to absorb blows is... kindof silly.
No. I'm just against removing a valid game choice ("Do I choose a shield which I intend to regularly block with, or do I choose one that enhances my survivability in another way.") because people think shields shouldn't break, or that shields breaking in one or two blows isn't "accurate".
Its as accurate as anything, and describing shields as "consumables" isn't accurate in the first place since you know whether blocking with a shield will destroy it before choosing to use the reaction in the first place. Don't block if your shield is going to be destroyed.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not holding my breath for any big changes to Alchemists or Shields or etc. They just seem like really systemic changes to make and I'm not sure Paizo is willing to do that with errata. More likely I think to just see new shields that patch the old ones or maybe some minor stat adjustments to shields or some small adjustments to a couple abilities. I think you're more likely to see changes to those come in the form of power-crept options in future books.
Clarifications for things that are confusing people and seem like more direct fixes seem the most likely. So I'm mostly hoping for stuff addressing common questions I see come up like battle medicine and critical strikes.
Ancient Elf is fine as is, and personally I'd be really worried about the health and future of this game if the developers start devoting time to nerfing and diminishing interesting player options instead of addressing more direct problems or issues. That was one of the more frustrating aspects of PF1 and the 'problem' elements in PF2 are a lot less egregious.
If a lot of people are making ancient elves because it lets them explore builds that'd be difficult to express otherwise or enables concepts to come online sooner? Cool. That sounds wonderful. Make more stuff like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe they will touch the alchemist. There are a lot of people concerned about their direct power, but don't seem to get how insanely versatile they are to make up for it. This post and its comments do a great job of highlighting the strengths of the alchemist, despite the kind of antagonistic title. They also have a "recommended build" section that can be ignored for these purposes, the rest of the post still makes good points.
My hope, although I don't expect it to happen, would be for them to remove the "incapacitation" trait from the Sabotage rogue feat. The idea of the feat is so very cool. Being able to break armor and more complex weapons, or even just cut a belt of bandoleer, during combat sounds so fun and satisfying, but being unable to use it frequently makes it a little disappointing.
Edited for terrible grammar.
I'm hoping to learn if telekinetic maneuver is supposed to have all of the normal side effects of using the corresponding maneuver. Are you supposed to be knocked prone if you critically fail to trip with the spell? Should you get a free stride when you shove at a distance? I'm pretty sure you do RAW, but I'm not sure if its intentional.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally hoping the errata clears up wild shape stuff, it's a pretty frequent argument. Extra damage to forms should be clarified (sneak attack/rage being used while transformed) and item bonus when using the characters own unarmed attack bonus.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
+1 Battle Medicine.
Alchemist needs more love.
It'd be nice if shields couldn't be destroyed, and if breaking shields worked the same as overcharging a wand.
The ancestry feats in Lost Omens Character Guide need re-working.
I still don't understand why wizards aren't trained in all simple weapons, or why they are limited to spells in the spellbook when other prepared casters aren't.
I don't believe they will touch the alchemist. There are a lot of people concerned about their direct power, but don't seem to get how insanely versatile they are to make up for it. This post and its comments do a great job of highlighting the strengths of the alchemist, despite the kind of antagonistic title. They also have a "recommended build" section that can be ignored for these purposes, the rest of the post still makes good points.The problem I have with that post is it reads awesome in theory but you can't actually do it in practice, because they ignore the limits of reagents you have. A combined double elixir of health heals for a bunch, sure, but at 3 reagents per you're not doing it more than once a day. Plus the actual penalties of a mutagen means you get your head critted in.
Throw a bomb or two, drink a mutagen or three, poison all your teams weapons, hand out elixirs of life to your team and keep 3 reagents handy for your super heal. That's awesome but you'll need a long rest after every fight.
These are all fair points, but I believe a lot of this is made up by the fact that you can use downtime to generate many more consumables. Now that is of course gm dependent, but APs provide plenty of downtime for these things, and I would hope most dms would as well to accommodate alchemy crafting.
|
Ancient Elf seems like a great trap for characters who aren't willing to wait till second level to get that dedication. They're trading a potentially unique/hard to replace racial ability for early access to something which can't be followed up on until 4th anyway...
I didn't think of it as a trap, but rather a chance to take a specific level 2 class feat as your level 1 ancestry feature. Seems comparable to Versatile Human or Natural Ambition to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
+1 Battle Medicine.
Alchemist needs more love.
It'd be nice if shields couldn't be destroyed, and if breaking shields worked the same as overcharging a wand.
The ancestry feats in Lost Omens Character Guide need re-working.
I still don't understand why wizards aren't trained in all simple weapons, or why they are limited to spells in the spellbook when other prepared casters aren't.
Wizards have never been trained in all simple weapons and have always been limited to their spellbook. I am pretty sure this has been the case in every iteration of the game ever.
So why were you expecting anything different. I can state with certainty that this will not change
Wizards have never been trained in all simple weapons and have always been limited to their spellbook. I am pretty sure this has been the case in every iteration of the game ever.
So why were you expecting anything different. I can state with certainty that this will not change
The spellbook limitation is a balancing factor (if it is necessary or not, that's another discussion, but it is taken into account for the game's balance). The simple weapon thing, however, is just a holdover from previous editions that makes Wizards absolutely terrible at taking Archetypes for no reason other than tradition or "that's how it's always been". It's something I really hope to see gone as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spellbook limitation is a balancing factor (if it is necessary or not, that's another discussion, but it is taken into account for the game's balance). The simple weapon thing, however, is just a holdover from previous editions that makes Wizards absolutely terrible at taking Archetypes for no reason other than "but muh tradition". It's something I really hope to see gone as well.Wizards have never been trained in all simple weapons and have always been limited to their spellbook. I am pretty sure this has been the case in every iteration of the game ever.
So why were you expecting anything different. I can state with certainty that this will not change
Wizard's weapon proficiency could also be reasoned as an example of, "No, Wizards do not get to have every desirable class feature they could possibly want."
Would it be nice if they were proficient in all Simple Weapons? Sure. It'd be nice if they got Martial, and Armor too.
But do they need it?
They're Wizards - they're the most powerful and versatile spellcasters in DnD, now and always.
I don't think they do.
Or Half-Elf Multi-talented.Ancient Elf Nerf (Come on guys, you know it's broken just admit it was a mistake, you're ALREADY seeing a HUGE flood of Ancient Elves in PFS in disproportionate numbers.)Honestly, Ancient Elf has never seemed better to me than Versatile Human.
Yep It is good for certain build concepts but not others. Why is that a problem?
Its not.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe they will touch the alchemist. There are a lot of people concerned about their direct power, but don't seem to get how insanely versatile they are to make up for it. This post
None of the criticisms leveled at the alchemist are towards their lack of versatility or if some of their abilities are balanced. I suggest you check more on the topic. The main issues with the class lie with PF1e-style feats (basically tax or mathematical benefits to jump a hurdle), broken class path (Mutagenist) and unsupported class path (Chirurgeon), the issue with action economy cost. There's also some things that are not as broadly shared such as Alchemists being glorified crafters because their own items aren't any different from the store, their playstyle is very lackluster and unrewarding, things like dealing a little bit of damage on a miss (2 to 6) isn't satisfying in play at all and feel like a consolation prize, specially when you're behind on the accuracy curve. This last example is a personal opinion I have after seeing one in play for over 10 levels (Bomber), the player retired the character because she wasn't having any fun, neither feeling she was contributing enough, there were a handful of times where we felt the Alchemist brought something unique to the table throughout these levels, which is very hard to do when your class just make items that anyone can buy.
The guy on the post's idea of a "good" build was a Melee Mutagenist with 26 AC at level 10 and also relied on some house rules with bombs (treating them as melee weapons when up-close). There were a lot of aspects of the class that were cherry picked or slightly twisted to give it a good impression, disregarding some costs to make it look better than it is in play.
The Alchemist may be exactly what the designers intended it to be, but it is undeniable that a good chunk of people don't feel the class is on par with others and they want it to be better. People that claim that they just "don't know how to play with it" or "can't see the benefits" seem like they're trying to claim some superiority because they "see" something others don't.
The Alchemist class deserves to be as cool as a Fighter or Rogues, have cool class paths as a Barbarian and gain interesting abilities that make them feel unique, not just being item dispensers. As they are right now, they're this edition's version of a Healbot Cleric, but instead of just offering healing, they just pump out free items, it is not BAD, but as with the Cleric, it is not good for the game (and class) either.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're Wizards
"Because wizards and I don't want them to" seems like a poor rationale for anything.
Traditions are important, and change for the sake of change is bad.
On the other hand. Keeping something the same just because "it's always been that way" isn't really good either.
There's no real balance rationale behind it (I mean, the playtest witch got all simple weapons and it was literally identical to the wizard except for its focus spells). Simple weapons are meant to be balanced against each other anyways and there's nothing a wizard with a morning star could do that a wizard with a club couldn't or an arcane sorcerer/witch couldn't do with the same weapon.
It just make building some already niche builds more of a nuisance for... no real gain.
It'd be nice if shields couldn't be destroyed, and if breaking shields worked the same as overcharging a wand.I still don't understand why wizards aren't trained in all simple weapons, or why they are limited to spells in the spellbook when other prepared casters aren't.
Shields should be destructible, but they could at least block a single attack and gain the broken condition at higher levels, instead of being outright destroyed on meaningful attacks. Right now, the only option for someone focusing on shields is the Sturdy Shield, which doesn't seem fair when everyone else have options in their chosen playstyles.
Regarding Wizards, this is by design and it is because of legacy. Wizards are the book learning guys, so they need to go and research their spells, That's basically it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Squiggit
I am saying that traditions should be used as a reference. Changing them as needed and balancing them appropriately.
It doesn't make much sense how Wizards were left with that limit with no appropriate compensation, when almost everything else that was used to represent their weakness was removed.
They got beyond appropriate compensation with unlimited auto scaling Cantrips.
If Wizards want free Weapon Proficiencies, Martials should get Free Cantrips.
Maybe Fighters should get Focus Spells because it's currently too difficult to build my Fighter/Magic Warrior concept.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard's weapon proficiency could also be reasoned as an example of, "No, Wizards do not get to have every desirable class feature they could possibly want."
Would it be nice if they were proficient in all Simple Weapons? Sure. It'd be nice if they got Martial, and Armor too.
I don't see how this is a fair comparison in any way or form. Martial weapons are straight up better than Simple weapons. Armor is better than having no armor. Getting all Simple weapons would be more of a quality of life change than anything; it would be irrelevant for 90% of Wizards, but would make it easier for the ones who want to get archetypes to do so without waiting until halfway through an AP to get the first dedication feat.
But do they need it?
They're Wizards - they're the most powerful and versatile spellcasters in DnD, now and always.
I don't think they do.
If this was 3.5, PF1 or 5e, I could see the point in this, but I really don't know what Wizards have over the other casters in PF2 that makes giving them Simple weapon proficiency "too much". They get more Spell Slots, but Cleric and Druid are born knowing all the common spells in their list. Sorcerers get the same slots as Wizard, but with more versatility in how to use them. Wizards do have a ton of versatility, but they are not better than the other casters. In fact, I think an Arcane Sorcerer with Arcane Evolution and Crossblooded Evolution is a better general caster than a Wizard.
The way you're talking about it sounds more like a spiteful "Wizards are getting what they deserve for being the best class in other editions" than something that has anything to do with PF2. And even Witches were confirmed to have simple weapon proficiency in the final version of the APG.
I think there needs to be some demonstrable need or 'benefit' to argue for altering Wizard weapon proficiency. Because its better for Wizards is not a good reason to do so - Wizards are amazing.
Removing Arcane Spell failure across the board was a massive simplification and accessibility boon for the entire game.
Removing opposition schools made Wizards simpler, more accessible and more forgiving.
There are other classes that still retain specific weapon proficiency, and such proficiency setups serve to meaningfully differentiate classes similar classes.
Dmerceless - The Arcane spell list is by far the most versatile in PF2E, and Wizards are just as good as ever (better, really, due to ubiquitous versatile spellcasting from Bonded Items) at being the most flexible and potent spellcasters around. Being able to change your entire spell list day-to-day is just as good as its ever been. Wizards are amazing, which is not to say that Sorcerers are not also more amazing than they've ever been and have closed the gap significantly.
I've kind of thought that wizard specific weapon proficiency was a bit silly. I'd almost rather they didn't get any weapons at all than the limited list (with of course an Thesis or School that gave simple weapon proficiency). Doesn't really bother me too much either way though, but might have saved some word count and been interesting to me.