|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know not much about the investigator, but I know first hand the rogue is most assuredly not weak in combat in a group. They are very good, both the thief and the ruffian.
The Rogue's reduction in combat efficiency is almost entirely defensive. They have mediocre AC and really low HP for a martial class. They're definitely the weakest martial defensively (well, tied with Investigator now), and are not better offensively, just on par.
It's certainly not crippling or anything, but a similar Class with only the normal number of Skills and Skill Feats would likely not have this issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know not much about the investigator, but I know first hand the rogue is most assuredly not weak in combat in a group. They are very good, both the thief and the ruffian.The Rogue's reduction in combat efficiency is almost entirely defensive. They have mediocre AC and really low HP for a martial class. They're definitely the weakest martial defensively (well, tied with Investigator now), and are not better offensively, just on par.
It's certainly not crippling or anything, but a similar Class with only the normal number of Skills and Skill Feats would likely not have this issue.
Their ac is as good as a non heavy armor fighter. So it's not weak unless someone doesn't know how to stat themselves from level 1.
Hp though yes. It means they should be ok with delaying their turn for a front line to move in.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Their ac is as good as a non heavy armor fighter. So it's not weak unless someone doesn't know how to stat themselves from level 1.
Oh, agreed, most martials have equivalent AC, with only Champion, and some Monks, Swashbucklers, and Fighters getting more, and that's why I referred to it as mediocre rather than bad. I was mostly only noting it to make clear that they don't have higher AC to make up for their low HP.
Hp though yes. It means they should be ok with delaying their turn for a front line to move in.
Yup. It's an absolutely workable class in combat, one of my favorite in PF2, but it does pay for its out of combat advantages with a real in-combat disadvantage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only aspect I'm interested in is combat in a group environment. Non-combat is mostly enabled by DM fiat or role-played. As a DM I would never kill an adventure because we didn't have a guy who could make the skill roll needed to progress or needed a single spell.The game must go on. I'm not going to make adventures where the players have to have a rogue with picks or a caster with knock because they can't go on until they get past the door. I'm going to create a basic narrative that allow the characters to move on regardless of party composition in non-combat aspects of the game. So that part of the game doesn't much matter to me mechanically because I will always create some way for the players to get any downtime or non-combat activities done.
That means the only balance I'm concerned with is how well does your class do in the various aspects of combat in a group environment. So the only competition I'm interested in is how well do you do damage and enable success in combat in a group versus...
I think its good that you shared this, because it helps understand where you're coming from with your criticisms and concerns.
I do think its important to keep in mind though that by limiting your concerns to this area, you may be inherently creating some winners and losers because certain classes are definitely balanced - at least a bit - based on powerful out of combat utility.
Example -
In an environment where the long duration counters to clairvoyance and prying eye have diminished, the Wizard is the King of Scouting. A Sorcerer or Bard can cast these spells, but if you give a Wizard a day to scout he can lean all in to divination one day and come back the next with a spell list custom tailored to what he learned.
As opposed to the Sorcerer or Bard, whom while they can do this, it costs them permanent or hard to change resources and they have less ability to adapt to what they find.
This isnt exactly a rare opportunity in many...
I wonder if they balance classes based on non-combat utility.
My feeling is the wizard was balanced more by their high level ability to deal insane amounts of AoE damage and shift combats with spell power like haste, walls, or other abilities.
A lvl 20 wizard can wipe out up to lvl 20 creatures with big spell attacks in a way a martial could never dream of. I don't even mean just mega-disintegrate. Some of their high level spells with Legendary Spell Proficiency will destroy things that would take a martial a while to carve their way through.
It takes a while to get to that point for the wizard and he doesn't have much to soften that path at lower level like other casters. But once he hits those higher levels, the wizard probably becomes a damage and spell hammer with lots of slots and magic items. Maybe not always great a single target damage, but able to destroy groups of strong creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The only aspect I'm interested in is combat in a group environment. Non-combat is mostly enabled by DM fiat or role-played. As a DM I would never kill an adventure because we didn't have a guy who could make the skill roll needed to progress or needed a single spell.The game must go on. I'm not going to make adventures where the players have to have a rogue with picks or a caster with knock because they can't go on until they get past the door. I'm going to create a basic narrative that allow the characters to move on regardless of party composition in non-combat aspects of the game. So that part of the game doesn't much matter to me mechanically because I will always create some way for the players to get any downtime or non-combat activities done.
That means the only balance I'm concerned with is how well does your class do in the various aspects of combat in a group environment. So the only competition I'm interested in is how well do you do damage and enable success in combat in a group versus...
I think its good that you shared this, because it helps understand where you're coming from with your criticisms and concerns.
I do think its important to keep in mind though that by limiting your concerns to this area, you may be inherently creating some winners and losers because certain classes are definitely balanced - at least a bit - based on powerful out of combat utility.
Example -
In an environment where the long duration counters to clairvoyance and prying eye have diminished, the Wizard is the King of Scouting. A Sorcerer or Bard can cast these spells, but if you give a Wizard a day to scout he can lean all in to divination one day and come back the next with a spell list custom tailored to what he learned.
As opposed to the Sorcerer or Bard, whom while they can do this, it costs them permanent or hard to change resources and they have less ability to adapt to what they find.
This isnt exactly a rare
I'm quite sure Paizo does balance classes based on non-combat utility. Otherwise, every martial class could get the same skill increases and skill feats that Rogues and Investigators get. Casters have always had an advantage in non-combat utility, especially at higher levels because they have tools other classes simply don't have (teleport, plane shift, scry, etc). I gave some high level examples, but plenty of low level spells pack nice non-combat utility such as Comprehend Languages, Clairaudience, Locate, etc.
Prepared casters like Clerics or Druids are much better at this than spontaneous casters as they simply have more tools at their disposal. Wizards even more so, because the Arcane spell list is huge and packed full of wonderful non-combat utility. This is where the strengths of Substitution Thesis come into play because if the party knows they need to do something (scout ahead, get past a puzzle, sneak past a bunch of guards, etc), the Wizard can quickly swap out a spell for the right utility spell. Even without Substitution, a Wizard can reserve their high level spell slots for powerful combat spells, but pack their lower level slots with non-combat utility.
I'm going to use D&D 5e terms because I'm familiar with that edition, but it also applies well here. There are roughly 3 pillars of play: combat, exploration, and social. Depending on your campaign, you might lean towards certain pillars more than others, but the game has mechanics for all three pillars. This is really true in PF2e where we have exploration mode and well defined mechanics for social interactions (better than 5e). At least in my games, combat is the predominant pillar, but in some sessions, no combat ever happens and its mostly a RP heavy session that leans hard on the other two pillars. Classes with better non-combat utility will shine in those sessions including classes like Rogues, Investigators, and casters that have non-combat spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I love about the rarity system is that clerics and druids don't get all new spells that come out, especially when they are uncommon or rarer. I hope secrets of magic, being secrets, has lots more uncommon options for spells, as well as for class features. This will allow GMs to really reward their casters in more interesting ways than if all the options are common especially the spells.
Like sudden Bolt was a great casting addition to the game, and it is a good thing that druids don't just get immediate access to it. That allows for it to be a reward for any caster, not just the wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I love about the rarity system is that clerics and druids don't get all new spells that come out, especially when they are uncommon or rarer. I hope secrets of magic, being secrets, has lots more uncommon options for spells, as well as for class features. This will allow GMs to really reward their casters in more interesting ways than if all the options are common especially the spells.
Like sudden Bolt was a great casting addition to the game, and it is a good thing that druids don't just get immediate access to it. That allows for it to be a reward for any caster, not just the wizard.
If they go this route, they need to do one of two things -
Provide expressive and binding guidance on players getting access to Uncommon things to make it clear to GM's how and when to award this stuff, in such a way that people don't feel like its a book full of "NPC" stuff to people with more... restrictive GMs.
or
Add a new keyword, lets call it Secret, tied to an archetype or feats that allow you to obtain Spells or Feats with the Secret trait which are not themselves uncommon and therefore subject to 'default' GM prohibition (like Ritualist).
I don't intend to let Uncommon be an issue in games I have control over, but its clearly been an issue for other players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game mastery guide was pretty explicit about this and prewritten adventures and adventure paths integrate it into their reward system. In practice it comes up pretty regularly and is handled pretty well. I think it is mostly theory crafters who want to know what every single option their character is going to make from level 1 to 20 who are going to be worried about this, and I agree, learning how to handle the rarity system is an important part of learning how to GM, just like learning how to make enemies act appropriate to the story and not a tactical battle simulator.
If players are being denied access to the uncommon options that the players want, that is an important conversation to have at the table.
I don't think more needs to be written about it than is in the Game Mastery guide though, except maybe in blogs and discussed in live streams. Some people will always hate the rarity system and will resent more space being dedicated to it in official books, and if you read the sections about it in the Core Rulebook and Game Mastery Guide, the core rules of it are all pretty clearly laid out.
I mostly brought it up to remind people that clerics and druids don't get free and easy access to every spell they can cast, and that a lot of new and exciting spells, like sudden bolt, will be accessible through play and make excellent rewards for caster players. The bottom line is that if your character is not fun for you in play, then it is really on you and your GM to talk about why and figure out if it is an expectations issue (player thinking the campaign was going to be something different than it is) or a character build issue (there are better options for doing what the player wants the character to do). Both of which can be handled well with the flexibility of PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...The only aspect I'm interested in is combat in a group environment. Non-combat is mostly enabled by DM fiat or role-played. As a DM I would never kill an adventure because we didn't have a guy who could make the skill roll needed to progress or needed a single spell.The game must go on. I'm not going to make adventures where the players have to have a rogue with picks or a caster with knock because they can't go on until they get past the door. I'm going to create a basic narrative that allow the characters to move on regardless of party composition in non-combat aspects of the game. So that part of the game doesn't much matter to me mechanically because I will always create some way for the players to get any downtime or non-combat activities done.
That means the only balance I'm concerned with is how well does your class do in the various aspects of combat in a group environment. So the only competition I'm interested in is how well do you do damage and enable success in combat in a group versus...
I think its good that you shared this, because it helps understand where you're coming from with your criticisms and concerns.
I do think its important to keep in mind though that by limiting your concerns to this area, you may be inherently creating some winners and losers because certain classes are definitely balanced - at least a bit - based on powerful out of combat utility.
Example -
In an environment where the long duration counters to clairvoyance and prying eye have diminished, the Wizard is the King of Scouting. A Sorcerer or Bard can cast these spells, but if you give a Wizard a day to scout he can lean all in to divination one day and come back the next with a spell list custom tailored to what he learned.
As opposed to the Sorcerer or Bard, whom while they can do this, it costs them permanent or hard to change resources and they have less ability to adapt to what they
I do not think they do myself. I believe Paizo makes classes appropriate with balance based around combat. Non-combat is not the focus of PF or D&D no matter how many people tell me about different pillars. Exploration and role-playing may incorporate skills, but are ultimately meant to be free form interaction between a DM and a player. For example, if a player came up with some amazing idea for how to overcome a problem, is a DM going to go, "Can't do it, not right skill or low roll." I know I wouldn't. Or if a player did some amazing role-playing, I wouldn't rely on a skill roll to determine the success. Skill rolls can make adjudicating situations easy if the players are disengaged from role-playing, but are not a limiter or basis for balance.
Classes have to be balanced around combat or game balance is thrown off substantially. It can be balanced around ideas like AoE versus single target damage or rage versus sneak attack or defensive versus offensive. But never should non-combat utility be used for balance as there are many ways magical and non-magical for non-combat activities.
As a game designer and even as a DM, you have to make sure combat never skews too far in one direction to where players feel useless or incapable or you risk having an imbalance ruin the player experience. DMs have to account for this as well in encounter design providing a mix of enemies that allow each player to be effective in combat.
I am doubtful they balance abilities around non-combat options. I think they always provide a variety of ways to skill past something like thievery or athletics to break down doors or chests. Magic or thievery to take down hazards. And lots of options like that.
But combat is the focus of game balance. I feel casters are balanced on their overall combat effect and high level spells being far more powerful than low level spells. Whereas martials are on a more linear, consistent damage curve across most levels which has them excel at single target damage in the variety of ways they do.
Rogue skills are balanced as allowing more combat options primarily focused around stealth and deception operating as skill-based invisibility, since athletics and acrobatics will likely be maxed out by a lot of martials allowing pseudo-flight like abilities with jump and easy step up from prone.
That is how I see it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game mastery guide was pretty explicit about this and prewritten adventures and adventure paths integrate it into their reward system. In practice it comes up pretty regularly and is handled pretty well. I think it is mostly theory crafters who want to know what every single option their character is going to make from level 1 to 20 who are going to be worried about this, and I agree, learning how to handle the rarity system is an important part of learning how to GM, just like learning how to make enemies act appropriate to the story and not a tactical battle simulator.
If players are being denied access to the uncommon options that the players want, that is an important conversation to have at the table.
I don't think more needs to be written about it than is in the Game Mastery guide though, except maybe in blogs and discussed in live streams. Some people will always hate the rarity system and will resent more space being dedicated to it in official books, and if you read the sections about it in the Core Rulebook and Game Mastery Guide, the core rules of it are all pretty clearly laid out.
I mostly brought it up to remind people that clerics and druids don't get free and easy access to every spell they can cast, and that a lot of new and exciting spells, like sudden bolt, will be accessible through play and make excellent rewards for caster players. The bottom line is that if your character is not fun for you in play, then it is really on you and your GM to talk about why and figure out if it is an expectations issue (player thinking the campaign was going to be something different than it is) or a character build issue (there are better options for doing what the player wants the character to do). Both of which can be handled well with the flexibility of PF2.
I like that clerics, druids, and bards have spells that aren't easy for them to get myself. I apply the uncommon rule making those classes work a little harder to add those spells to their list.
Rare and uncommon spells of greater power feels like a cool addition to the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...The only aspect I'm interested in is combat in a group environment. Non-combat is mostly enabled by DM fiat or role-played. As a DM I would never kill an adventure because we didn't have a guy who could make the skill roll needed to progress or needed a single spell.The game must go on. I'm not going to make adventures where the players have to have a rogue with picks or a caster with knock because they can't go on until they get past the door. I'm going to create a basic narrative that allow the characters to move on regardless of party composition in non-combat aspects of the game. So that part of the game doesn't much matter to me mechanically because I will always create some way for the players to get any downtime or non-combat activities done.
That means the only balance I'm concerned with is how well does your class do in the various aspects of combat in a group environment. So the only competition I'm interested in is how well do you do damage and enable success in combat in a group versus...
I think its good that you shared this, because it helps understand where you're coming from with your criticisms and concerns.
I do think its important to keep in mind though that by limiting your concerns to this area, you may be inherently creating some winners and losers because certain classes are definitely balanced - at least a bit - based on powerful out of combat utility.
Example -
In an environment where the long duration counters to clairvoyance and prying eye have diminished, the Wizard is the King of Scouting. A Sorcerer or Bard can cast these spells, but if you give a Wizard a day to scout he can lean all in to divination one day and come back the next with a spell list custom tailored to what he learned.
As opposed to the Sorcerer or Bard, whom while they can do this, it costs them permanent or hard to change resources and they have less
I do think combat is important because ultimately PF/D&D heavily revolve around killing monsters (for the most part...), but Paizo went out of their way to heavily codify exploration and social aspects of the game in a way 5e is very vague about. Skill feats is part of their codification, which the more vague 5e doesn't have. Each skill has several codified abilities you can do with it. For example Thievery has four abilities with action costs: Palm an Object, Steal, Disable a Device, and Pick a Lock. Each has various success/failure states, traits, requirements, action costs, etc. Also look at the extensive exploration rules with all the possible exploration activities. Paizo really put a lot of thought in adding mechanics to Exploration and Social pillars of play unlike 5e.
Even if you don't use all the new rules Paizo put into Exploration/Social encounters and rely mostly on DM fiat, that doesn't negate that certain classes are just more suited for non-combat encounters. Rogues and Investigators get way more skill increases and skill feats than other classes. If Paizo wasn't balancing for out of combat, then wouldn't all martial classes get the same amount of skill increases and skill feats as Rogues? Rogues and Investigators are given high out of combat utility, while most martial classes' core features are mostly combat focused.
Casters, especially prepared casters, have a breadth of utility magic to rely on to aid in out of combat situations. Utility has always been an important strength of Wizards as they can prepare spells for different adventuring days. Do you know you're mostly fighting tomorrow? Prepare mostly combat spells. Do you need to sneak and schmooze your way through a fancy banquet to find a hidden killer? You probably want to prepare more subtle magic to sneak your party in and divine the hidden threat. Planar hopping to the elemental plane of fire? Better not prepare fire spells and prepare spells that protect your party against fire and hurts fire elementals. Wizards have always been the swiss army knife of casters, which is a huge strength over more limited casters like Sorcerers, who have a tougher time having the magical "answer" to any situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree about how some classes are more tilted toward non-combat, but i don't think the wizard is that, and even those that are like that are still pretty effective in combat, all things considered.
I agree about how some classes are more tilted toward non-combat, but i don't think the wizard is that, and even those that are like that are still pretty effective in combat, all things considered.
The strength of Wizards is their versatility thanks to the breadth of the Arcane spell tradition. Depending on their spellbook and what they prepared, they can be effective in different types of situations, combat or out of combat. This is mostly true for prepared casters in general, but the Arcane spell tradition has answers to everything except healing and removing conditions. Spontaneous casters are more limited in this regard.
To only focus on combat for class balance is misguided IMO. All classes have to be able to perform adequately in combat as that's a big part of the game, but certain classes are far better out of combat than others. Fighters excel in combat, but lack class specific tools to excel out of combat besides things like skill feats, but all classes get skill feats. Rogues lack magic, but get the most advanced skills and most skill feats, which gives them great out of combat utility. Casters have spells for powerful combat effects but also unique out of combat utility that non-magical classes can't match (teleport, water breathing, plane shift, scry, invisibility sphere, comprehend languages, fly, mind reading, etc.).
Edit: Regardless, I think Wizards are effective in combat. Are they going to regularly outshine a Fighter in combat though? Probably not, as combat is really the Fighter's biggest contribution, so they should have a large impact in combat. Meanwhile the Wizard with careful spell selection, can contribute in a meaningful way in all pillars of play.
I meant that I don't think Wizards are weaker than the rest of the classes in combat, and that even the classes that can be somewhat said of, are still pretty effective.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ignore the rarity system for options within the game itself. I find it just limits character concept's and creates fake carrot on a stick accommodations that I have to keep track of.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...The only aspect I'm interested in is combat in a group environment. Non-combat is mostly enabled by DM fiat or role-played. As a DM I would never kill an adventure because we didn't have a guy who could make the skill roll needed to progress or needed a single spell.The game must go on. I'm not going to make adventures where the players have to have a rogue with picks or a caster with knock because they can't go on until they get past the door. I'm going to create a basic narrative that allow the characters to move on regardless of party composition in non-combat aspects of the game. So that part of the game doesn't much matter to me mechanically because I will always create some way for the players to get any downtime or non-combat activities done.
That means the only balance I'm concerned with is how well does your class do in the various aspects of combat in a group environment. So the only competition I'm interested in is how well do you do damage and enable success in combat in a group versus...
I think its good that you shared this, because it helps understand where you're coming from with your criticisms and concerns.
I do think its important to keep in mind though that by limiting your concerns to this area, you may be inherently creating some winners and losers because certain classes are definitely balanced - at least a bit - based on powerful out of combat utility.
Example -
In an environment where the long duration counters to clairvoyance and prying eye have diminished, the Wizard is the King of Scouting. A Sorcerer or Bard can cast these spells, but if you give a Wizard a day to scout he can lean all in to divination one day and come back the next with a spell list custom tailored to what he learned.
As opposed to the Sorcerer or Bard, whom while they can do this, it costs them permanent or hard to change resources and they have less
I agree that a GM won't let their players stumped so they always find a way to push the adventure forward, even if the group is lacking a certain skill or certain spell.
But, for a lot of players, shining out of combat can feel as rewarding as shining in a fight.
The bard who managed to convince the guards, the thief who sneaked into the fort then opened the door from inside, the barbarian who jumped into the river to save the drowning merchant, the druid who detected poison on the food, the wizard who recognized the heraldry, the priest who realized this guy was lying to them, the rogue who discreetly palmed the key, the champion who seduced the waitress, they all get exhilarating feelings from their actions, even though they weren't mandatory.
So, sure, everybody will remember the fighter who downed the dragon with two crits from his picks. But, at least in our games, the memories we cherish the most fondly even years later are those "remember when you tried to disguise yourself as a servant to enter the temple then had to serve food to the evil boss and everybody thought you would be caught but instead you conned them into giving you gold for, quote, "grocery shopping" ?".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ignore the rarity system for options within the game itself. I find it just limits character concept's and creates fake carrot on a stick accommodations that I have to keep track of.
as a player i read all the rarities besides common as unavailable
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ignore the rarity system for options within the game itself. I find it just limits character concept's and creates fake carrot on a stick accommodations that I have to keep track of.as a player i read all the rarities besides common as unavailable
You also have a pretty sour attitude toward the PF2 wizard. Is it possible that you are writing off whole elements of the game that enable characters to have thematic and powerful abilities that connect the character to the specific campaign in unique ways?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ignore the rarity system for options within the game itself. I find it just limits character concept's and creates fake carrot on a stick accommodations that I have to keep track of.as a player i read all the rarities besides common as unavailable
Unless you play PFS, how hard is it to say, "Hi GM, do you think my character could have this uncommon/rare option, or work towards finding it in-game? I think it would really help my concept."
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ignore the rarity system for options within the game itself. I find it just limits character concept's and creates fake carrot on a stick accommodations that I have to keep track of.as a player i read all the rarities besides common as unavailable
This is not really correct for Uncommon options in most games. The GMing advice really strongly suggests that Uncommon stuff should be made available if the PCs invest effort into it, and published adventures often hand out a variety of Uncommon stuff.
It's much more true for Rare or higher rarity, but applying it to Uncommon stuff outside PFS is not a good attitude unless you have a really overly restrictive GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
as a player i read all the rarities besides common as unavailableThis is not really correct for Uncommon options in most games. The GMing advice really strongly suggests that Uncommon stuff should be made available if the PCs invest effort into it, and published adventures often hand out a variety of Uncommon stuff.
Which probably will work well for any "blank slate" or open minded GM that picks up PF2E, reads the above and plays accordingly.
The thing is, old hobbies die hard. And I can easily imagine that over the course of several decades of "splat books or restricted content equals power creep" many GMs have developed a rather negative attitude when it come to additional content and eventually saying yes to player requests, simply out of fear that individual characters will become broken (and with them maybe the complete campaign).
I freely admit that I also tend to be in the more conservative camp, simply because I can not imagine that with an ever rising lot of additional content every permutation of ancestry/class/archtype/feat and equipment can be properly playtested and balanced against each other. That having said I also believe that especially PF2E is inherently more resistant to power creep than former editions.
However in order to apply the above principles you will need a GM that is willing and open minded enough to apply said advice, to get some experience on the impact of his decisions on actual gameplay AND both player and GM willing to rectify prior decisions if things should really get out of hand, potentially also removing options or revoking decisions. And from my experience this kind of mindset can be quite rare.
and published adventures often hand out a variety of Uncommon stuff.
Age of Ashes kindof set the stage for this and surprised me, slightly.
Its good encouragement to be relatively generous.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you play PFS, how hard is it to say, "Hi GM, do you think my character could have this uncommon/rare option, or work towards finding it in-game? I think it would really help my concept."
PFS recently released achievement points and you can access lots of Uncommon options through them. There are nearly 20 spells available thanks to them.
The only aspect I'm interested in is combat in a group environment. Non-combat is mostly enabled by DM fiat or role-played. As a DM I would never kill an adventure because we didn't have a guy who could make the skill roll needed to progress or needed a single spell.The game must go on.
And I know lots of DMs who do the same for combat. In my quite big gaming group, we know which DM gonna kill you and which has never killed a single character, ever.
The fact that you focus on combat doesn't mean it must be the case for everyone. There are rules for out of combat and a DM who wants the party to be blocked by a door because they can't open it is as valid in his position than the DM making a TPK because characters are not combat-focused enough.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You also have a pretty sour attitude toward the PF2 wizard. Is it possible that you are writing off whole elements of the game that enable characters to have thematic and powerful abilities that connect the character to the specific campaign in unique ways?I ignore the rarity system for options within the game itself. I find it just limits character concept's and creates fake carrot on a stick accommodations that I have to keep track of.as a player i read all the rarities besides common as unavailable
a level 20 wizard or alchemist is already supposed to be something uncommon or rare
the idea that a player is only ever allowed to become something common with exception of gm fiat already reduces the uniqueness of your character in lore
if a npc can do it and he is not mythic assisted by a god or using a legendary artifact then a player should also be able to do it
let look for instance at the alchemist and the sunlight orchid elixir
basically you are an alchemist you happen to have an obsession for immortality so you dedicate your life to attain it right?
pf1 got it right and allowed you to get eternal youth but in pf2 you cant and the formula for the elixir is unique so even thought you are an level 20 alchemist and you spend your like looking for immortality you are left hanging
if the rarity was just to say "oh that is not common so people will react differently to your character" but no its actually emant to gate thigns from player and allow ncs and gms to run wild
there is nothing more utterly annoying than reading an entry just to find oh its rare so you cant pick it its makes actually angry because its worse than it not being there
and poor excuse i hear is usually "oh what if i wanted to make a adventure about getting a jewel that revives someone very so meany years..." that is like saying that players shouldn't be able to use fly cause you wants walls to be effective
its such a piss poor excuse just look at pathfinder kingmaker on pc they wanted a maze puzzle so they said look teleportation magic is being jammed here except for the owner and it worked wonders, a gm can do the same just say there was a powerful death spell so raise dead wont work or something like that and stop being lazy
in essence its completely butchers the sandbox aspect of pathfinder in exchange for i don't know what
and for the annoying people asking "why don't you just ask the gm"
if i have to ask the gm for permission in order to do something my whole character concept is based around and had always been allowed in lore then to me that is an issue
its not a issue of being able to is a issue of why should i have to?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
let look for instance at the alchemist and the sunlight orchid elixir
basically you are an alchemist you happen to have an obsession for immortality so you dedicate your life to attain it right?
pf1 got it right and allowed you to get eternal youth but in pf2 you cant and the formula for the elixir is unique so even thought you are an level 20 alchemist and you spend your like looking for immortality you are left hanging
...
and for the annoying people asking "why don't you just ask the gm"
if i have to ask the gm for permission in order to do something my whole character concept is based around and had always been allowed in lore then to me that is an issue
its not a issue of being able to is a issue of why should i have to?
If the the goal of your character concept is to be an alchemist that yearns for immortality, isn't having to put a lot effort and going on quests to find the formula and ingredients for the Sun Orchid Elixir far more interesting than saying "I've reached 20th level, time to add Sun Orchid Elixir to my formula book".
Also, on the topic of Sun Orchid Elixir specifically, while the formula may be unique, don't forget that if you have a bottle of the elixir, a skilled enough alchemist can reverse engineer the formula.
let look for instance at the alchemist and the sunlight orchid elixir
basically you are an alchemist you happen to have an obsession for immortality so you dedicate your life to attain it right?
pf1 got it right and allowed you to get eternal youth but in pf2 you cant and the formula for the elixir is unique so even thought you are an level 20 alchemist and you spend your like looking for immortality you are left hanging
...
and for the annoying people asking "why don't you just ask the gm"
if i have to ask the gm for permission in order to do something my whole character concept is based around and had always been allowed in lore then to me that is an issue
its not a issue of being able to is a issue of why should i have to?
If the the goal of your character concept is to be an alchemist that yearns for immortality, isn't having to put a lot effort and going on quests to find the formula and ingredients for the Sun Orchid Elixir far more interesting than saying "I've reached 20th level, time to add Sun Orchid Elixir to my formula book".
Also, on the topic of Sun Orchid Elixir specifically, while the formula may be unique, don't forget that if you have a bottle of the elixir, a skilled enough alchemist can reverse engineer the formula.
except when you are in the middle of a campaign that has nothing to do with that so it either becomes shoehorned or disruptive, would you like if the gm kept telling your cleric that his god ordered him to do something every time he levels up
you are also ignoring the fact other classes don't even get the option such as wizards for instance
...The only aspect I'm interested in is combat in a group environment. Non-combat is mostly enabled by DM fiat or role-played. As a DM I would never kill an adventure because we didn't have a guy who could make the skill roll needed to progress or needed a single spell.The game must go on. I'm not going to make adventures where the players have to have a rogue with picks or a caster with knock because they can't go on until they get past the door. I'm going to create a basic narrative that allow the characters to move on regardless of party composition in non-combat aspects of the game. So that part of the game doesn't much matter to me mechanically because I will always create some way for the players to get any downtime or non-combat activities done.
That means the only balance I'm concerned with is how well does your class do in the various aspects of combat in a group environment. So the only competition I'm interested in is how well do you do damage and enable success in combat in a group versus...
I think its good that you shared this, because it helps understand where you're coming from with your criticisms and concerns.
I do think its important to keep in mind though that by limiting your concerns to this area, you may be inherently creating some winners and losers because certain classes are definitely balanced - at least a bit - based on powerful out of combat utility.
Example -
In an environment where the long duration counters to clairvoyance and prying eye have diminished, the Wizard is the King of Scouting. A Sorcerer or Bard can cast these spells, but if you give a Wizard a day to scout he can lean all in to divination one day and come back the next with a spell list custom tailored to what he learned.
As opposed to the Sorcerer or Bard, whom while they can do this, it costs them permanent or hard to
Sure. That's why a DM is as likely to go with an incredible role-playing idea or bit or a skill role. Players that like non-combat roles tend to gravitate towards skill-based or magic using classes because they like creative role-play.
Creativity might have some skill rolls required, but a DM isn't going to kill a great idea solely due to skills. Or limit a cool use of a spell due to spell limitations or skill rolls. I've let players modify spells on the fly using Arcane or Religion to make them do some role-play thing that was cool in the context of a non-combat situation. I'm not about to let rules override coolness and fun.
But combat is a different animal. Combat balance is the focus of class design. I doubt that designers would weaken a character's combat ability because they were better at a non-combat game option or utility that rarely comes up. Combat encounters barring a DM making an especial effort to focus on non-combat is probably 80% plus of the time spent at the table for the vast majority of groups. It would a terrible idea for groups to spend that much time doing an activity they could not do at least close to equally well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My druid is sure kicking some butt. She's the main healer and is only a 100 points behind the martials in damage adding AoE and general damage on occasion. Pretty nice. I highly recommend wizards to pick up an animal companion and a weapon to improve their contributions at lower level. The animal companion and weapon has added to her overall effectiveness without needing to burn through slots to keep up. Just use a slot here and there to drop some heavy AoE or effect, make sure to heal people as needed, and keep on adapting. Druid is a real nice class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I see strong spells and elixirs as something that you have been working on through your entire time. They are very much the culmination of all your work.
Having to search for the recipe means that its not your work. But something that someone else created, and you only managed to copy it.
This is a pretty disingenuous way of representing the rarity system.
"Hey GM, I don't know if it is a perfect fit for this campaign or not but my wizard would really like to spend some downtime researching X uncommon or rare spell, it really fits with what her goals are and would be like the culmination of her career. Do you think we could work it in that she will be looking for clues about how to make this spell a reality and eventually could create it?"
Just because you need to talk to the GM about how to work it into the campaign, doesn't mean that the only way your character could acquire it is by having the dice gods magically make it appear for you. Many GMs will love to hear about your character's long term aspirations and help you realize your vision in the best way to fit it into the overall campaign. And if they say no, it could be because that thing you want to do is incredibly disruptive to the story of that campaign, and it is much better to talk that through early and figure out that your character idea is going to be disruptive to the campaign than it is to assume that, because it is in the rules, it is perfect acceptable material to use to build a character around without talking to the GM, only to have the GM get made, or restrict those options when they finally learn you are building to them.
I do think there is an interesting correlation here that if you view uncommon options as things you are not supposed to have, unless you luck into having a supportive GM, you are also inclined to believe that wizards are a weak and underdeveloped class. The reality is that wizards have always been heavily dependent upon having effective lines of communication with the GM to be able to talk about the expectations that everyone at the table has for what magic can and cannot accomplish in the world. This is not a new feature of PF2.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
its not a issue of being able to is a issue of why should i have to?
Because the GM has spent at least 2 to 3 times as long prepping your little universe than you have played in it. If the GM says that it is not possible due to story conflicts, then you should still be gracious that they have spent so much time creating a story that has entertained you to get you to level 20.
PLUS, the average in-game time that most characters take to get from 1-20 is usually about 5 years (overestimate). So no, you haven't yet dedicated your entire life to it. You've very likely got several more years to dedicate.
Goodness forbid you have to sacrifice something to help the story continue.
The GM is the dictator or lord of the game, as it should be. I always only hope that I am a thankful enough player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I bashed those segments because, truth be told, they deserve bashing. I did not point any individuals out.
The premise of boards like these should be debate, and people should be open-minded, and willing to accept evidence of issues, and, if presented with enough evidence, perhaps have a honest change of heart.
Both categories I mentioned cannot, because the first category sees the current state of casters as desirable, and the second category refuses criticism on the ground that they love Paizo so much.
This is a systemic issue. You can't fix it with a new book. You would have to fix it with a massive errata, but that would mean actually accepting the fact that mistakes were made, which reading these boards does not seem to be the case.
I have accepted that PF2e will have weak casters, and that nothing will change it.
Late to this but someone could say the same about your side of the discussions.
its not a issue of being able to is a issue of why should i have to?Because the GM has spent at least 2 to 3 times as long prepping your little universe than you have played in it. If the GM says that it is not possible due to story conflicts, then you should still be gracious that they have spent so much time creating a story that has entertained you to get you to level 20.
PLUS, the average in-game time that most characters take to get from 1-20 is usually about 5 years (overestimate). So no, you haven't yet dedicated your entire life to it. You've very likely got several more years to dedicate.
Goodness forbid you have to sacrifice something to help the story continue.
The GM is the dictator or lord of the game, as it should be. I always only hope that I am a thankful enough player.
you are assuming a lot what if the character is a venerable elf with 200 years+ studying from his early childhood?
but regardless there is a clear double standard here why does your character gets to evolve incredibly fast and have many aspects be just hand-waved as "he did that when you weren't looking" but arbitrarily some classes do have to go through this
also i would say wizards suffer far more form the rarity system than any other class because their supposed versatility is gated by rarity all the best spells like scrying teleport gate anti-magic field spell-turning etc... are uncommon so if you look to a wizard as not being able to get those then you might as well play a martial and buy magic items since you are gonna need to look for then anyway
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
and poor excuse i hear is usually "oh what if i wanted to make a adventure about getting a jewel that revives someone very so meany years..." that is like saying that players shouldn't be able to use fly cause you wants walls to be effective
its such a piss poor excuse just look at pathfinder kingmaker on pc they wanted a maze puzzle so they said look teleportation magic is being jammed here except for the owner and it worked wonders, a gm can do the same just say there was a powerful death spell so raise dead wont work or something like that and stop being lazy
in essence its completely butchers the sandbox aspect of pathfinder in exchange for i don't know what
That's exactly being lazy, and it gets old very soon.
The GM builds and runs the campaign. If they think that it will not hurt their campaign, or even help it, they can easily decide that PCs have access to Uncommon stuff without any difficulties.Since you talked about flying: I'm (slowly) building a campaign with a Norse theme. I want a fjord to be a real obstacle, as it has been to the mighty Thor himself in some stories, and not something that a mid-low level character can trivialize in a few seconds. When I started working on this PF2 didn't exist yet, so I thought about banning Fly or nerfing it somehow. Maybe it won't be necessary now, but I definitely have the right to make it a rare spell, or to prevent players' access to it in any way I deem necessary, even if it's tagged as Common in the rulebook.
and for the annoying people asking "why don't you just ask the gm"
if i have to ask the gm for permission in order to do something my whole character concept is based around and had always been allowed in lore then to me that is an issue
its not a issue of being able to is a issue of why should i have to?
The problem is entitlement. Lore is campaign-specific.
If your concept breaks the game, find another one. If it doesn't, talk with your GM about it in advance, and unless you are playing with unreasonable people, you will work it out.| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose conversations about rarity and asking your GM are always a little odd to me because my players ask me before taking common options. I never asked them to, they just always come to me with things like "Hey, is it alright if I play a paladin?" or "I'm thinking about playing a dwarf, anything I should know?"
But while I never asked for them to do that, I get why they do that. It's because I work with my players a lot to get them what they want, but they want to make sure their ideas don't mess with anything. There's a mutual respect there. And if what a player wants for the character wouldn't be able to be squeezed into the campaign (usually if I'm running a prewritten adventure or AP) I flat out tell them "Sorry, I don't think I could support this in a satisfying way without completely halting the story for everyone else." And then they either alter the character or make a new one.
As for the rarity system and how it relates to wizards, in my own game I haven't given any uncommon options for free (although if someone wanted the elemental spells from EC I would probably let them). The wizard has gotten Nondetection as a quest reward, because I know that's something that won't break the game. However, she'll probably never get Teleport, because the campaign is a race against someone else to collect ancient artifacts. Allowing the party to travel 400 miles in a day at level 12 would negate a lot of the challenge of that.
I'm finding casters including wizards supporting martials is very powerful at high level. High level AoE damage is far more dangerous than a bunch of martials swinging weapons.
It is easier for a wizard or sorcerer to use an 8th level slot for a daily mind blank or a high level slot for energy aegis.
Crafting is proving more useful if you follow the city rules in modules. Even a huge city like Katapesh is a 13th level settlement. That is below what a 15th or higher level character will need to equal crafting for finding items or earning an equivalent income. It seems the benefit of crafting will come on the back end with settlements not being able to match what a high level crafter can do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did anyone else just get exp all of a sudden? I did /s
@ Deriven, I noticed it as well with crafting, that there appears to be an intentional division between settlement level and party level, where crafting suddenly becomes very strong because it offers you both a direct route to items and better gp per day than earning income to buy the item. How long has you down time been?
|
|
From a purely 'mechanics' standpoint, you are correct ArchSage, the sun orchid elixer's rarity (and several other things) appear arbitrary.
That said, the 'Sun Orchid Elixer', in Golarion, is extraordinarily significant. The creation and sale of it is the foundation of the Thuvian economy to a level that is not paralleled in our world (to my knowledge). Only a single person has the recipe in all of Golarion. And how they came by it is, again to my knowledge, unknown.
While it is fair to question why the sun orchid elixer recipe is less available in PF2 as opposed to PF1, the answer is the unsatisfying "because they are different systems". The rarity system did not exist in PF1. Therefore, more things were just available. This again is likely an unsatisfying answer, but it has allowed lorically significant things to be held behind the rarity system (for the best, in my opinion).
I contemplated the gravity of someone else just popping up with the Sun Orchid Elixer recipe. Assassination seemed to be the first logical response by Thuvia. Abduction by other nations was the second. Many other things began popping into mind on similar veins. For an Alchemist to "just get" the recipe (in Golarion) with no story for before and/or after, to me, seems like a vastly terrible waste of story potential. Looking at it another way, with the incredible built in story potential of the Sun Orchid Elixer, the monk and druid are actually getting shafted.
In summation, I understand that you have an issue with the rarity system because you want access to everything. If you find a GM that also dislikes the rarity aspect of PF2 that is ideal. But, from what I can tell, the rarity system serves a variety of purposes for GMs (which I'm okay with).
I am also a little disappointed about the rarities, especially for my wizard. But I trust my GMs. I will also agree that the existence of the rarity system solidly nerfs wizards. I think that in this thread about wizards it is worth noting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it is fair to question why the sun orchid elixer recipe is less available in PF2 as opposed to PF1, the answer is the unsatisfying "because they are different systems".
Actually, the Sun Orchid Elixir is more available in PF2. At least in PF2 there's a way to make it mechanically. In PF1, it was an Artifact and there was no mechanical way for a PC to make it at all.
Now, being personally unaging is a little less available for an Alchemist at the moment, but that's a very separate thing from being able to make the Sun Orchid Elixir, and probably just an omission due to being early in the game. It certainly has nothing to do with Rarity. Wizards don't have it yet either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, just throwing this out there - but if Immortality were say a 20th level Wizard feat, you might be tempted to actually take it as opposed to something relevant to the game.
In almost all relevant ways, its probably better to narrate or epilogue your Wizards obtaining of immortality than to make it a 20th level feat in a game that is tightly balanced against your class feat choices.
I understand that flavor is important, but some things work just fine as narration.