| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I kind-of agree. But I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.
The core classes are the general purpose classes. The ones that newcomers should use to start with.
The advanced classes are more specific. Powerful in their own domain, but less useful for general purpose character building.
For example, the Swashbuckler vs Rogue. Yeah, you can build a swashbuckling Rogue. And it will have better skills than the Swashbuckler will.
But Swashbuckler does automatically get some of its own advantages to the theme that Rogue has to jump through hoops to get. Better hit points, better weapons.
As for Bard vs Witch - you can't make a Primal tradition Bard. Nor can you make a prepared casting Occult tradition Bard. Witch may be less powerful overall, but Witch still has its own niche that it fills nicely. And Bard is considered prime candidate for most powerful casting class, so the lack of power for Witch in comparison isn't saying much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what I have found interesting when looking at all of the new classes that have come out and the play-test is kind of interesting a kind of power shriveling.
None of the new classes are a strong as their player handbook counterpart if you compare the swashbuckler and investigator to the rogue they can generally out fight and out skill both whilst jumping through half as many hoops.
The Cleric is substantially a better healer than the oracle. The Bard a better controller than the witch.
The play-test features a summoner whose companion mechanics are more punishing than the druid and the ranger. The Magus has such a small amount of magical competency and spell casting that the title Mage seems inappropriate so I just call this version Gus.
So obviously that is a bit of hyperbola. Do you think the new class options are on par with the old ?
I feel like the magus is a hot mess(Bad action economy, needing multiple stats and having a bunch of problems with his kit overall) and that the summoner reaches a decent power level due to having a bunch of new features good action economy and quite an powerful 'pet' besides the already existing spellcasting(Limited of course).
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the magus is a hot mess(Bad action economy, needing multiple stats and having a bunch of problems with his kit overall) and that the summoner reaches a decent power level due to having a bunch of new features good action economy and quite an powerful 'pet' besides the already existing spellcasting(Limited of course).
It's worth noting that those are both playtest classes, not the final versions. Playtest Investigator was much worse than either of these, at least at combat, but I think the final version is much better than at least Magus.
Logan Bonner was the designer focused on both the Investigator and, now, the Magus. I think he's the sort of person to lowball things and then raise them up rather than the reverse.
Which is a good idea in playtests in general, mind you, but I think there's evidence he does it a bit more than some other designers. So I wouldn't assume Magus's current lower power level will necessarily make it through to the final version.
I feel like the magus is a hot mess(Bad action economy, needing multiple stats and having a bunch of problems with his kit overall) and that the summoner reaches a decent power level due to having a bunch of new features good action economy and quite an powerful 'pet' besides the already existing spellcasting(Limited of course).It's worth noting that those are both playtest classes, not the final versions. Playtest Investigator was much worse than either of these, at least at combat, but I think the final version is much better than at least Magus.
Logan Bonner was the designer focused on both the Investigator and, now, the Magus. I think he's the sort of person to lowball things and then raise them up rather than the reverse.
Which is a good idea in playtests in general, mind you, but I think there's evidence he does it a bit more than some other designers. So I wouldn't assume Magus's current lower power level will necessarily make it through to the final version.
Fair enough but I do need to say it's my initial impression. And I am pretty satisfied with the investigator by the release, but still the current magus to me lacks something that makes spellstrike well... Good. Maybe adding runes on top of the hit or making the save at -2 . It's something you are investing a whole turn usually and should reward you more for hitting with it than just ignoring the map and giving a small benefit on a crit also why is the class with a 8 when summoner is a 10 in health...
Also might be just me but some feats like(martial casting and some that buff the spellstrike) should be baked into the core class... Instead of being pushed to feats. They feel too mandatory.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting your weapon bonus to the spellstrike spell would fix the proficiency issue.
I have a lot of criticisms for the Magus, but I think the first draft of the Summoner is pretty damn good. My only big issue is the design of the Synethsist spell - the shared action economy with Act Together strikes me as a pretty clever way to ensure the new summoner doesn't break the game the way the old one did while still allowing the eidolon to be quite powerful. I wanted a class that was all about its badass pet and that's exactly what I got, there's just some specific abilities and feats that need tweaking to work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since power creep occurs if not actively resisted, I'm inclined to accept power shriveling as long as additions are adding something distinct.
There are still going to be combinations more powerful for specific builds than what was possible before, yet hopefully still within the base power curves set up in the CRB.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally think Investigator is fine in power level in comparison to the corebook Classes (particularly Rogue, the closest equivalent). Ditto Swashbuckler and some varieties of Witch. A few new Feats and that can easily be expanded to all varieties of Witch.
I'm less enthused about Oracle, but not convinced this is a pattern of any sort.
And, as I said above, while I'm not thrilled by the current Magus, it's a playtest version not a final version, and I think the Summoner is actually looking pretty solid and promising (it has issues, but that's what a playtest is for).
I personally think Investigator is fine in power level in comparison to the corebook Classes (particularly Rogue, the closest equivalent). Ditto Swashbuckler and some varieties of Witch. A few new Feats and that can easily be expanded to all varieties of Witch.
I'm less enthused about Oracle, but not convinced this is a pattern of any sort.
And, as I said above, while I'm not thrilled by the current Magus, it's a playtest version not a final version, and I think the Summoner is actually looking pretty solid and promising (it has issues, but that's what a playtest is for).
Same summoner is amazing he is great at a role only a few classes could do before. A support frontliner he can't be as good as a main frontliner like fighter or barbarian but also can't be the same as a caster who is helping the team druid or warpriest. So i feel like the summoner is fitting perfectly between the two. Besides that the features and everything feels fine extra actions are good it encourages several playstyles be it focusing on the eidolon fully or diversifying your build by taking summon oriented and casting things.
The Oracle is in such a weird place... I wouldn't call him bad.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm personally extremely impressed by the Advanced Players Guide.
It provides a lot more character breadth while NOT introducing significant power creep. Which I think is a wonderful thing.
And the swashbuckler is almost a work of genius in terms of how the mechanics almost force (at the least, strongly encourage) the swashbuckler to actually ACT like a swashbuckler. Sure, its probably a LITTLE less powerful than the Rogue in direct damage but
1) It is FUN. That is hugely, hugely important
2) It has better mobility, better defensive options
3) It has a degree of battlefield control that the rogue lacks (especially with the Leading Dance feat that is available as early as level 4)
4) Its got hard to evaluate features like Opportune Riposte that are likely to vary a great deal from table to table in terms of how effective they are.
As to the Magus and Summoner, I'm GLAD that the general consensus on the playtest versions seems at the moment to be "more or less right" (some saying too weak, some saying about right).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Oracle is in such a weird place... I wouldn't call him bad.
Its definitely NOT bad. For example, a Spontaneous Divine Caster with up to 4 spells a level and no focus spells is a perfectly viable and decent character. And that is only one of the many options that you can play.
Its definitely NOT bad. For example, a Spontaneous Divine Caster with up to 4 spells a level and no focus spells is a perfectly viable and decent character. And that is only one of the many options that you can play.
The Oracle is in such a weird place... I wouldn't call him bad.
You can get four spells per level in your repertoire, but you still only cast three.
Its definitely NOT bad. For example, a Spontaneous Divine Caster with up to 4 spells a level and no focus spells is a perfectly viable and decent character. And that is only one of the many options that you can play.
The Oracle is in such a weird place... I wouldn't call him bad.
And when you want your focus spells back and 3 extra heals per day you can retrain to being a cleric.
Or use one focus spell and take -2 AC and all saves unless you're making a Strike every round. Which I'm sure goes over great against Complex Hazards like Haunts.
One of those seems way better than the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno, the Oracle of Flames in my game has been wrecking stuff. Those focus spells are a lot better than what most classes get access to.
One of those seems way better than the other.Just about anything can be made to sound worse that something else if you phrase one positively and then the other as the worst-case scenario.
I really like that the worst-case scenario is the first stage of the Battle Oracle's curse.
Of which there are two other progressively worse stages.
I dunno, the Oracle of Flames in my game has been wrecking stuff. Those focus spells are a lot better than what most classes get access to.
I don't disagree there are good Oracles, I'm just sad that it's limited to 3 mysteries (fire, cosmos, tempest).
For what it's worth I disagree with the OP. I think the APG classes are interesting, and the Swashbuckler or Investigator are not definitive downgrades to Rogue. The Witch has some problems but is very playable. The Summoner is really interesting from a gameplay standpoint and I really want to playtest one as-is-- I think it looks incredibly unique.
Being behind an archetyped CRB class in proficiencies is a death knell for the Magus. Needing to hit both rolls is... tenuous considering they aren't particularly amazing at either.
There's a google doc with the % chance a spellstrike fully goes off, and it's something like a 10% chance to spellstrike a level+2. So you have 4 spell slots and they're relegated to fighting the boss's minions. Trying to be cool and save a cool attack spell for the boss is foolish given the mathematics and that kind of thing feels weird to me, but I understand with Paizo's design theory around making boss fights less one-and-done with things like Incapacitation.
I just hope they work out the Magus so that it's not worse than multiclassing.
I really like that the worst-case scenario is the first stage of the Battle Oracle's curse.
No, that's not what I was saying.
The worst case scenario is "I need to use my focus spell, but I'm not in circumstances that I can play into my curse without that being too inconvenient"
To be fair you can't shake that penalty for the rest of the day after you refocus. It is harsh, no doubt.
To be fair you can't shake that penalty for the rest of the day after you refocus. It is harsh, no doubt.I really like that the worst-case scenario is the first stage of the Battle Oracle's curse.
No, that's not what I was saying.
The worst case scenario is "I need to use my focus spell, but I'm not in circumstances that I can play into my curse without that being too inconvenient"
The minor curse effect seems like a hindrance at best with no bonus, but the later stages seem more like an opportunity to me. Extra damage and fast healing at moderate is really nice, and though risky, the major's plus 6 to damage looks satisfying. Then again, I have bit of a soft spot for glass cannons
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this whole idea of "You only get 4 spell slots, but they level up as you go" could only ever work if they got all their spent slots back after a short rest, the way the 5e Warlock does. Even there they need the best Cantrip in the game (Eldritch Blast) and Invocations and patron-granted powers, giving them some additional abilities to help even things out.
Trying to do something similar in PF2e without all those extras (or something comparable) is a recipe for disaster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this whole idea of "You only get 4 spell slots, but they level up as you go" could only ever work if they got all their spent slots back after a short rest, the way the 5e Warlock does. Even there they need the best Cantrip in the game (Eldritch Blast) and Invocations and patron-granted powers, giving them some additional abilities to help even things out.
Trying to do something similar in PF2e without all those extras (or something comparable) is a recipe for disaster.
What you are asking for here is a focus spell mechanism. That is the PF2 way to do this. That would be one spell slot, as the 4 in the playtest would be hilariously broken.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't played the APG classes enough to be able to say this with total certainty, but given my experiences with the CRB classes that everyone says are underpowered, I'll say two things with some certainty:
1. Way too many people complain that every class is underpowered. Alchemists are underpowered! Spellcasters are underpowered! Monks are underpowered! Now, all the APG classes are underpowered! At some point, people are going to have to accept that if they think everything is underpowered, then maybe everything's correctly powered and they just have weird expectations.
2. All new classes start off being viewed as underpowered, because players don't know how to use them optimally yet. They get better with more time and more equipment, and people discover some combinations of parties that work unexpectedly well together.
My first three PFS characters were all intentionally chosen from concepts that were widely panned when the CRB first came out - an alchemist, a dex-based champion, and a divine sorcerer. Two out of those three don't suck.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what I have found interesting when looking at all of the new classes that have come out and the play-test is kind of interesting a kind of power shriveling.
None of the new classes are a strong as their player handbook counterpart if you compare the swashbuckler and investigator to the rogue they can generally out fight and out skill both whilst jumping through half as many hoops.
The Cleric is substantially a better healer than the oracle. The Bard a better controller than the witch.
The play-test features a summoner whose companion mechanics are more punishing than the druid and the ranger. The Magus has such a small amount of magical competency and spell casting that the title Mage seems inappropriate so I just call this version Gus.
So obviously that is a bit of hyperbola. Do you think the new class options are on par with the old ?
No. They are interesting, but lack the power of the good classes in the Core Rulebook.
Sort of the reverse of PF1 where the Magus and Summoner were two of the most powerful new classes released.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Way too many people complain that every class is underpowered. Alchemists are underpowered! Spellcasters are underpowered! Monks are underpowered! Now, all the APG classes are underpowered! At some point, people are going to have to accept that if they think everything is underpowered, then maybe everything's correctly powered and they just have weird expectations.
(1) The alchemist has class features that actively "do nothing" or are math-fixes that the whole PF2 design ethos was baking math fixes into the leveling system.
(2) Spellcasters aren't under powered, Bard's fine and even over powered. No, the problem is wizards and that they're so boring as to be a sheet of blank paper. Sure, you can draw whatever you want on it, but it's still just a piece of paper.(3) Monks aren't underpowered.
(4) APG classes are underpowered compared to their closest core counter part, roughly speaking. The witch is just a wizard, except worse (and has the role of the bard, so gets compared to the bard).
We then get to the Magus who can't even do the thing he was designed to do and the summoner who is a neat eidolon creature with a tumorous growth sticking out of its head that got named.
The eidolon is "mostly fine" and the class as a whole is "probably balanced" but it feels like waaaay too much of the class is focused on the eidolon that the summoner half may as well not exist (and one feat, Synthesis, even lets you achieve that lofty goal).
Speaking more generally: PF2 from 1 to 20 has about as much power growth as PF1 from 1 to 10, and we've recognized that since the playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the summoner who is a neat eidolon creature with a tumorous growth sticking out of its head that got named.
This is just funny. I had to laugh when I read it. And yet, you are mostly right. The eidolon is the class, not the summoner. Then again that is how it mostly was in PF1 too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
the summoner who is a neat eidolon creature with a tumorous growth sticking out of its head that got named.This is just funny. I had to laugh when I read it. And yet, you are mostly right. The eidolon is the class, not the summoner. Then again that is how it mostly was in PF1 too.
PF1 was two classes. With my synthesis summoner some days I played the Eidolon, other days I played with Summon Monster. Both were strong
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 was two classes. With my synthesis summoner some days I played the Eidolon, other days I played with Summon Monster. Both were strongthe summoner who is a neat eidolon creature with a tumorous growth sticking out of its head that got named.This is just funny. I had to laugh when I read it. And yet, you are mostly right. The eidolon is the class, not the summoner. Then again that is how it mostly was in PF1 too.
You could definitely do more with the PF1 summoner, but the ways to build were easy.
1. Synethesist or Basic Summoner: Build biggest, baddest, hardest to hit, most damaging Eidolon.
2. Master Summoner: Horde of creatures.
Didn't see much else myself.
The minor curse effect seems like a hindrance at best with no bonus, but the later stages seem more like an opportunity to me. Extra damage and fast healing at moderate is really nice, and though risky, the major's plus 6 to damage looks satisfying. Then again, I have bit of a soft spot for glass cannonsTo be fair you can't shake that penalty for the rest of the day after you refocus. It is harsh, no doubt.I really like that the worst-case scenario is the first stage of the Battle Oracle's curse.
No, that's not what I was saying.
The worst case scenario is "I need to use my focus spell, but I'm not in circumstances that I can play into my curse without that being too inconvenient"
Oh, I actually agree and would like to play a battle oracle myself, but the class is really vulnerable to hazards and ambushes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the summoner who is a neat eidolon creature with a tumorous growth sticking out of its head that got named.This is just funny. I had to laugh when I read it. And yet, you are mostly right. The eidolon is the class, not the summoner. Then again that is how it mostly was in PF1 too.
Sure, a lot of rounds my kobold doesn't do much, but he has non-zero utility (predominantly battlefield control). But this PF2 version takes that usefulness and minimizes it even further.
Heck I can't even build my current eidolon. Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, and (planned for next level) Bodyguard for feats. Nothing like this exists for eidolons in PF2.
I much prefer it this way, if they can continue to make new classes and features that always just sit equal to or below the Core Rule choices I will be very happy.
I also feel like people pursue new content simply for "stronger than the existing material" reasons- always looking for the bigger number. Tsk tsk.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also feel like people pursue new content simply for "stronger than the existing material" reasons- always looking for the bigger number. Tsk tsk.
Er, no. We want "viable compared existing material, just different."
The problem is that the bard and champion are so good that comparisons are inevitably made against them and the new classes found wanting.However, even recognizing that, the magus and summoner of objectively worse than anything you can do with core. Unless you don't use The Thing that makes them different. Eg. if the magus never uses spell-strike their damage "is as good as" a Fighter/Wizard or Wizard/Fighter (except they have fewer spells, worse armor, and never achieve Legendary in weapon/armor/spell DCs).
Summoner is mostly-OK numbers-wise, just wonky (see the petrification thread) and the "summoner" half of the equation only exists to blow an action on Boost Eidolon ("he gets four actions total, so its fine forcing him to spend one on a math fixer, it gives the summoner something to do!").
the summoner who is a neat eidolon creature with a tumorous growth sticking out of its head that got named.This is just funny. I had to laugh when I read it. And yet, you are mostly right. The eidolon is the class, not the summoner. Then again that is how it mostly was in PF1 too.Sure, a lot of rounds my kobold doesn't do much, but he has non-zero utility (predominantly battlefield control). But this PF2 version takes that usefulness and minimizes it even further.
Heck I can't even build my current eidolon. Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, and (planned for next level) Bodyguard for feats. Nothing like this exists for eidolons in PF2.
The eidolons are more like Unchained Eidolons. That's probably the direction they plan to go in this edition. Be nice if there was more customization though. I'm sure a 3rd party can work something up. They have more room to work with than the Paizo designers do for extras. I think the summoner and any Summoner MC might be well served by some extra eidolon 3rd party materials as the class should be very flexible once they solidify the basic chassis.
Heck I can't even build my current eidolon. Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, and (planned for next level) Bodyguard for feats. Nothing like this exists for eidolons in PF2.The eidolons are more like Unchained Eidolons. That's probably the direction they plan to go in this edition. Be nice if there was more customization though. I'm sure a 3rd party can work something up. They have more room to work with than the Paizo designers do for extras. I think the summoner and any Summoner MC might be well served by some extra eidolon 3rd party materials as the class should be very flexible once they solidify the basic chassis.
My current eidolon is unchained.
But what I mean is that the current feat support is really good for the Evolution Pool, but an evolution pool is not everything. There are currently very very very few Feat type feats for the summoner and nothing allows the eidolon to pick up general or MCD feats.
The current eidolon is not unchained.
Unchained Eidolon had subtypes and customization. The current eidolon has only the subtype and only 3 weak abilities to differentiate.
I think Draco meant that his current, as in PF1 eidolon, is unchained.
1. Way too many people complain that every class is underpowered. Alchemists are underpowered! Spellcasters are underpowered! Monks are underpowered! Now, all the APG classes are underpowered! At some point, people are going to have to accept that if they think everything is underpowered, then maybe everything's correctly powered and they just have weird expectations.
2. All new classes start off being viewed as underpowered, because players don't know how to use them optimally yet. They get better with more time and more equipment, and people discover some combinations of parties that work unexpectedly well together.
Pretty sure Fighter and Rogue are very good! Nobody complains about those classes. They are the gold standard.
EDIT: Champion is good too!Those classes just have BIG NUMBERS, solid without relying on 1 gimmicks.
I like Swash, but it feels like it's forced into very linear gameplay just to be equal to other classes.
The current eidolon is not unchained.
Unchained Eidolon had subtypes and customization. The current eidolon has only the subtype and only 3 weak abilities to differentiate.
I could easily say that the current Eidolon is nothing but a vaguely conscious husk and be 100% correct. Familiars which are some of the most boring creatures have more customization than the Eidolon.
Thats right the feature that was known for being "pick an animal from the list" has more customization than the feature known for "build a monster how you want". Just let that sink in.
This is true. I wonder if the eidolons even have the creature tag they are. I did not look close.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have noticed that for every playtest there is a group that finds the playtest perfect and needing no changes. While another group complains that its too weak.
I admit that I haven't been in the playtest forums the last few days, but I haven't seen anyone say that this playtest is perfect (certainly saw some for the last one).
This is true. I wonder if the eidolons even have the creature tag they are. I did not look close.
They do. It's under "traits" in their stat block.
Tradition arcane
Traits astral, dragon, eidolon, and one more (see Breath
Weapon below)
Home Plane Astral Plane
Size Medium
This is true. I wonder if the eidolons even have the creature tag they are. I did not look close.They do. It's under "traits" in their stat block.
Tradition arcane
Traits astral, dragon, eidolon, and one more (see Breath
Weapon below)
Home Plane Astral Plane
Size Medium
Cool. I did not realize it, but tags give a few benefits. With the dragon tag, I think the dragon eidolon is immune to sleep and paralysis. That is nice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Only construct and undead give specific resistances and immunities now. Everything else is a suggestion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Only construct and undead give specific resistances and immunities now. Everything else is a suggestion.
I read that clause differently than you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |