...It feels like this thread and the thread, "some thoughts on 2nd Ed." have switched topics.I might blame this on the fact that I chose the wrong class for the objective I wanted (which is all-day powerful blasting potential), but Wizards are leagues and bounds behind classes like Witches and Sorcerers as a result of not knowing what sort of niche the Wizard is supposed to fill.If you mean to imply to sorcerer fills a "blasting" niche, I can't entirely agree because there's a lot of ways you can try and go with a sorcerer. Hag debuffing, imperial generalist, angelic healer, etc. They don't fall into just one category (although quality of sorcerers varies widely.) I'll say a blaster sorcerer might be the "best" way to play one (even if I am not a fan of that) but optimal builds aren't the only ones that exist.
I'll admit I am very biased here, though, as blasters have always been my least favorite way to play casters and sorcerers have always been a favorite class so I am glad they were kept out of that niche somewhat (and honestly, I wish Dangerous Sorcery had just been Dangerous Wizardry and a class bonus for the evoker.) Druids feel like the best blasters overall, to me, but that's as speculative as any answer.
I guess in my ideal world, sorcerers would have been the best casters in terms of spell slots and raw magic power and wizards would have occupied the "versatile caster" niche. I suppose that ship has sailed, but as it stands neither class is really all that good regardless of what niche you consider it to occupy.
But what niche does witch fill? Debuffing? I don't know that she's great at it, even versus monsters of any level.
In any case, I am still wondering from earlier in the thread how true strike helps attack roll spells be viable across the board when a huge amount of casters don't get it. It feels like across the board optimal builds are the only ones that get considered in these
Do you mean strong for single target damage? Blasting is extremely strong for AoE damage. Shortens encounters dramatically. Not the best for single target damage though. But absolutely nutty multi-target damage. Some AoE spells like phantasmal calamity can end encounters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm bored of the back and forth.
How do we make casters not get weak at early levels and feel impactful with meaningful choices.
Because I get that every round with a fighter.
I don't with any caster. Especially that 1-4 mark.
My thought is focus points. Every early level focus point a caster gets automatically should have reliable use every combat. But also feel impactful to use. Currently most are far too niche or feel like their is too little impact to use.
My favorite focus spell casters have is elemental toss. It's not flashy. But it's impactful and sees regular use. It's accuracy is low but that's the same with any caster attack option it seems.
I think that would go a ways to salving those early levels.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, can't NPCs from a specific class (like Swashbuckler) take class feats and skill feats not unlike players? I understand NPCs don't have to be built that way, but it's not like they can't or the rules don't permit it to be done. After all, how can PCs retrain if there are no NPCs with the abilities they need to retrain into?
NPCs absolutely can be built as PCs and given abilities like this. However, such NPCs are vanishingly rare...to the point that Paizo has published zero such NPCs to date. Occasionally, even those built via the Monster Creation Rules will have a specific Skill Feat or two appropriate to their theme, but again, that's pretty rare (though less rare than full PC build NPCs, several of these have actually been published...though none with Foil Senses).
In short, even in a home game, I'd expect an NPC with Foil Senses to show up maybe once in an entire campaign going from levels 1 to 20. And certainly at no lower than 7th level since, as others note, that's the level it's supposed to crop up at.
It is not a meaningful restriction on Scent, especially not when Scent is being used as an example of something useful at low level.
As for having enemies with abilities that help them at their schtick (such as sneaking around or avoiding capture), it's not so much as "adversarial GMing" than it is simply building a creature to work with their schtick. I could simply give them abilities that function identical to the skill feats, or even stronger if it so calls for it. Such as a capable shapeshifter type that takes creature's forms to the point of being undetectable, in sight, scent, touch, etc. I simply referred to Foil Senses as a general example.
It's not adversarial GMing to have a single NPC show up with something like this, no, but given the rarity of this sort of thing in NPC design, it would be adversarial GMing for it to show up often enough or early enough for it to be a good argument against Scent being super useful at early levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm bored of the back and forth.
How do we make casters not get weak at early levels and feel impactful with meaningful choices.
Well, you could do worse than check out thread that was started to generate such ideas. I’m not sure anyone posted anything about focus points yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do apologize for making this inquiry if the answer has already been discussed earlier in this thread, but do spellcasters get the same potential access to equipment that can improve their accuracy with their spells, as martials do with their weapons, in PF2?
Nope.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you mean strong for single target damage? Blasting is extremely strong for AoE damage. Shortens encounters dramatically. Not the best for single target damage though. But absolutely nutty multi-target damage. Some AoE spells like phantasmal calamity can end encounters.
Depends on the creatures and spell. Chain Lightning is extremely powerful granted that enemies do not roll a 20 (or have strong saves/resistances towards this). Even against enemies that are 2-3 levels lower than you, one good roll can make Chain Lightning fizzle out. As an example in the same Giant Barbarian fight, I was able to target an entire board of enemies with the spell, but on the 4th target (out of over a dozen potential targets) rolling a natural 20, it fizzles out before I could make bank. A second casting gets better results, but not that perfect slaughter spell that I'm looking to have occur. Vampiric Touch has given me a couple solid single target nukes with critically failed saves, but that's (un)lucky rolling doing the damage, not the spell. Even Disintegrate is pretty bad because with both a save and an attack roll, I haven't broken a hundred damage from it, and I've used it pretty frequently when I acquired the spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, can't NPCs from a specific class (like Swashbuckler) take class feats and skill feats not unlike players? I understand NPCs don't have to be built that way, but it's not like they can't or the rules don't permit it to be done. After all, how can PCs retrain if there are no NPCs with the abilities they need to retrain into?NPCs absolutely can be built as PCs and given abilities like this. However, such NPCs are vanishingly rare...to the point that Paizo has published zero such NPCs to date. Occasionally, even those built via the Monster Creation Rules will have a specific Skill Feat or two appropriate to their theme, but again, that's pretty rare (though less rare than full PC build NPCs, several of these have actually been published...though none with Foil Senses).
In short, even in a home game, I'd expect an NPC with Foil Senses to show up maybe once in an entire campaign going from levels 1 to 20. And certainly at no lower than 7th level since, as others note, that's the level it's supposed to crop up at.
It is not a meaningful restriction on Scent, especially not when Scent is being used as an example of something useful at low level.
As for having enemies with abilities that help them at their schtick (such as sneaking around or avoiding capture), it's not so much as "adversarial GMing" than it is simply building a creature to work with their schtick. I could simply give them abilities that function identical to the skill feats, or even stronger if it so calls for it. Such as a capable shapeshifter type that takes creature's forms to the point of being undetectable, in sight, scent, touch, etc. I simply referred to Foil Senses as a general example.It's not adversarial GMing to have a single NPC show up with something like this, no, but given the rarity of this sort of thing in NPC design, it would be adversarial GMing for it to show up often enough or early enough for it to be a good...
I've ran across several PC-built NPCs in my games so far. I understand my experience is atypical, but whose isn't? The point is that it's possible, and for homebrewers, it's more frequent than what Paizo or other as-is players make it out to be (AKA not at all), and since I run homebrew campaigns in between actual campaigns, in those situations it's very likely.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I mean, can't NPCs from a specific class (like Swashbuckler) take class feats and skill feats not unlike players? I understand NPCs don't have to be built that way, but it's not like they can't or the rules don't permit it to be done. After all, how can PCs retrain if there are no NPCs with the abilities they need to retrain into?NPCs absolutely can be built as PCs and given abilities like this. However, such NPCs are vanishingly rare...to the point that Paizo has published zero such NPCs to date. Occasionally, even those built via the Monster Creation Rules will have a specific Skill Feat or two appropriate to their theme, but again, that's pretty rare (though less rare than full PC build NPCs, several of these have actually been published...though none with Foil Senses).
In short, even in a home game, I'd expect an NPC with Foil Senses to show up maybe once in an entire campaign going from levels 1 to 20. And certainly at no lower than 7th level since, as others note, that's the level it's supposed to crop up at.
It is not a meaningful restriction on Scent, especially not when Scent is being used as an example of something useful at low level.
As for having enemies with abilities that help them at their schtick (such as sneaking around or avoiding capture), it's not so much as "adversarial GMing" than it is simply building a creature to work with their schtick. I could simply give them abilities that function identical to the skill feats, or even stronger if it so calls for it. Such as a capable shapeshifter type that takes creature's forms to the point of being undetectable, in sight, scent, touch, etc. I simply referred to Foil Senses as a general example.It's not adversarial GMing to have a single NPC show up with something like this, no, but given the rarity of this sort of thing in NPC design, it would be adversarial GMing for it to show up often enough or early
"Someone could theoretically build a 7th level NPC that invalidates my first level feat choice" is still a bad argument.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've ran across several PC-built NPCs in my games so far. I understand my experience is atypical, but whose isn't? The point is that it's possible, and for homebrewers, it's more frequent than what Paizo or other as-is players make it out to be (AKA not at all), and since I run homebrew campaigns in between actual campaigns, in those situations it's very likely.
What do you mean by 'very likely'?
Foil Senses is a highly specific Feat requiring Master Stealth and 7th level (8th for most characters). The number of characters created with the PC rules who will have it, on average, remains very small and certainly won't crop up before 7th level.
I'd say it's likely to come up at some point in a campaign that uses a lot of characters made with the PC rules, but come up often? No. The idea that it will is kind of absurd when examined, frankly.
...I mean, can't NPCs from a specific class (like Swashbuckler) take class feats and skill feats not unlike players? I understand NPCs don't have to be built that way, but it's not like they can't or the rules don't permit it to be done. After all, how can PCs retrain if there are no NPCs with the abilities they need to retrain into?NPCs absolutely can be built as PCs and given abilities like this. However, such NPCs are vanishingly rare...to the point that Paizo has published zero such NPCs to date. Occasionally, even those built via the Monster Creation Rules will have a specific Skill Feat or two appropriate to their theme, but again, that's pretty rare (though less rare than full PC build NPCs, several of these have actually been published...though none with Foil Senses).
In short, even in a home game, I'd expect an NPC with Foil Senses to show up maybe once in an entire campaign going from levels 1 to 20. And certainly at no lower than 7th level since, as others note, that's the level it's supposed to crop up at.
It is not a meaningful restriction on Scent, especially not when Scent is being used as an example of something useful at low level.
As for having enemies with abilities that help them at their schtick (such as sneaking around or avoiding capture), it's not so much as "adversarial GMing" than it is simply building a creature to work with their schtick. I could simply give them abilities that function identical to the skill feats, or even stronger if it so calls for it. Such as a capable shapeshifter type that takes creature's forms to the point of being undetectable, in sight, scent, touch, etc. I simply referred to Foil Senses as a general example.It's not adversarial GMing to have a single NPC show up with something like this, no, but given the rarity of this sort of thing in NPC design, it would be adversarial GMing for it to show up often enough or early
I'm honestly surprised people build NPCs like player characters. Unless you have a lot of time on your hands, it seems like very time consuming for a NPC that might only last a couple rounds of combat. Was this the 1E standard? Even for NPC allies that occasionally help the party, I just make a barebones stat block with basic abilities.
I've used a total of two NPCs built like players in my game. One was an ally of the party two levels lower, and the other was the main antagonist who was two levels higher. He ended up getting one shot by critically failing against the party sorcerer's Crisis of Faith (dealt 80 damage, which was exactly his max HP).
Moral of the story, NPCs built like players don't really have enough HP to be a serious threat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Someone could theoretically build a 7th level NPC that invalidates my first level feat choice" is still a bad argument.
What makes it a bad argument? That it's theoretical? Not at my tables, it's not, and I'm pretty sure my tables aren't the only ones, either. That it takes 7+ levels and a specialized build for a creature to counter it? This is like complaining that your 1st level Color Spray spell doesn't work on the big bad that's an Undead, or that you can't Power Attack a creature that's flying because you have to use a bow instead.
How dare a GM make adversity and obstacles in NPCs that require out-of-box thinking and problem solving. For reals, I might as well make the PCs 20th level and throw Level -21 creatures at them because I dare use their same tools against them to make interesting or dynamic encounters that aren't easy or predictable.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm honestly surprised people build NPCs like player characters. Unless you have a lot of time on your hands, it seems like very time consuming for a NPC that might only last a couple rounds of combat. Was this the 1E standard? Even for NPC allies that occasionally help the party, I just make a barebones stat block with basic abilities.
It was more or less standard in PF1, yes. I much prefer the PF2 method, though I do usually make a full NPC stat block (which are quick and easy, at least at low levels).
I've used a total of two NPCs built like players in my game. One was an ally of the party two levels lower, and the other was the main antagonist who was two levels higher. He ended up getting one shot by critically failing against the party sorcerer's Crisis of Faith (dealt 80 damage, which was exactly his max HP).
Moral of the story, NPCs built like players don't really have enough HP to be a serious threat.
I strongly disagree with this, actually. PCs tend towards slightly fewer HP than monsters built by the guidelines, but tend to have other defenses to compensate, and that HP sounds really low for a PC of what, 9th level? I can make even a Wizard at that level with more HP than that (especially with False Life, which almost every main villain Wizard built as a PC should have).
It's certainly not an issue for martial classes, who easily exceed the 'Low' HP for their level of monster and can hit the 'Medium' amount sometimes, or even 8 HP Classes who hit 'Low' pretty reliably if built with survivability in mind. It's a bit more of an issue for 6 HP Classes, but even for them they'll tend to be fine if they have meat shields, things to compensate (of which there are many, from Toughness to the aforementioned False Life, to other defensive buffs), or ideally both.
Really, this seems like you're overreacting to a particular, highly unlikely, event that was the result of a corner case (ridiculous damage roll + crit fail on save + lowest possible HP NPC). Most PCs built as NPCs do fine as threats to the players. The issues with using too many of them is that this is only true with on-level gear, making them higher loot enemies than is usual, and they're a lot of work to build.
Now, you should definitely be very careful with 6 HP (or even 8 HP) per level characters built this way to max out their defenses, and be careful about trying to make them solo villains, but it's a 'be careful', not a 'you can't do this'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've ran across several PC-built NPCs in my games so far. I understand my experience is atypical, but whose isn't? The point is that it's possible, and for homebrewers, it's more frequent than what Paizo or other as-is players make it out to be (AKA not at all), and since I run homebrew campaigns in between actual campaigns, in those situations it's very likely.What do you mean by 'very likely'?
Foil Senses is a highly specific Feat requiring Master Stealth and 7th level (8th for most characters). The number of characters created with the PC rules who will have it, on average, remains very small and certainly won't crop up before 7th level.
I'd say it's likely to come up at some point in a campaign that uses a lot of characters made with the PC rules, but come up often? No. The idea that it will is kind of absurd when examined, frankly.
I mean that if we come across an NPC who is built to be a master of stealth, feats like Foil Senses will come up. It's not a guarantee, depending on the NPC, but to suggest we shouldn't plan for this kind of thing is like saying Ghost Touch weapons are useless. For 90% of fights, they are. For the 10% that they're relevant, they turn a relatively basic fight into a dreadful slog that is significantly more dangerous. Even something as simple as not carrying bludgeoning weapons makes fighting skeletons a potential nightmare.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes it a bad argument?
Because "What if the GM goes out of their way to build encounters specifically designed to shut down your abilities" isn't really an argument for an ability being bad, it's an argument that a GM can ruin your day if they want to.
The thing is, a GM can do that regardless of what ability you have. It's inconsequentially easy for them to shut down any character they want if they choose to. Doing it constantly or as a metagame response to the players is also often a red flag, too.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Someone could theoretically build a 7th level NPC that invalidates my first level feat choice" is still a bad argument.What makes it a bad argument? That it's theoretical? Not at my tables, it's not, and I'm pretty sure my tables aren't the only ones, either. That it takes 7+ levels and a specialized build for a creature to counter it? This is like complaining that your 1st level Color Spray spell doesn't work on the big bad that's an Undead, or that you can't Power Attack a creature that's flying because you have to use a bow instead.
It's a bad argument because you're using it to say that Scent isn't useful. That's like saying Color Spray is a bad 1st level spell solely because it won't work on undead, or that melee attacks are useless because flying creatures exist.
Nobody claimed it was an auto-win 100% of the time. They claimed it usually worked and was quite useful. A rare theoretical build that counters that does not change this fact, and yet that's exactly what you seem to be claiming. That the existence of a way around it makes it useless.
How dare a GM make adversity and obstacles in NPCs that require out-of-box thinking and problem solving. For reals, I might as well make the PCs 20th level and throw Level -21 creatures at them because I dare use their same tools against them to make interesting or dynamic encounters that aren't easy or predictable.
Using the system to create occasional obstacles the players must be clever to overcome is fine, but for scent to not be useful, you'd have to start giving all your Stealth using villains Foil Senses...and that's not creating fun, clever, puzzles any more it's a mean spirited move that makes an ability a player invested in no longer useful.
So there are two options here:
#1: You use Foil Senses only occasionally. In this case, your argument is bad because scent is still useful the rest of the time.
#2: You give every possible person Foil Senses, making scent useless. This is implausible (in the sense of making no in-universe sense), bad monster design, punitive to the character in question, and generally bad and adversarial GMing.
Personally, I suspect you do the first thing rather than the second, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do...but as I state in Point #1, the rarity of such foes still makes it a bad argument for scent being useless.
What makes it a bad argument?Because "What if the GM goes out of their way to build encounters specifically designed to shut down your abilities" isn't really an argument for an ability being bad, it's an argument that a GM can ruin your day if they want to.
The thing is, a GM can do that regardless of what ability you have. It's inconsequentially easy for them to shut down any character they want if they choose to. Doing it constantly is also often a red flag, too.
GMs can ruin my day by rolling 20's on their saving throws on my spells pretty damn frequently. It's happened twice in a row on bosses, and even more on the mooks, disrupting spells like Chain Lightning or Fireball effectiveness. You don't need a specialized build to do that. Though it does make me wise up when I realize my target has Evasion or Juggernaut; it creates better counterplay opportunities besides "Bad guys rolled awesome, so you suck as a result."
All I'm seeing is "GMs can't challenge players to do something that shouldn't realistically work all the time because it's badwrongfun to do so."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Someone could theoretically build a 7th level NPC that invalidates my first level feat choice" is still a bad argument.What makes it a bad argument? That it's theoretical? Not at my tables, it's not, and I'm pretty sure my tables aren't the only ones, either. That it takes 7+ levels and a specialized build for a creature to counter it? This is like complaining that your 1st level Color Spray spell doesn't work on the big bad that's an Undead, or that you can't Power Attack a creature that's flying because you have to use a bow instead.It's a bad argument because you're using it to say that Scent isn't useful. That's like saying Color Spray is a bad 1st level spell solely because it won't work on undead, or that melee attacks are useless because flying creatures exist.
Nobody claimed it was an auto-win 100% of the time. They claimed it usually worked and was quite useful. A rare theoretical build that counters that does not change this fact, and yet that's exactly what you seem to be claiming. That the existence of a way around it makes it useless.
How dare a GM make adversity and obstacles in NPCs that require out-of-box thinking and problem solving. For reals, I might as well make the PCs 20th level and throw Level -21 creatures at them because I dare use their same tools against them to make interesting or dynamic encounters that aren't easy or predictable.Using the system to create occasional obstacles the players must be clever to overcome is fine, but for scent to not be useful, you'd have to start giving all your Stealth using villains Foil Senses...and that's not creating fun, clever, puzzles any more it's a mean spirited move that makes an ability a player invested in no longer useful.
So there are two options here:
#1: You use Foil Senses only occasionally. In this case, your argument is bad because scent is still useful the rest of the time....
That's a fair point, but another problem I have with it is that it's not constant. It only works while raging, which can't be done outside of combat, which means I can't use it to smell dead bodies on the other side of the door and suspect zombies or other undead through the next room. Or use it to discern between a party member and a Doppelganger disguised as a party member. Or smell poison in my food.
It's just not something I am comfortable justifying a precious feat slot for with its relatively limited application, and the other feats aren't much promising, either.
If you don't like it, take an archetype instead. Dual Weapon Warrior and Bastion both give you fighter options at the same level of investment. Snag Sudden Charge at 1 and then use archetypes until something else appeals to you.
|
|
That's a fair point, but another problem I have with it is that it's not constant. It only works while raging, which can't be done outside of combat, which means I can't use it to smell dead bodies on the other side of the door and suspect zombies or other undead through the next room. Or use it to discern between a party member and a Doppelganger disguised as a party member. Or smell poison in my food.
I mean, you can know there are undead next door if you fought in this room, since you had scent during that fight and it's a passive ability. Ditto knowing that your party member is a doppleganger. Assuming scent works for that, that disguise goes away the moment combat starts. Yeah, you may need to focus on other stuff during the fight, but you don't lose memories of things you smelled when the fight ends.
The food thing is fair, but I really think you're underestimating how many of these utility uses just come to you for free if you rage most combats (and you should rage most combats...you're a Barbarian, after all).
It's just not something I am comfortable justifying a precious feat slot for with its relatively limited application, and the other feats aren't much promising, either.
I think it's fine for what it does. It's intended to let you always find someone to hit in combat, and it usually does a pretty solid job of that. Whether that's good depends on how often people try and sneak up on you (or away from you) mid fight, but it's not nothing.
And other low level Barbarian Feats are also good. Intimidating Glare, Sudden Charge, No Escape, and Draconic Arrogance are all pretty solid, really. And from 4th on up there's plenty of options.
Low level Barbarian Feats tend towards defense, mobility, or utility more than Fighter ones, but that has to do with 1d12+8 damage being kind of absurd. Only as levels rise and more damage gets added to the Fighter does their accuracy advantage overpower the Barbarian's raw damage advantage in DPR.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
..."Someone could theoretically build a 7th level NPC that invalidates my first level feat choice" is still a bad argument.What makes it a bad argument? That it's theoretical? Not at my tables, it's not, and I'm pretty sure my tables aren't the only ones, either. That it takes 7+ levels and a specialized build for a creature to counter it? This is like complaining that your 1st level Color Spray spell doesn't work on the big bad that's an Undead, or that you can't Power Attack a creature that's flying because you have to use a bow instead.It's a bad argument because you're using it to say that Scent isn't useful. That's like saying Color Spray is a bad 1st level spell solely because it won't work on undead, or that melee attacks are useless because flying creatures exist.
Nobody claimed it was an auto-win 100% of the time. They claimed it usually worked and was quite useful. A rare theoretical build that counters that does not change this fact, and yet that's exactly what you seem to be claiming. That the existence of a way around it makes it useless.
How dare a GM make adversity and obstacles in NPCs that require out-of-box thinking and problem solving. For reals, I might as well make the PCs 20th level and throw Level -21 creatures at them because I dare use their same tools against them to make interesting or dynamic encounters that aren't easy or predictable.Using the system to create occasional obstacles the players must be clever to overcome is fine, but for scent to not be useful, you'd have to start giving all your Stealth using villains Foil Senses...and that's not creating fun, clever, puzzles any more it's a mean spirited move that makes an ability a player invested in no longer useful.
So there are two options here:
#1: You use Foil Senses only occasionally. In this case, your argument is bad because scent is still
You come off very adversarial and full of yourself when you make these statements, and I just wanted to let you know in case you weren't aware I.E "said nobody ever" "its a useless ability" "How DARE the GM give you obstacles" etc.
Also, if you perceive the zombies in another room while you're raging because of your scent, your rage wouldn't end because you're perceiving the zombies. That makes it very useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMs can ruin my day by rolling 20's on their saving throws on my spells pretty damn frequently. It's happened twice in a row on bosses, and even more on the mooks, disrupting spells like Chain Lightning or Fireball effectiveness. You don't need a specialized build to do that. Though it does make me wise up when I realize my target has Evasion or Juggernaut; it creates better counterplay opportunities besides "Bad guys rolled awesome, so you suck as a result."What makes it a bad argument?Because "What if the GM goes out of their way to build encounters specifically designed to shut down your abilities" isn't really an argument for an ability being bad, it's an argument that a GM can ruin your day if they want to.
The thing is, a GM can do that regardless of what ability you have. It's inconsequentially easy for them to shut down any character they want if they choose to. Doing it constantly is also often a red flag, too.
Unless the GM uses loaded dice they can't choose to roll a 20, which is different from them making the active choice of shutting down certain feats/abilities
You can do it once or twice, doing it enough to say that a certain ability is bad means that you could call everything in the game bad because the GM is perfectly capable of making any PC ability they want useless for however long they want.
All I'm seeing is "GMs can't challenge players to do something that shouldn't realistically work all the time because it's badwrongfun to do so."
They don't have to choose and it bums me out more than realizing an enemy has an ability that makes using this tactic a fruitless endeavor. The first one is outside my control. If the dice are bad, my choice doesn't matter. If my abilities aren't effective, and I continue to follow them, that's a conscious effort on my part, and I should face the consequences for not adapting my playstyle for fights that don't let me always use my schtick. Whereas if I have another ability that is more effective as a result of targeting something without those benefits, I'm contributing more and my choice becomes that much more important. That's ultimately my point there.
How many creatures have good Stealth to the point that they can get the drop on you without you realizing? How many creatures have effects like Invisibility but not a passable Stealth skill, making scent a relevant ability to have? How much more apt would that be compared to feats like Lunge which give me parity with larger creatures or Power Attack to capitalize on a high AC creature? These are the questions I ask to justify this feat choice, and the conclusions I'm drawing aren't very good in terms of selecting the scent feat compared to something else that has much more favorable applications.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The majority of stuff can potentially be invalidated by specific enemies.
There's a difference between independently encountering a monster with a thematic design that makes it immune to a characters ability, and a GM designing an NPC with a specific, non-standard trait that nullifies and ability of a PC in their actual game.
Thats the scenario here - there's no published work that includes an NPC that matches the described ability here (one with a the Foil Senses skill feat), and a GM ostensibly knows their party and their capabilities.
Therefore, any case where this is theoretically an issue is a GM intentionally making it happen.
Do you mean strong for single target damage? Blasting is extremely strong for AoE damage. Shortens encounters dramatically. Not the best for single target damage though. But absolutely nutty multi-target damage. Some AoE spells like phantasmal calamity can end encounters.Depends on the creatures and spell. Chain Lightning is extremely powerful granted that enemies do not roll a 20 (or have strong saves/resistances towards this). Even against enemies that are 2-3 levels lower than you, one good roll can make Chain Lightning fizzle out. As an example in the same Giant Barbarian fight, I was able to target an entire board of enemies with the spell, but on the 4th target (out of over a dozen potential targets) rolling a natural 20, it fizzles out before I could make bank. A second casting gets better results, but not that perfect slaughter spell that I'm looking to have occur. Vampiric Touch has given me a couple solid single target nukes with critically failed saves, but that's (un)lucky rolling doing the damage, not the spell. Even Disintegrate is pretty bad because with both a save and an attack roll, I haven't broken a hundred damage from it, and I've used it pretty frequently when I acquired the spell.
You haven't broken a 100 aggregate damage on this? The advantage of AOE is not the immense single target damage. AoE spells are like multiple attacks that hit several targets for excellent damage. I've broken 300 and 400 damage on a round for AoE targets. I have yet to see a martial character do this in a round.
If you are using AoE spells for single target damage, then I can see your view of blasting spells as not so good. As far as taking down a group of creatures hit points in a way that a martial can't, blasting is very potent. It does a ton of aggregate damage that kills groups much faster without having to waste move actions to get to targets or the like. Sometimes with riders like phantasmal calamity. Blasting is an excellent option in PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you mean strong for single target damage? Blasting is extremely strong for AoE damage. Shortens encounters dramatically. Not the best for single target damage though. But absolutely nutty multi-target damage. Some AoE spells like phantasmal calamity can end encounters.Depends on the creatures and spell. Chain Lightning is extremely powerful granted that enemies do not roll a 20 (or have strong saves/resistances towards this). Even against enemies that are 2-3 levels lower than you, one good roll can make Chain Lightning fizzle out. As an example in the same Giant Barbarian fight, I was able to target an entire board of enemies with the spell, but on the 4th target (out of over a dozen potential targets) rolling a natural 20, it fizzles out before I could make bank. A second casting gets better results, but not that perfect slaughter spell that I'm looking to have occur. Vampiric Touch has given me a couple solid single target nukes with critically failed saves, but that's (un)lucky rolling doing the damage, not the spell. Even Disintegrate is pretty bad because with both a save and an attack roll, I haven't broken a hundred damage from it, and I've used it pretty frequently when I acquired the spell.You haven't broken a 100 aggregate damage on this? The advantage of AOE is not the immense single target damage. AoE spells are like multiple attacks that hit several targets for excellent damage. I've broken 300 and 400 damage on a round for AoE targets. I have yet to see a martial character do this in a round.
If you are using AoE spells for single target damage, then I can see your view of blasting spells as not so good. As far as taking down a group of creatures hit points in a way that a martial can't, blasting is very potent. It does a ton of aggregate damage that kills groups much faster without having to waste move actions to get to targets or the like. Sometimes with riders like phantasmal calamity. Blasting...
I am saying that a single target spell like Disintegrate isn't very good blasting because it can't even break 100 damage. That's all that sentence is about.
...Do you mean strong for single target damage? Blasting is extremely strong for AoE damage. Shortens encounters dramatically. Not the best for single target damage though. But absolutely nutty multi-target damage. Some AoE spells like phantasmal calamity can end encounters.Depends on the creatures and spell. Chain Lightning is extremely powerful granted that enemies do not roll a 20 (or have strong saves/resistances towards this). Even against enemies that are 2-3 levels lower than you, one good roll can make Chain Lightning fizzle out. As an example in the same Giant Barbarian fight, I was able to target an entire board of enemies with the spell, but on the 4th target (out of over a dozen potential targets) rolling a natural 20, it fizzles out before I could make bank. A second casting gets better results, but not that perfect slaughter spell that I'm looking to have occur. Vampiric Touch has given me a couple solid single target nukes with critically failed saves, but that's (un)lucky rolling doing the damage, not the spell. Even Disintegrate is pretty bad because with both a save and an attack roll, I haven't broken a hundred damage from it, and I've used it pretty frequently when I acquired the spell.You haven't broken a 100 aggregate damage on this? The advantage of AOE is not the immense single target damage. AoE spells are like multiple attacks that hit several targets for excellent damage. I've broken 300 and 400 damage on a round for AoE targets. I have yet to see a martial character do this in a round.
If you are using AoE spells for single target damage, then I can see your view of blasting spells as not so good. As far as taking down a group of creatures hit points in a way that a martial can't, blasting is very potent. It does a ton of aggregate damage that kills groups much faster without having to waste move actions to get to targets or the like. Sometimes with riders like
Ah. Disintegrate never was that great. One of those ones that excites on paper, then you find out nearly every creature has high Fortitude saves, even in PF1.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 Disintegrate isn't good.
Spell attack roll spells are pretty bad overall.
PF2 Disintegrate isn't good.
Spell attack roll spells are pretty bad overall.
It's passable with True Strike because of the affect to saves on critical.
The DPR isn't mindblowing, but together, it's worth doing (though kinda expensive).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The majority of stuff can potentially be invalidated by specific enemies.
There's a difference between independently encountering a monster with a thematic design that makes it immune to a characters ability, and a GM designing an NPC with a specific, non-standard trait that nullifies and ability of a PC in their actual game.
Thats the scenario here - there's no published work that includes an NPC that matches the described ability here (one with a the Foil Senses skill feat), and a GM ostensibly knows their party and their capabilities.
Therefore, any case where this is theoretically an issue is a GM intentionally making it happen.
Because NPCs can't have thematic designs too when they take certain options, not unlike PCs, demonstrating that the world the PCs inhabit isn't completely helpless or without adventurers unlike themselves, whom have also braved similar challenges to get where they are now?
This is such a disingenuous argument because it assumes a GM is creating something with a specific purpose of undermining PC choices, when the GM is making something whose thematics are counter to some choices (not all, or even certain types of choices), choices that players may not even make to begin with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 Disintegrate isn't good.
Spell attack roll spells are pretty bad overall.It's passable with True Strike because of the affect to saves on critical.
The DPR isn't mindblowing, but together, it's worth doing (though kinda expensive).
Even with this combination, you can't break 100 damage on average. On just a failure, 12d10 averages to 66 damage, and with 12 dice, good luck rolling max, or even 100+. Either the enemy has to critically fail the save, or you have to crit and the enemy fails.
The most favorable result I've gotten in gameplay was a failure of ~75 damage, and that's with a critical hit from True Strike, too. It was a solid hit (dealing about 1/4 of their total life), but damn does it not feel great when you roll amazing and get smoked by solid saves from even a spellcaster type creature, whom are supposed to have Fortitude as their worst save.
I am more likely to do more damage from a single target Chain Lightning spell, simply because it targets a save that's easier to be bad at, and because there's only one roll involved instead of two. And I don't have to combo a True Strike for the favorable result of a Disintegrate.
For people whom have complained about playtest Magus with Striking Spells, the above is a prime example as to why the current iteration is crap and no good. Just treat every Striking Spells as a Disintegrate, and you'll see exactly why it's a dumb mechanic, and why I would prefer a Channel Smite mechanic any day of the week.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 Disintegrate isn't good.
Spell attack roll spells are pretty bad overall.It's passable with True Strike because of the affect to saves on critical.
The DPR isn't mindblowing, but together, it's worth doing (though kinda expensive).
Even with this combination, you can't break 100 damage on average. On just a failure, 12d10 averages to 66 damage, and with 12 dice, good luck rolling max, or even 100+. Either the enemy has to critically fail the save, or you have to crit and the enemy fails.
The most favorable result I've gotten in gameplay was a failure of ~75 damage, and that's with a critical hit from True Strike, too. It was a solid hit (dealing about 1/4 of their total life), but damn does it not feel great when you roll amazing and get smoked by solid saves from even a spellcaster type creature, whom are supposed to have Fortitude as their worst save.
I am more likely to do more damage from a single target Chain Lightning spell, simply because it targets a save that's easier to be bad at, and because there's only one roll involved instead of two. And I don't have to combo a True Strike for the favorable result of a Disintegrate.
For people whom have complained about playtest Magus with Striking Spells, the above is a prime example as to why the current iteration is crap and no good. Just treat every Striking Spells as a Disintegrate, and you'll see exactly why it's a dumb mechanic, and why I would prefer a Channel Smite mechanic any day of the week.
Darksol, this is an interesting observation to make about the magus striking spell mechanic, since the magus gets heightened proficiency with the attack roll and item bonuses to it, while simultaneously being able to target different saves, or even AC. That is a lot more flexibility than disintegrate gets, and mathematically, it can be twisted to really give the magus a much bigger chance of getting through defenses, but it does seem like players generally dislike the complexity of lining up different saves on top of the tactics of maximizing attack bonuses. Even if it gives a massive bonus when done effectively, players don't seem to generally want to be patient enough to line it all up.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol, this is an interesting observation to make about the magus striking spell mechanic, since the magus gets heightened proficiency with the attack roll and item bonuses to it, while simultaneously being able to target different saves, or even AC. That is a lot more flexibility than disintegrate gets, and mathematically, it can be twisted to really give the magus a much bigger chance of getting through defenses, but it does seem...PF2 Disintegrate isn't good.
Spell attack roll spells are pretty bad overall.It's passable with True Strike because of the affect to saves on critical.
The DPR isn't mindblowing, but together, it's worth doing (though kinda expensive).
Even with this combination, you can't break 100 damage on average. On just a failure, 12d10 averages to 66 damage, and with 12 dice, good luck rolling max, or even 100+. Either the enemy has to critically fail the save, or you have to crit and the enemy fails.
The most favorable result I've gotten in gameplay was a failure of ~75 damage, and that's with a critical hit from True Strike, too. It was a solid hit (dealing about 1/4 of their total life), but damn does it not feel great when you roll amazing and get smoked by solid saves from even a spellcaster type creature, whom are supposed to have Fortitude as their worst save.
I am more likely to do more damage from a single target Chain Lightning spell, simply because it targets a save that's easier to be bad at, and because there's only one roll involved instead of two. And I don't have to combo a True Strike for the favorable result of a Disintegrate.
For people whom have complained about playtest Magus with Striking Spells, the above is a prime example as to why the current iteration is crap and no good. Just treat every Striking Spells as a Disintegrate, and you'll see exactly why it's a dumb mechanic, and why I would prefer a Channel Smite mechanic any day of the week.
The math might support it, but it doesn't change the fact that one bad roll is all it takes to make the entire plan go to hell.
You roll a 2? The rest of the equation doesn't matter, and you wasted your entire round doing nothing. Whereas if somebody just did a basic Strike, they still have 2 actions remaining to either do something else or re-Strike (even if at a penalty). And if that was their Hasted action? They aren't really out anything, since it's either that or move around. Whereas you can do just about anything else with 2+ actions.
The bad guy rolls really high or a Nat 20 on the saving throw effect? Well, now you just basically did a 3-action Strike, and you lost a non-renewable resource (compared to Focus spells, at least), compared to a Ranger or Barbarian who is hitting harder, just as accurate, and doesn't waste 2 actions on doing so.
Not only is there twice as much chance for a bad roll to ruin everything, the entire result depends on both rolls going in your favor, compared to a basic Strike or other one-roll effect. The math would suggest this is the equivalent of expecting 2 heads in a row on a coinflip, and that's assuming a simple pass/fail. It's almost like having a PF1 Misfortune effect on your attacks, even if the math can be adjusted appropriately. It just doesn't feel good compared to the mechanics of Channel Smite, which is just one roll with determinate effects.
Disintegrate is comparably worse, but the main concept is the same, in that you're still hinging on two rolls to work compared to one, in a game where every bit helps and even a slight adjustment in results can make or break the entire outcome.
|
I am content with the mechanics of the Magus, save the loss of all spellcasting of lower levels. I wouldn't be opposed to a slight increase in proficiency progression to make it better than just dedicating. There is more to a magus than the Striking Spell ability.
In the same way, there is more to spellcasters than attack roll based spells. Do not be mislead by the few who beleive in "Spellcasters and their problems ...". They make their arguments by picking out a narrowed view of the game's mechanics. Pay careful attention to the arguments that do not include other possibilities or aspects fo the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is such a disingenuous argument because it assumes a GM is creating something with a specific purpose of undermining PC choicesIt can't be disingenuous when that was precisely your premise: a bunch of NPCs with foil senses showing up to shut down the Barbarian with scent.
My premise was that there are situational things which would make the feat useless. Foil Senses is just one example, one that apparently doesn't exist in published works, nor is it apparently something GMs use as a tactic, my guess is because it's badwrongfun to use PC options as a GM, based on the fact that that's the first thing being thrown out by people when a GM hypothetically does so.
So let's go ahead and examine other ways besides that to circumvent this ability, just as a fun exercise. Incorporeal creatures do not leave a scent. Disguised creatures might leave scents different from what I would expect them to be, if their disguise capabilities are high enough, meaning I won't realize them to be a threat. Objects that blend in with other objects (such as a stone golem statue in a room full of stone) might not leave a distinct scent either, since they blend in perfectly with the room. Or, a scent might be too overpowering for them to discern something different from the others (especially because it's imprecise of all things). The last one might be stretching a bit, but I imagine there are some things which can do this that monsters have access to.
There's so many other things that would "mimic" Foil Senses effects that simply choosing Foil Senses isn't any more badwrongfun than throwing ghosts or golems at my PCs. I can understand people saying that it's not a particular route that GMs have to counter the effect, and that's fine, I don't expect GMs to constantly throw NPCs at PCs all the time (mine does here and there), but saying it's badwrongfun to have a master assassin NPC with tricks and abilities that make the potential marks unsuspecting victims is about as badwrongfun as throwing a roper or a gelatinous cube at the PCs, especially if the module calls for it. Which, guess what? There are things which can (and do) circumvent certain abilities, meaning you can't just rely on those abilities all the time, every time. Obviously, certain things will be susceptible to it that it will be valuable, such as simply invisible creatures, or creatures with disguise abilities that don't cover sense of smell. But it's by no means a fool proof ability, and it's also not the only source of scent possible, meaning NPCs taking options to help overcome them or monsters having abilities which circumvent them (such as a super awesome Veil ability) is both not outside the realm of possibility, nor should it always be considered badwrongfun just because this one time the ability doesn't work.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My premise was that there are situational things which would make the feat useless. Foil Senses is just one example, one that apparently doesn't exist in published works, nor is it apparently something GMs use as a tactic, my guess is because it's badwrongfun to use PC options as a GM, based on the fact that that's the first thing being thrown out by people when a GM hypothetically does so.
No one seems to be saying it's badwrongfun to use PC options as a GM. You're allowed to do that.
It's badwrongfun to only use things that directly counter things your player picked, because that's adversarial GMing. If you're picking those options for the reason of "this will shut down -player's- ability", then that's mean and I would leave that table.
What I seem to understand from this, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that people seem to think you are arguing that because things like Foil Senses exists, that makes the scent ability ENTIRELY useless or bad.
They're saying that the existence of these abilities does not render the other one completely useless as a whole, just useless in the scenario. Fireball is useless against things immune to fire, but the existence of Fire immunity does not render the entire spell a bad spell. Just bad for the situation.
My premise was that there are situational things which would make the feat useless. Foil Senses is just one example, one that apparently doesn't exist in published works, nor is it apparently something GMs use as a tactic, my guess is because it's badwrongfun to use PC options as a GM, based on the fact that that's the first thing being thrown out by people when a GM hypothetically does so.
No one seems to be saying it's badwrongfun to use PC options as a GM. You're allowed to do that.
It's badwrongfun to only use things that directly counter things your player picked, because that's adversarial GMing. If you're picking those options for the reason of "this will shut down -player's- ability", then that's mean and I would leave that table.
What I seem to understand from this, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that people seem to think you are arguing that because things like Foil Senses exists, that makes the scent ability ENTIRELY useless or bad.
They're saying that the existence of these abilities does not render the other one completely useless as a whole, just useless in the scenario. Fireball is useless against things immune to fire, but the existence of Fire immunity does not render the entire spell a bad spell. Just bad for the situation.
And to that, I disagree. This is essentially saying that you can't challenge players to adapt tactics against a monster or NPC who is written, arbitrarily or not, to have abilities which make X tactic useless. Let's take a Fire Elemental Sorcerer. Their party faces a Red Dragon. Is this badwrongfun because I want the Sorcerer to contribute in ways besides throwing fireballs or flaming spheres all the time?
People would suggest yes, because I chose a Red Dragon specifically for this purpose, and apparently no other purpose, such as it being a creature terrorizing a town in the setting. But if the Red Dragon was in an AP, for example, does that somehow magically make it okay, because Paizo's stamp of unwavering approval was on it, and therefore I can't be blamed for running an adventure as is, or am I still going to be labeled the villain because I didn't change the encounter to be more accommodating to my players?
In short, what sort of line do we have to cross for something like this to be badwrongfun? Since apparently it's badwrong to challenge players tactically, or to make it so they won't always rely on the same tactic over and over again because each creature (and even NPC) behaves differently.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the entire conversation about foil senses is kind of muddled right now. I don't think(?) people are arguing a GM can never use a red dragon if the party has a fireballing sorcerer, or that the GM can never use a creature with Foil Senses or some similar ability if the party has a Barbarian with Acute Scent. Rather, the fact that a GM might rarely use these tools does not make either fireball or scent bad. If the GM uses Foil Senses similes often enough that Acute Scent becomes bad, that would be an adversarial GM (according to what people are arguing).
I think a this barbarian feat may be slightly off-topic, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the entire conversation about foil senses is kind of muddled right now. I don't think(?) people are arguing a GM can never use a red dragon if the party has a fireballing sorcerer, or that the GM can never use a creature with Foil Senses or some similar ability if the party has a Barbarian with Acute Scent. Rather, the fact that a GM might rarely use these tools does not make either fireball or scent bad. If the GM uses Foil Senses similes often enough that Acute Scent becomes bad, that would be an adversarial GM (according to what people are arguing).
I think a this barbarian feat may be slightly off-topic, though.
Pretty much exactly that.
No one is saying you can't use those enemies or tactics, just that doing it so often just comes across as Me vs You GMing.
My premise was that there are situational things which would make the feat useless. Foil Senses is just one example, one that apparently doesn't exist in published works, nor is it apparently something GMs use as a tactic, my guess is because it's badwrongfun to use PC options as a GM, based on the fact that that's the first thing being thrown out by people when a GM hypothetically does so.
No one seems to be saying it's badwrongfun to use PC options as a GM. You're allowed to do that.
It's badwrongfun to only use things that directly counter things your player picked, because that's adversarial GMing. If you're picking those options for the reason of "this will shut down -player's- ability", then that's mean and I would leave that table.
What I seem to understand from this, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that people seem to think you are arguing that because things like Foil Senses exists, that makes the scent ability ENTIRELY useless or bad.
They're saying that the existence of these abilities does not render the other one completely useless as a whole, just useless in the scenario. Fireball is useless against things immune to fire, but the existence of Fire immunity does not render the entire spell a bad spell. Just bad for the situation.
I think the point is that most creatures that the scent would help you against will fall into one of two buckets. A) things you can just hear and don't need to smell, or B) things that are good enough at going undetected that you wouldn't smell them (or that their smell would be too hard to distinguish from the environment/is nonexistent).
Given that the scent ability only works while raging, the fact that most creatures will be in one of these two buckets means that there's little value to the feat. Certainly you can come up with some specific scenarios it would be good, but such cases are rare (once every 10 to 12 sessions or less) in every game I've run, played in, or heard about. If it worked outside of combat it could be quite useful for sniffing out ambushes and the like. As it is, it can't come close to competing with options that are useful in the vast majority of fights.