Not the point, but they actually are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealots.The word zealot, from zeal, is not tied to any specific historical group.
I mean, it was a word that already existed in Latin and Greek that got tagged on to an oppressed minority that violently resisted Roman occupation. It was sort of a boogie word at the time, but I don't think anyone is going to take offense at its usage. It is a strongly evocative word without a contemporary problematic context.
Also, a new divine striker class would probably benefit well from the powers of the zeal domain so that connection feels appropriate.
How much effort would a non-arcane magus require? Would it necessitate separate classes?
I think a bard-esque Occult Magus wouldn't need much changed, just the starting skill and spell list/DC type. It's the same general idea, you studied magic; just differently.
So, if they were separate, what would be needed to make Occult/Primal/Divine Spellstriker feel actually different from Magus?
Would Warclerics feel bad about someone with less casting (but not Focus limited) being better fighters than them in the Divine arena?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It just makes the 3rd level benefit seem weird. There's no time savings as you could have just picked up weapon training at the same level, and you're probably going to swap to your deity's weapon at 7 anyways.
Maybe this is an oversight and will be fixed in upcoming big errata?
Its totally weird and more than a little silly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just makes the 3rd level benefit seem weird. There's no time savings as you could have just picked up weapon training at the same level, and you're probably going to swap to your deity's weapon at 7 anyways.Maybe this is an oversight and will be fixed in upcoming big errata?
Its totally weird and more than a little silly.
Not that I agree with the logic, but the only reasonable justification for waiting until third level was to deliberately limit the war priest from qualifying for specific archetypes "for fee" with no other character investment, until 4th level.
However the fact that many ancestries can bypass this so easily makes the limitation feel unnecessarily arbitrary for my tastes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the "waiting until 3rd" that bothers me. As a comparison to the cloistered benefit at the same level, it is balanced enough. It's that the training never gets expanded on, making the level 3 doctrine benefit essentially just getting the Weapon Proficiency feat for free.
Which isn't nothing, and I'm not complaining exactly, but it is a little puzzling. Especially when, as you say, it is so easily bypassed.
How much effort would a non-arcane magus require? Would it necessitate separate classes?
I think a bard-esque Occult Magus wouldn't need much changed, just the starting skill and spell list/DC type. It's the same general idea, you studied magic; just differently.
So, if they were separate, what would be needed to make Occult/Primal/Divine Spellstriker feel actually different from Magus?
Would Warclerics feel bad about someone with less casting (but not Focus limited) being better fighters than them in the Divine arena?
Hopefully not. I thought (and still somewhat think, though I've let myself be swayed) that the Magus class should be the least exciting Gish explicitly so that it can fit with any tradition with minimal flavor changes.
Seems like a low hanging fruit to test out class archetypes, where you swap out the tradition and get an additional minor benefit specific to that tradition. Bonus if Magi wind up with a level 1 class feat in the final version that they can use to select said Class Archetype.
Edit: As to making Warpriests feel bad, I think having 3 different options (4 counting multiclassing) is a great thing for the game as a whole, whatever the particular subclass or class archetype winds up being called.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the "waiting until 3rd" that bothers me. As a comparison to the cloistered benefit at the same level, it is balanced enough. It's that the training never gets expanded on, making the level 3 doctrine benefit essentially just getting the Weapon Proficiency feat for free.
Which isn't nothing, and I'm not complaining exactly, but it is a little puzzling. Especially when, as you say, it is so easily bypassed.
Agreed. Waiting till 3rd isn't my concern so much as it lacks the language to allow the granted proficiencies to progress at your best rate, such as what is found in the combat dedications (like Mauler).
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not the point, but they actually are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealots.The word zealot, from zeal, is not tied to any specific historical group.
I mean, it was a word that already existed in Latin and Greek that got tagged on to an oppressed minority that violently resisted Roman occupation. It was sort of a boogie word at the time, but I don't think anyone is going to take offense at its usage. It is a strongly evocative word without a contemporary problematic context.
Also, a new divine striker class would probably benefit well from the powers of the zeal domain so that connection feels appropriate.
Im not sure the crusades qualify as 'contemporary' XD
Agreed. Waiting till 3rd isn't my concern so much as it lacks the language to allow the granted proficiencies to progress at your best rate, such as what is found in the combat dedications (like Mauler).It's not the "waiting until 3rd" that bothers me. As a comparison to the cloistered benefit at the same level, it is balanced enough. It's that the training never gets expanded on, making the level 3 doctrine benefit essentially just getting the Weapon Proficiency feat for free.
Which isn't nothing, and I'm not complaining exactly, but it is a little puzzling. Especially when, as you say, it is so easily bypassed.
Hence, why it seems like the only logic could be in opening you up to archetypes, as all the archetypes make it so that any gifted proficiency will be able to progress, either with additional feats (fighter MC, hellknight) or automatically (like with the mauler). It would be interesting to hear a developer explain why there are some paths that make getting to expert weapon proficiency so easy and why others complicate it with multiple feats, as well as why war priests only get in in their favored weapon, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that answer to come to us any time soon, in large part because everyone who disagrees with the reasoning will probably get extra angry about the reasoning and it will flame up as an issue that has otherwise mostly been acknowledged and people either deal with it, or homebrew around it.
I will volunteer to drop the crusader argument since it feels like it might be derailing to the Original Poster's thread in a heated discussion, but if anyone wants to talk about it, feel free to private message me.
The Errata does change a lot of things for casters.
Polar ray did get changed to do double damage on a crit, making it a very powerful single target spell, and it could mean that I am completely wrong about their intention to not add more higher level spell attack roll spells. If they do add a bunch more in secrets of magic, now that they have their formula for how to write them out consistently worked out, it could be possible for the magus striking spell ability to allow one attack roll for the weapon strike and the spell attack roll, but only work with spell attack roll spells, or to only give a significant benefit to spell attack roll spells.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well given that the errata dropped and there were some huge changes to Wizards, Clerics, and Bards. What does every think?
I feel like they took away some of the few reasons to actually play a Wizard given they are no longer getting the most 10th level spells. Also the fact that now no spell can affect objects unless it says otherwise destroyed a lot of the power that casters had.
I never really bought into the idea that getting specifically more 10th level slots was the main draw of the wizard, just because something that only affects two levels can't really be the main draw. They get the most top level slots, yes, but with this change it feels like 10th level slots aren't meant to be simple top level, they're like "top level +". So I guess I don't think any of the classes are affected as much as people think, cleric in particular only loses out on a small amount of healing and are still miles above all the other healers.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Minor gripe, but I think they should have let us know about the change/clarification to runes on staves a couple months ago, especially once it became clear that people were using shifted staves of divination on the Magus.
Might have changed how people evaluated Striking Spell and given better playtest feedback.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also the fact that now no spell can affect objects unless it says otherwise destroyed a lot of the power that casters had.
Yeah, with no real way to attack objects, it makes me wonder why they have all those hardness and hp totals for objects [except shields] when nothing can hit them...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No matter how you feel about them.
It's interesting how wide of a gulf there is between Paizo's perception of the class and this vocal section of the forums' perspective.
From the latter we see a consistent stream of threads critical of the Wizard as weak and/or boring and from the former we see a stream of nerfs that gets longer with each subsequent errata.
No judgement either way here, just highlighting how radically different the perspectives are.
I think it's interesting but unsurprising--People who actually spend significant time on the forums are bound to have more extreme opinions than the average players.
Yeah. This errata was needlessly unkind to Wizards.
Secrets of Magic better be really really really good, or I will, personally, have lost confidence in the direction of this edition. At least for casters.
Investigators are still my Int-based refuge.
I haven't had a chance to look to deeply, were there any changes other than the 10th level slot thing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was just the 10th level slot thing, but some people were quite invested in the 10th level slot thing. I found it neat, but only in kind of a loose theoretical sense, like Drain Bonded Item cascading. And I did kind of agree that if a spellcaster is to get an edge over others in some field, that edge shouldn't come at 19th level and involve otherwise highly restricted spells.
I guess there was also the small scattering of spells that could previously damage objects, but that's a general change and I kind of agree with Paizo's reasoning there (at least the acidic weapon runes are single-target and need a crit, I think?). And there was the removal of Wizard's 1st level feat slot, but that was just a typo being fixed, like Sorcerer's lack of a Master Will feature; as far as I know, the feat slot was never intended to be there anyway. I can't think of anything else that hit Wizards from the errata, but I could be forgetting something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was just the 10th level slot thing, but some people were quite invested in the 10th level slot thing. I found it neat, but only in kind of a loose theoretical sense, like Drain Bonded Item cascading. And I did kind of agree that if a spellcaster is to get an edge over others in some field, that edge shouldn't come at 19th level and involve otherwise highly restricted spells.
I guess there was also the small scattering of spells that could previously damage objects, but that's a general change and I kind of agree with Paizo's reasoning there (at least the acidic weapon runes are single-target and need a crit, I think?). And there was the removal of Wizard's 1st level feat slot, but that was just a typo being fixed, like Sorcerer's lack of a Master Will feature; as far as I know, the feat slot was never intended to be there anyway. I can't think of anything else that hit Wizards from the errata, but I could be forgetting something.
The property runes with staves no longer being a thing would count, more for a Magus than a Wizard, but I don't remember the last time I actually used a spell staff (or a staff period) to strike with outside of just trolling weak enemies, so it's like whatever.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The property runes with staves no longer being a thing would count, more for a Magus than a Wizard, but I don't remember the last time I actually used a spell staff (or a staff period) to strike with outside of just trolling weak enemies, so it's like whatever.
The staff change isn't a huge deal for wizards (except insofar as that Wizards who wanted to use weapons were already pretty garbage and so making them worse is a little demoralizing).
But I know several people who played Magi based on the assumption that runes worked normally for staves. Their feedback for the playtest may have been different had they known Paizo was going to change staves like this. It's a little frustrating then that Paizo was completely silent on how staves work during the playtest, because I know this and some other questions came up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards are still fine. They lost effectiveness for two levels of the characters life, where they already objectively have more options than they do otherwise throughout the rest of their career.
It sucks, but it doesn't break the class.
The big issues with it remain gaps in the various schools and a couple of their focus spells lagging behind the rest.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also the fact that now no spell can affect objects unless it says otherwise destroyed a lot of the power that casters had.
That ludicrous rule change will never see the light of day at our table. How absurd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still just wish wizard/sorcerer had saves on par with other casters and that their perception was a bit better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'unno, I never really liked having to track the HP and Hardness of absolutely everything in the vicinity just because someone cast Acid Splash.
Did anyone really do that, anyway? Here's what I was thinking: lightning bolt vs. rickety wooden door and the door is undamaged. How about no?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'unno, I never really liked having to track the HP and Hardness of absolutely everything in the vicinity just because someone cast Acid Splash.Did anyone really do that, anyway? Here's what I was thinking: lightning bolt vs. rickety wooden door and the door is undamaged. How about no?
Either way, it's handwaving rules, but that's not a bad thing. If the rule is that spells damage objects in the vicinity, then RAW players will say lightning bolt and acid splash damage everything. If the rule (new one) is that spells don't damage objects, then RAW players will say spells can't damage things like doors. Both are frankly annoying stances.
Probably the better interpretation is that the designers don't want characters and GMs to worry about checking their equipment and environmental object HP every time an AOE spell goes off. Some people might enjoy it, but I find it tedious. I think its fine that lightning bolt can blast a door away though. I think this brings in some GM fiat, which I don't mind, but I know some people will.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'unno, I never really liked having to track the HP and Hardness of absolutely everything in the vicinity just because someone cast Acid Splash.Did anyone really do that, anyway? Here's what I was thinking: lightning bolt vs. rickety wooden door and the door is undamaged. How about no?Either way, it's handwaving rules, but that's not a bad thing. If the rule is that spells damage objects in the vicinity, then RAW players will say lightning bolt and acid splash damage everything. If the rule (new one) is that spells don't damage objects, then RAW players will say spells can't damage things like doors. Both are frankly annoying stances.
Probably the better interpretation is that the designers don't want characters and GMs to worry about checking their equipment and environmental object HP every time an AOE spell goes off. Some people might enjoy it, but I find it tedious. I think its fine that lightning bolt can blast a door away though. I think this brings in some GM fiat, which I don't mind, but I know some people will.
I thought this was only a problem for unattended objects (AKA objects/items not on a character's person or belongings), whereas attended objects were not damaged whatsoever unless an ability specifically says so.
I could be misremembering, though. Either way, we never really had to keep track of object HP for everything in the vicinity unless it really impacted play (such as a door being blown open or a cracked floor coming apart), as it just bogged down gameplay and/or didn't do anything for the other aspects of the game that actually mattered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general agreement with the above, I think they just didn't want object damage to be part of RAW very often because it's finicky, and object damage from spells wasn't distributed in a consistent way. (You're telling me a cold spell damages objects but not Fireball?) Spells are generally designed around either combat or exploration use, and your AOE spell automatically causing a lot of damage to the environment kind of mixed the two by PF2 paradigms, I'm guessing. Still, the object damage rules exist and can reasonably be interacted with in exploration via GM fiat, with spells being a rather expensive but valid way to do so depending on the situation.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know my group and I stoped playing PF2 for many reasons, despite our hype at first. The fact that spell casting is utter trash was the main reason, in a quite long list.
- Wizard sucks. Alchemists too. In fact the only class in Core that did not suck is Figther.
- Divine spell list is trash. You are a healbot or a troll.
- Profiencies bonuses are all over the place, unfair to casters, just like potency bonuses.
- But the magic stilll feels strong when used by the DM because the monsters in the AP are higher level, so a fireball by a NPC feels terrifying but from your PC it feels so underwhelming. So so so underwhelming.
I see a lot of complaints on the Magic system, and people who respond with maths and True Strike. And I am baffled. They say they got the feeling that their characters suck and people answer: well statically not that much but try to cast spell with True Strike ans on flat footed ennemies. What kind of game design is that? There is a glaring issue with the core principle of PF2 I believe. And we played the first module, the first three volumes of the first AP and two homebrew scenarios from 1-7 and 11-14. But nothing to do.
- Spellcasting is terrible. From a maths, and fun, and a class balance point of view.
- Skills are unbalanced.
- Martials that are not Figthers miss way to often. I don’t care if they should attack only one or only when they got five debuff on the monster. Missing 50% of the time feels bad.
-Monsters are more fun to 0lzy than PCs..’’ Because they hit.
In PF1 you have control on what your character does. In 5e you got flavor on what your character does. In PF2 you either play Figther (and multiclassing in you want some utility like Invisibility) or you suck. That is not how you fix the so called martial caster disparency (which was never a problem in a group game by the way. I dunno how people complaining about that played PF1, but good luck finishing an AP in PF1 without some dedicated martial damage dealer in the group)
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards are still fine. They lost effectiveness for two levels of the characters life, where they already objectively have more options than they do otherwise throughout the rest of their career.
It sucks, but it doesn't break the class.
This is THE thing you have spent well over a year saying balances the Wizard.
I know my group and I stoped playing PF2 for many reasons, despite our hype at first. The fact that spell casting is utter trash was the main reason, in a quite long list.
- Wizard sucks. Alchemists too. In fact the only class in Core that did not suck is Figther.
- Divine spell list is trash. You are a healbot or a troll.
- Profiencies bonuses are all over the place, unfair to casters, just like potency bonuses.
- But the magic stilll feels strong when used by the DM because the monsters in the AP are higher level, so a fireball by a NPC feels terrifying but from your PC it feels so underwhelming. So so so underwhelming.I see a lot of complaints on the Magic system, and people who respond with maths and True Strike. And I am baffled. They say they got the feeling that their characters suck and people answer: well statically not that much but try to cast spell with True Strike ans on flat footed ennemies. What kind of game design is that? There is a glaring issue with the core principle of PF2 I believe. And we played the first module, the first three volumes of the first AP and two homebrew scenarios from 1-7 and 11-14. But nothing to do.
- Spellcasting is terrible. From a maths, and fun, and a class balance point of view.
- Skills are unbalanced.
- Martials that are not Figthers miss way to often. I don’t care if they should attack only one or only when they got five debuff on the monster. Missing 50% of the time feels bad.
-Monsters are more fun to 0lzy than PCs..’’ Because they hit.In PF1 you have control on what your character does. In 5e you got flavor on what your character does. In PF2 you either play Figther (and multiclassing in you want some utility like Invisibility) or you suck. That is not how you fix the so called martial caster disparency (which was never a problem in a group game by the way. I dunno how people complaining about that played PF1, but good luck finishing an AP in PF1 without some dedicated martial damage dealer in the group)
Isn't most of it solved by tuning encounters 1 or 2 levels down?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't most of it solved by tuning encounters 1 or 2 levels down?
Probably. Equal or higher level enemy spellcasters and Alchemists feel so much better (and more dangerous) than their respecive player character counterparts because they hit their attacks and spells more reliably and usually also harder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is THE thing you have spent well over a year saying balances the Wizard.Wizards are still fine. They lost effectiveness for two levels of the characters life, where they already objectively have more options than they do otherwise throughout the rest of their career.
It sucks, but it doesn't break the class.
Can you quote me, please, saying that 10th level spell slots are what balances Wizard? I may have said that was a nice perk - and it was - but I've been adamant repeatedly that extra spell slots in general is what balances Wizard.
And they still get the most spell slots by a big margin, especially with spell substitution.
...also I don't remember being active on the forums 12 months ago, so bonus points if you can quote me 11-12 months ago.
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know my group and I stoped playing PF2 for many reasons, despite our hype at first. The fact that spell casting is utter trash was the main reason, in a quite long list.
- Wizard sucks. Alchemists too. In fact the only class in Core that did not suck is Figther.
- Divine spell list is trash. You are a healbot or a troll.
- Profiencies bonuses are all over the place, unfair to casters, just like potency bonuses.
- But the magic stilll feels strong when used by the DM because the monsters in the AP are higher level, so a fireball by a NPC feels terrifying but from your PC it feels so underwhelming. So so so underwhelming.I see a lot of complaints on the Magic system, and people who respond with maths and True Strike. And I am baffled. They say they got the feeling that their characters suck and people answer: well statically not that much but try to cast spell with True Strike ans on flat footed ennemies. What kind of game design is that? There is a glaring issue with the core principle of PF2 I believe. And we played the first module, the first three volumes of the first AP and two homebrew scenarios from 1-7 and 11-14. But nothing to do.
- Spellcasting is terrible. From a maths, and fun, and a class balance point of view.
- Skills are unbalanced.
- Martials that are not Figthers miss way to often. I don’t care if they should attack only one or only when they got five debuff on the monster. Missing 50% of the time feels bad.
-Monsters are more fun to 0lzy than PCs..’’ Because they hit.In PF1 you have control on what your character does. In 5e you got flavor on what your character does. In PF2 you either play Figther (and multiclassing in you want some utility like Invisibility) or you suck. That is not how you fix the so called martial caster disparency (which was never a problem in a group game by the way. I dunno how people complaining about that played PF1, but good luck finishing an AP in PF1 without some dedicated martial damage dealer in the group)
Spellcasting is still the most powerful general mechanic in the game, including the Divine spell list. Its just much less so than in 1E.
But as someone who mostly GMs, I can tell you with absolute certainty that it is the penalties and debuffs, action drains, and battlefield control of Spellcasters that will cripple encounters and make them trivial.
PF2E gave Martial characters the ability to play in this arena - Debilitating Shot, for example, for Fighters is bonkers and Demoralize and its extensions are amazing - but Spellcasters are still king once you grasp how the system is intended to work.
By which I mean, once you grasp that Spellcasters play the game with three degrees of success (Successful Save down to Critical Failure) where Martial mostly play with two (Critical Success and Success).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't most of it solved by tuning encounters 1 or 2 levels down?Probably. Equal or higher level enemy spellcasters and Alchemists feel so much better (and more dangerous) than their respecive player character counterparts because they hit their attacks and spells more reliably and usually also harder.
A lot of monsters seem to be tuned with to-hit bonuses built upon fighter or martial progressions. This can definitely feel kind of frustrating if you're playing a caster because it means a lot of NPCs, even ones that are the same level as you, end up being more accurate with their spell attacks and harder to resist with their spell DCs because they (essentially) get the benefits of item bonuses and accelerated proficiency that you don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see that argument - I'd argue that it's a worthy sacrifice for consistent encounter math, and that the 50/50 baseline does a good job of encouraging you to find ways to offset that balance. There are a lot of ways to debuff an opponent, no matter what class you are or what you're trying to hit with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you quote me, please, saying that 10th level spell slots are what balances Wizard? I may have said that was a nice perk - and it was - but I've been adamant repeatedly that extra spell slots in general is what balances Wizard.
I think my main issue with this argument remains that (at least, in my games) extra spell slots get spent simply trying to get up to par with other characters in terms of defense and survivability due to the very low hp and saves of sorcerers/wizards. A little bit of this wouldn't be a bad thing. After all, maintaining the idea that all of a wizards powers comes from his spells can just be flavorful rather than an issue if all balances out.
Just in my experience it doesn't, and I mean vs monsters, not players. Wizards and sorcerers have pretty bad saves compared to other PCs and when they get targeted with effects (which is fairly frequently, them being combatants and all) and thus they tend to have a much higher rate of critical failure than other characters or just failure in general.
There's something grimly amusing to me that a wizard is equally vulnerable to a fighter with canny acumen to will saves at almost all levels, assuming both buffed wisdom to the same degree, and yet more vulnerable to everything else.
A lot of their defense options via spells or feats don't come online until mid-game at least, and with at least primal sorcerers, ever (it's a very offensive list in my experience and the few defensive options do little to protect you. If you're a druid, that's fine, if you're a sorcerer, "oh no".) Almost never do those extra spell slots get used to have fun or do something cool, which feels like it defeats the purpose in my case.
Either an extra spell slot at each level for both classes or saves on par with other casters (but not martials) would have fixed this, imo. Couple that with very slightly buffed cantrip damage and maybe an item to boost spell attack rolls and I would have few complaints that wouldn't just be nitpicking.
At the end of the day, I try not to give myself over to the hyperbole that has characterized caster/martial disparity in so many editions, and I would agree the classes are by no means unplayable or totally unfun...but there do seem to be a few slight problems to me that a handful of errata could correct.
The extra 10th level slots were a big spike in power, but only at levels 19-20, which players are rarely getting to play at. I really can’t see that feature at any kind of tipping point for the power of Wizards - extra 10th level spells makes Wizards the best casters at those levels specifically but has little effect on the class’s overall power.