| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a caster well is all about knowing your enemy. You've got to be using Recall Knowledge ahead of selecting which spell to use. As a GM I see casters target the enemy's highest save all the time, and part of me feels bad, but part of me also says "but they didn't Recall Knowledge, and with the roll they rolled, they would have had a good effect if they targeted the worst save," so really it's on them for making a mistake.
Recall Knowledge absolutely has to be part of character creation and the start of battles. Why waste my precious spell slots targeting the wrong save? If I do, it's on me, not the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Drake, I don’t feel any prior experience with typical monsters or trends is necessary, simply a party that is willing to invest an action or two to Recall Knowledge at the start of a fight. There are 5 skills for that. Intelligence helps with arcana and society. Wisdom helps with nature and religion. charisma helps you with occult. That's 3 stats you want to be good, and 5 skills you want to be good proficiency. And you have 4 (probably) characters. Shouldn’t be a problem. You can figure that plenty of the time you'll get a good result from that and know which of your spells to use.
As far as spell selection, there are three saves, so balance your spell selection accordingly. Color Spray hits will, Grease hits reflex, and Goblin Pox hits Fortitude. That's a fine all-around starting spell list that does great at controlling enemies.
You can pick carefully for your cantrips too. We all know “electric arc is the best” but there are cantrips that target other saves too.
Attack spells can benefit from conditions your party inflicts as well. If the fighter knocks the enemy down, that's a great moment for an attack spell as the enemy is now flat footed. Some spells are melee attack spells so you can flank for flat footed.
Also you are moving the goal post. First you said that casters dealt too much damage and that is why they were broken. I disproved it and now you are saying I want superiority when I never asked for that.
The goalpost remains where it was. The ability to do considerable damage and have large encounter ending powers is an historical statement about a prior edition. My statement about what it seems you’re asking for in this edition is a statement about your current motives. The one doesn’t negate or alter the other.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a caster well is all about knowing your enemy. You've got to be using Recall Knowledge ahead of selecting which spell to use. As a GM I see casters target the enemy's highest save all the time, and part of me feels bad, but part of me also says "but they didn't Recall Knowledge, and with the roll they rolled, they would have had a good effect if they targeted the worst save," so really it's on them for making a mistake.
Recall Knowledge absolutely has to be part of character creation and the start of battles. Why waste my precious spell slots targeting the wrong save? If I do, it's on me, not the game.
because every caster in the game is good at all the knowledges, the gm always rolls good on their secret checks, and always tells them the information they need to make that decision. It's a bit of a peve of mine that having metaknowledge is how you are a better caster. So memorizing the bestiary, or just looking it up while you play. But looking it up would be cheating right? But someone could have that information memorized from being a longtime gm. So... yeah.
All I can say is I understand why most games these days have gone away from secret information. When everyone has access at their fingertips, it becomes more fair to design rules that work with everyone having access to the metaknowledge, then trying to keep things secret. All that does is screw the inexperienced players.
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
All 3 of my PFS characters (I am not in any APs) are spellcasters. One is a Wizard with Champion dedication, planning to get Cleric dedication. Another is a Cleric of Pharasma who is the healiest healer that ever did heal. The other is a kobold flames Oracle. Every single one of these has been an absolute blast to play. I again cannot relate to the complaints about spellcasters.
I have noticed that spellcasters have less spells per day than in other editions. I solved this minor issue by picking up Staves when the charactre was high enough. I also spent some ancestry feats and gave my wizard proficiency with longswords. He wields a longsword to attack mooks. My Cleric dedicated into Witch for Life Boost, so that he could use a reusable healing resource. My kobold oracle utilizes his focus spells and natural breath weapon so much that he rarely casts spells. Yes, there are less spells per day. But there is an abundance of options. It is not the game's fault you have not looked for them.
"Their save DCs are too low"....Nope. This is just not true. While it may be true that at level and above enemies succeed on saves more often than not, that is by design. They are supposed to be tougher. Guess what? I have seen plenty of martials 'waste' whole turns missing bosses. But it is heresy if you do too!...No spellcasters, you are not special. Sometimes your turns will be ineffective too. Everybody else deals with it. I do. So can you.
"Their spell attack rolls are too low"...Yup. You are right. Admittedly there are some ways to buff this but not many. This aspect is what I see as a slight downside of the game mechanics. But, because the spell attack system is tied to the save DC system for saves, I accept it. So...I use spell attack roll spells on mooks, because they are easier to hit. I use spell saves on bosses because at least I'll still be doing damage unlike the martial that just keeps whiffing.
This is a meticulously complex system. Instead of begrudging the system, I just play it. I find out what works and what doesn't and just play it. My characters are often one of the more powerful at every table I sit at. This is because I endeavor to understand the game I'm playing. If you wish to sit and throw tantrums because you can't do exactly what you want, how you want with this system, you are welcome to it. But while you throw your tantrums and complain your complaints I encourage you to remember...
I play all spallcasters (thus far) and I am kicking....and taking names with all of them. I think they missed the spellcasters aren't good memo.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does not invalidate your subjective points.
What my anecdotes do combat is the premise that spellcasters are objectively bad or objectively lesser. They are not. Add all of the numbers you want. If I play multiple different casters and am a very effective member of the team with them all, such actual game experience does discredit armchair theorizing.
If you do not like how spellcasters operate in PF2, that is up to you. But remember "feels bad", "dislike", etc.. are subjective views and do not provide substantive foundation for objective claims...because they are subjective..
|
|
I'll accept the "perception" argument. That said, I do not wish my wizard to just cast spells for combat. I wish to have utility spells prepared that are for out-of-combat purposes as well. There are very few cantrips intended for out-of-combat utility. So, from my perspective, I have less spells per day because I'd like my characters to be more than just combat monsters.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
For over 40 years of quadratic casters far outshining martials there was “nothing wrong” and that level of magical ability was a feature, not a bug.
Uh, what?
Martials being terrible was like, the number one forum topic on most 3.X and PF1 boards. It was consistently talked about and widely agreed upon as a serious flaw in the system. It was such a well understood problem it even had its own acronym and tons of people griped about it.
There were gigantic threads on the PF1 forums about it. Some of the posters from those threads asking Paizo to try to make better are the same people you're accusing of fomenting some weird anti-martial conspiracy.
This forum is so ridiculous sometimes. Like somehow someone having some problems they think Paizo could fix makes them a bad person or an accomplice to some weird, nonexistent cabal plotting the eternal oppression of people who like swords more than sorcery. Or that somehow there's some weird notion of karmic justice where something 'deserves' to be bad or less fun in order to somehow make up for something else being unfun in a different game.
It's so absurd.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martials are not spending resources when they miss, its just something they can do at no cost
This is flawed. They do have a cost.
Melee martials have the cost of being in melee range of an enemy, or spending valuable actions moving to and from enemies more often. Ranged martials have to worry about cover and ammunition.
There are always costs involved. They may not be as direct as losing a spell slot, but they are costs.
Not to mention, theres an opportunity cost. By choosing to be a fighter, you miss out on opportunities to do magical effects like invisibility, flying, fearing 5 people at once, etc.
I personally would find the game extremely bland if spellcasters were significantly even better in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last discussion about Wizard with Deriven proved me that what I feel is certainly close to the truth: When someone has problems with casters, the issue is between the chair and the character sheet.
Casters no more play like in PF1. As long as you don't adjust, you'll feel casters are weak.
And the classical PF1 argument is: Casters have limited resources. If you play non sustainable casters, yeah, you will hate them as they are both weak and not fun to play. As soon as you start working on sustainability, your power greatly increases as your fun does.
Casters are weak at low level, become equivalent to martials at level 7, and after level 10 they start overshadowing martials more and more every level you take.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, what?
Martials being terrible was like, the number one forum topic on most 3.X and PF1 boards.
That is actually what dirypool was meaning to get at. Martials being terrible by comparison to casters was a problem for martial players.
Martials being terrible by comparison to casters was not a problem for many caster players, though - they counted the lack of parity as "working as intended"
And now that there is parity between martials and casters, martial players are satisfied, but a suspiciously similar number of caster players to those which used to see no issue with casters being hands-down better than martials are now complaining that casters need more - the current parity is "broken" to them.
Thank you for summarizing my argument so succinctly.
@gnoams,
Am I understanding that your GM gives faulty information or somehow is preventing useful information? At my table after a Recall Knowledge check I ask what the player wants to know, and they generally ask for either “defensive stuff” or “offensive stuff.” If they ask for defensive stuff I’ll let them know the weakest save and any weaknesses or resistances the creature has. Maybe I am too generous? But I feel like giving that information allows the party to make meaningful choices, which feels good.
@drake,
I guess I see what you are saying now. My experience has been that campaigns include a wide variety of enemy types, and while a given day of adventuring may invalidate a subset of spells, the campaign as a whole did not. But yeah, if the campaign were themed that strongly, I would certainly hope to know that going into the campaign. I would hope that the GM would play ball during session zero and work with the casters. To do otherwise would be akin to asking all of your martial to cap their DEX and STR at 12 and be happy about it, which is clearly nuts.
|
Reading throuth the forum and the books i changed my mind about the topic. In my group we aways play with the free arquetype variant rule so if you do some digging, the possibilities for a great builds for "only" casters are huge( i am incline to say infinite). The number of spells you can get at level 20 are greater than in PF1 (maybe i am wrong about this).
Builds like ....
Wizard/Sorcerers
Wizard/Halcion Speaker/Witch
Sorcerer/Halcyon Speaker(primal)
Cleric/Druid
Etc...
I was wrong and i feel i need to apologize to paizo. There is no need to "save the spellcasters".
Sorry for my bad english
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are spending defenses, HP, reliable damage, and hit rate to have a few uses of circumstatial abilities. Many of which last 1 round or 1 minute.
Just like the martials are doing.
If its about parity right now there is not really any parity.
See above
I dont want my fun to trump other peoples. I want every one on the table to have fun without all their stuff constantly fizzling or missing.
Yes, but the version of the game you keep describing that you want put in place so that everyone can have fun takes us right back to the situation we just left where the caster players fun can impinge on the martial players fun and we're playing two different games that rarely intersect.
The caster player might have fun when they use a clutch spell to end an encounter before it can begin, but the rest of the party doesn't always have fun in that moment. The caster player might have fun when they can stand toe to toe with the Barbarian in a combat and still cast a spell in the round, the martial player doesn't always have fun in that moment.
This version of the game represents the most level playing field that has existed between these two types of characters in quite some time. I'm sorry you feel that the caster players had to give up too much to reach that playing field, but no longer being OP doesn't mean you're now broken.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@gnoams,
Am I understanding that your GM gives faulty information or somehow is preventing useful information? At my table after a Recall Knowledge check I ask what the player wants to know, and they generally ask for either “defensive stuff” or “offensive stuff.” If they ask for defensive stuff I’ll let them know the weakest save and any weaknesses or resistances the creature has. Maybe I am too generous? But I feel like giving that information allows the party to make meaningful choices, which feels good.
My point was that you can fail and critically fail at knowledge checks and they are secret rolls. So yes, the gm is supposed to give you faulty information if he rolls a nat 1 for you. You (the GM) asking for what the player wants to know is nice of you and not written or implied anywhere in the rules. A success gives them one useful bit of knowledge, that's it. So sometimes you will make the check and that bit of useful knowledge will be what save to target, but it's not as reliable a source as people make it out to be (also largely subject to how any one gm runs it, expect major table variation).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You speak of what I want ruining things but all I want is casters to be able to buy an item that gives +1 to spell attack rolls. Maybe a few more action economy boosters. Thats it, that is all I asked for.
I never asked to return back to PF1 levels of thing. I never asked for casters to be the best. That is just what you and a few people keep saying I want.
Honestly, when we read your previous post, it looks like casters are non functional. So, it may be easy to understand that you want a complete overhaul of the classes.
Spell attack rolls are quite bad, so an item to give a bonus wouldn't imbalance anything.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You speak of what I want ruining things but all I want is casters to be able to buy an item that gives +1 to spell attack rolls. Maybe a few more action economy boosters. Thats it, that is all I asked for.
Except of course that this is the first time in our exchange you have mentioned a specific ask. The rest has been you talking about all of the ways it used to work better. Your lack of clarification on what you want coupled with the language you use to describe your complaints may be giving the people you’re communicating with the wrong impression of your argument.
If your ask is that casters should have access to a casting rune not unlike the martials striking rune - then I can’t say I disagree with you.
Follow up question though: if all it takes to give you a sense of parity is a +x boost and some shorter action spells - is casting really as damaged and “unfun” as your current rhetoric makes it seem?
Yeah for some reason like to read my posts as me saying that, but if you notice I never said they are non functional. I have said that some things are not fun or that some things need to be changed. But I never said it didnt work.
Here are just two quick examples of things you said that I read as you saying casting didn't work:
Now all the utility is much weaker so that the magic is already mostly gone.
I never said not to try to work with the system but there are parts that just cannot be fixed without Paizo giving us those options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Dirtypool
People and I have mentioned both specific and general and the response almost always is that we want broken casters even when we never mentioned that is what we wanted. Much like how you assumed that is what I wanted when all my arguments have been about how casters feel and how magic is not longer magical.
No offense, Temperans, I don't read every single post you and others make on this topic elsewhere in the forum. I can only go on what you've said in our exchange. What you said to me in the last two days led me to my interpretation of your argument.
My current rhetohic has always been that magic in PF2 needs a boost of some kind. A +1 item to spell attack roll is the only one that has gotten any reasonable amount of approval.
No it isn't, because it took you several posts to get to the point where you actually explicitly said that.
But even then there are many people that say its bad because its not in the core books or "because it makes martials look bad". So here I am trying my best to get people to think of any way to fix the problem but all that people do is say that I want broken stuff.
Repeatedly stating all the ways that this edition differs from the previous edition doesn't encourage anyone to think of ways to fix it or accurately present your view if all you really feel is it needs buffs of some kind. All it does is tell the opposition that you liked it better in PF1 and then you double down over several posts.
That is what I keep seeing as the response every single time. While I al just looking for fun.
"Fun" is a subjective term and if all you use as the language to describe "fun spellcasting" is to describe the previous edition - how am I to know your explicit stance? Am I supposed to read your mind? Is it incumbent upon me in any conversation we have to read ALL of your other posts so I'm aware of your stated positions elsewhere?
When I said, "some things need fixing and only Paizo can fix it" it is not a lie. Only Paizo can fix the problem of casters super static turns. And only Paizo can fix the problem of spell attack accuracy.
You didn't include the specific details in the initial statement. Was I supposed to infer those somehow?
You've spent a fair bit of time today complaining about how people are interpreting what you say. Maybe it isn't the readers fault, maybe you should try using explicit language. "I don't like this specific issue" rather than "with a lack of utility it feels broken and unfun." "I want casters to have the ability to add buffs to their rolls" rather than "I just want everyone to have fun"
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah for some reason like to read my posts as me saying that, but if you notice I never said they are non functional. I have said that some things are not fun or that some things need to be changed. But I never said it didnt work.
Even with the Playtest Summoner. Its not that I dont think the systems work by themselves. Its that they are not what made the Summoner fun. So I advocate for the Summoner to get the systems that actually fulfill the needs of the summoner. If the playtest Swashbuckler had systems that weren't fun I would be arguing against those systems just as much.
I quote you:
"If its about parity right now there is not really any parity. Casters are spending defenses, HP, reliable damage, and hit rate to have a few uses of circumstatial abilities. Many of which last 1 round or 1 minute. Meanwhile, having the worst action economy and a generally static play style, which is just not fun for me."Sorry, but this sentence is not saying: Casters need a +1 to spell attack roll and maybe a few ways to improve their action economy. It says casters suck. You should go less on the hyperbole as first time I've read your post (and this sentence especially), I thought we were just not playing the same game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The +1 to spell attack roll is something that the forum came up with in the huge Wizard thread. I honestly assumed it was common knowledge and didnt realize I had to actually say it.
If it's something you're advocating for, then you have to say it. Otherwise we don't know where you stand on it because we are not capable of reading your mind.
And yes I assumed that saying "hey caster deal the same damage, but have all this problems to get it" would show that there needs to be things to fix those. It never occured to me that stating the actual situation of how everything is would be seen as hyperbole. Or that casters suck.
"Casters deal damage, but they have problem x, y and z" isn't hyperbole. What you said was: "The magic is mostly gone." "It can't be fixed." Those kinds of statements ARE hyperbole.
I mean so many people say casters are fine. But I just described casters as they are and am being told my statement was a hyperbole.
You expressed your frustration in analogy, and intimation. You expected everyone in the thread to read between your lines, but the lines were fuzzy.
It isn't the job of the forum poster to decipher your meaning, it's your job to make that meaning plain.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, what?
Martials being terrible was like, the number one forum topic on most 3.X and PF1 boards.
That is actually what dirypool was meaning to get at. Martials being terrible by comparison to casters was a problem for martial players.
Martials being terrible by comparison to casters was not a problem for many caster players, though - they counted the lack of parity as "working as intended"
And now that there is parity between martials and casters, martial players are satisfied, but a suspiciously similar number of caster players to those which used to see no issue with casters being hands-down better than martials are now complaining that casters need more - the current parity is "broken" to them.
There are also a whole lot of us who liked casters in PF1 who ALSO like casters in PF2.
In PF1 I primarily (but not completely) played casters, often because the power difference was SO much that I just couldn't bring myself to play the similar martial. A perfect example of this is a shifter. I really WANTED to play one but just couldn't get past how ridiculously weaker it was when compared to a druid. Yes, I acknowledge that I have a power gamer side to me :-(
In PF2 I get to play casters and martials based on which best fits a character concept. For example, I have an archer/spell caster who I tried (PFS at level 1) as a wizard, a ranger with wizard (Ancient Elf) and a straight cleric. 3 very different Chassis's for essentially the same character.
It is WONDERFULLY liberating that I get to choose the character I WANT to play in the knowledge that they'll all be reasonably balanced characters so I can concentrate on what will make that character FUN and NOT just on what will make it "powerful".
So as a (partial, not complete) Power Gamer PF2 is a HUGE improvement for me :-)
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@gnoams,
Am I understanding that your GM gives faulty information or somehow is preventing useful information?
In my experience in PFS what information GMs give out on a recall knowledge check can vary wildly, much more than it varied in PF1. I've had GMs who quite literally told me something that I'd already SEEN on a knowledge check because that was the "best known thing" about a monster.
Part of that is probably that the game is still fairly new and that "best practices" haven't yet spread throughout the entire community.
But part of it is that the rules are SO sparse in detailing what should be told and seem to strongly recommend (or even outright command) being incredibly stingy. What you're giving out is definitely way more than the rules recommend (Note, I'm NOT saying that you're wrong to give out that information, just saying that you've gone beyond what the rules state).
When you add that to the fact that
1) Recall knowledge now takes an action (or several depending on the GM)
2) One character can no longer be good at all the knowledge skills (unlike PF1 where it was quite possible for a wizard to rock all of them)
3) The DCs to learn things are harder than PF1
and it all combines to making using knowledge checks be pretty much a crap shoot, at least in something like PFS.
Sure, if you've got the time and built your character the right way its probably worth while. Maybe :-). But the value is heavily dependent on the GM and the system certainly should NOT assume that everybody is making a successful knowledge check and getting the information they need in order to balance encounters and to balance martials and spell casters
And yes I assumed that saying "hey caster deal the same damage, but have all this problems to get it" would show that there needs to be things to fix those. It never occured to me that stating the actual situation of how everything is would be seen as hyperbole. Or that casters suck.
And we are back to "casters need a fix"....
+1 to spell attack rolls is not a "fix", it's a small bonus to spell attack rolls spells, which suck in comparison to save based spells.Casters don't need anything. Casters don't deal the same damage than martial. You're speaking of low level casters. At high level, casters outdamage martials, they even manage to get close to martials single target damage (even if it's a bit tough to land a meteor on one single enemy, it does as much damage as a full round of attack from a Barbarian).
Like in previous edition, casters are weak at low level. But try high level play with an efficient caster (read: not one who uses cantrips) and you'll see how casters have problems.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's your perception, but it's not objective reality.
Then surely you can make that argument without accusing people of pushing some nefarious agenda.
just sour grapes from people who want their way to be the only way and don't want the design space to have both types of players on relatively equal footing.
But you're doing it again, of course. People who have problems with PF2? Obviously just bitter liars who can't stand to see martials being good. Clearly.
And now that there is parity between martials and casters, martial players are satisfied, but a suspiciously similar number of caster players to those which used to see no issue with casters being hands-down better than martials are now complaining that casters need more - the current parity is "broken" to them.
This suggests it's the same players on both sides of the argument in both editions. From my experience, that hasn't been the case. Many of the people who were critical of stuff they found broken or imbalanced in PF1 are likewise critical of things that they find problematic in PF2.
It is WONDERFULLY liberating that I get to choose the character I WANT to play in the knowledge that they'll all be reasonably balanced characters so I can concentrate on what will make that character FUN and NOT just on what will make it "powerful".
This has generally been my experience too, but I don't think that makes people who have problems I don't evil, either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then surely you can make that argument without accusing people of pushing some nefarious agenda.
I have not at any point done that. Misrepresenting what I've said to make me into some sort of forum villain is so incredibly disingenuous.
But you're doing it again, of course. People who have problems with PF2? Obviously just bitter liars who can't stand to see martials being good. Clearly.
I don't know what your issue is, but the additional things you're reading into my statements are not the standard connotation or denotation of any of the words that I've used - so please either take my actual statements at face value or stop engaging with me. I refuse to continue arguing with this arch-villain you've constructed of straw.
This has generally been my experience too, but I don't think that makes people who have problems I don't evil, either.
NO ONE has accused anyone of being "evil."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pointless bickering and unimportant wounded prides aside...
I could get behind a +1 item bonus to spell attack rolls as a level 5(?) item. I could also easily leave it.
Saves are fine.
As for the action economy, I haven't had problems with my character's action economy. I have seen other spellcasters I've played with having that problem. So...that tells me that those that struggle with action economy with their spellcasters are...not looking for the options that currently exist.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff they found broken or imbalanced in PF1 are likewise critical of things that they find problematic in PF2.
It is WONDERFULLY liberating that I get to choose the character I WANT to play in the knowledge that they'll all be reasonably balanced characters so I can concentrate on what will make that character FUN and NOT just on what will make it "powerful".This has generally been my experience too, but I don't think that makes people who have problems I don't evil, either.
I certainly did not mean to imply that and if I did I apologize. I was just giving my perspective as to why I think spellcasters are better balanced now and why I think that to be a good thing.
I fully agree that reasonable people can disagree.
I never said it cant be fixed. I said that Paizo needs to do the fixing. See there you go misrepresenting what I say. And the magic is goin when magic is inferior to some guy swinging a sword, but you can only use magic 4 times before poof its gone.
I can’t tell if you’re legitimately unaware of the differences between metaphoric language in the form of hyperbole and concrete explicit statements or if you’re being willfully obtuse for the sake of being argumentative.
The things you just said are, for example, hyperbolic because they are not factually accurate. You’ve exaggerated the quality of magic because it is not inferior to a guy using a sword and it doesn’t go away after four uses. These are the kinds of statements you continually make. Not concrete statements about +1 buffs that you make in the 10th post you’re exchanging with someone.
Its not wrong to expect people to read things and not add to what you are saying.
If you haven’t stated your intent to me then it is ABSOLUTELY wrong to expect me to go on a Paizo forum scavenger hunt so I can suss our your true perspective when you can’t find it in you to say it yourself.
Like I said previously I though +1 to spell attack was common knowledge and didnt need to be said again. Apparently it is not and I had to say it. Now you know about. Do I have to say it again for you to take it seriously?
I don’t understand how you think a consensus solution formulated in another thread conveys common knowledge about your opinion. That isn’t how communication works.
And what I said about magic is entirely accurate:
It has some accuracy the way you stated it here, but was hyperbolic the way you phrased it before. Limited usage is accurate, “poof it’s gone” after four uses is hyperbolic. Less accuracy than martial strikes is debatably accurate, “Inferior to some guy swinging a sword” is hyperbolic.
But again you are saying its hyperbole. How is stating the truth hyperbole? I have not exaggerated, I have not lied, and I most certainly want it to be taken literally.
So spells literally vanish after four uses? Spells are literally inferior to any random guy swinging a sword? The magic has literally been almost completely removed from the game and can only be repaired so that everyone has fun by Paizo rewriting magic. Those are literally true and not exaggerations of your point?
Then prove those statements objectively.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never said Paizo had to rewrite magic, but they have to give better options that fix those issues.
there are parts that just cannot be fixed without Paizo giving us those options.
Never said anything about you requiring they fix it. Prove beyond a shadow of the doubt that there is something about PF2 wherein no one can houserule a fix. If your statement was meant literally then it must be objectively true, prove how it is.
And I though it was common knowledge because it was used in multiple threads, multiple times, by multiple people. It was an assumption I had made and admitted I was wrong to make it, and you keep focusing on it.
.
No I keep replying to your continued insistence that the existence of an opinion from another thread is somehow COMMONLY KNOWN to be your recommended solution despite your never having said so. As long as you keep bringing up the insane common knowledge thing, I will continue to respond by pointing out how it is not possible for your thoughts to magically appear in my head.
inferior to some guy swinging a sword is not hyperbole, its literally called fighting sword using NPCs. Aka some dude using a sword.
For it to be objectively worse than a guy swinging a sword it has to be worse than every guy swinging a sword - and since that is not actually the case it is hyperbole. You’re stating an exaggerated case to demonstrate your point about accuracy.
Poof is gone is also not hyperbole.
Yes it is, because you didn’t say “Poof it’s gone until tomorrow.” You said “Poof. Gone.” Gone. Period. Vanished. Defunct. You explicitly left off the including of the time limit for exaggerative purposes.
The communication issues you complain about over and over in this thread are issues of your own making. Your own lack of clarity is causing people to misconstrue what you’re saying. I can’t play English teacher for you any longer, and it’s clear you either don’t grasp the basic concepts or you are posturing yourself in order to “win” an internet argument. Either way, seek what you need elsewhere please. I’m done having a conversation about how your conversation skills derailed our conversation.