I think the way to build hybrids is make it so the 3rd action is covered by the dip.
Be it Buff/Heal into attack or 1 action spell attack attack.
That said I want an archetype thatgrants bespell weapon as an early feat. It sucks to have to wait until lvl 8 if you're starting with a martial
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me the math is too tight in the game. What makes it worse, the default character creation rules makes it too easy to get an optimum stat build. We get characters that can get suite of 16s or primary 18 right at level 1, which in turn encourages the DM to stat up their opponents if he/she wants to make it a typical 50/50 fight.
At the moment, im trying to encourage more conservative character starting stats either using the old 15 14 13 etc stat block or just straight 3d6 stat rolls to curtail the modifiers, same when i use the character creation for the enemies. As for monster opponents, i try to stat or gear em in a more logical manner where possible to curb the almost auto-crit boss level enemies have.
Perfect example of other system's knowledge affecting PF2e's play, if I ever seen one.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2e is not Pathfinder 1e, there's only one person responsible for it if they didn't look at the rules of this game on their own and took for granted that everything should work exactly the same-- there's a tech help expression I've learned dealing with some patrons "the problem is between the chair and the keyboard"
Its good for telling the same kinds of stories, but the mechanics are (obviously) very different, which means it intrinsically has a different metagame.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone should tell whoever wrote the CRB that. "Jack of all trades" is literally in the class' opening description.
Trades being the operative word here I think it's a perfect description. Trades are things like Skills and adaptability to accomplishing tasks, not something abstract such as "Weapon/Attack Accuracy" like the Martial Classes have or "Top of the line AC" like a Champion or some specialized Monks.
Also, being a Jack-of-all-trades in no way suggests that they are nearly as good at any given "trade" as a true specialist who exists to focus on a single role, it instead communicates that they can match par on a wide variety of things as opposed to being really good at one or two things. Bards fill that role fantastically IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, let's not deny that bard can be pretty good at fighting with a weapon in PF2, there is even a path for it if that is what you want to focus on. They just won't be able to keep up with dedicated martial characters, AND they will struggle against powerful solo creatures.
The bigger issue is that it is a huge mistake to end your turn next to a powerful solo creature, and if you do that regularly against them, for any character, but especially a caster, you are going to end up KO'd in a round or two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, let's not deny that bard can be pretty good at fighting with a weapon in PF2, there is even a path for it if that is what you want to focus on. They just won't be able to keep up with dedicated martial characters, AND they will struggle against powerful solo creatures.
The bigger issue is that it is a huge mistake to end your turn next to a powerful solo creature, and if you do that regularly against them, for any character, but especially a caster, you are going to end up KO'd in a round or two.
This really depends on how you approach an enemy and how prepared you are for it. It can definitely be risky, but if you're smart and prepared enough, you can play it out and get the win for your buddies. That's basically what I had to do in the session I had last night, as I was the only one able to catch up to and stop the BBEG from escaping. With proper spell selection and application, spellcasters can do plenty of things Martials could only hope to do themselves.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bigger issue is that it is a huge mistake to end your turn next to a powerful solo creature, and if you do that regularly against them, for any character, but especially a caster, you are going to end up KO'd in a round or two.
This.
Considering how our shield specialized Con 18 sword and board fighter gets absolutely hammered every single boss fight, and our other martials (Barbarian and Ranger) regularily get clobbbered by mooks my Warpriest quickly buried all thoughs of ever joining melee after the first few levels.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's silly to suggest it's someone's fault for reading a new system and not piecing together the ramifications of trap options that are available in the game that didn't used to be that way.
It's also silly to suddenly change the past definition of Jack of all trades just because it doesn't fit with bard as it used to.
It's just examples of the games balance coming before it's narrative. Happens a lot in 2e. I'm not gonna sit here and admonish the system for it, as a ultimately appreciate it's balance forward philosophy.
But it does results in experience like 2e that is not the fault of the player. Because you can read a rule book, but reading and truly understanding is ramifications through actual play are very different things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bigger issue is that it is a huge mistake to end your turn next to a powerful solo creature, and if you do that regularly against them, for any character, but especially a caster, you are going to end up KO'd in a round or two.This.
Considering how our shield specialized Con 18 sword and board fighter gets absolutely hammered every single boss fight, and our other martials (Barbarian and Ranger) regularily get clobbbered by mooks my Warpriest quickly buried all thoughs of ever joining melee after the first few levels.
Aye, changes the expectations of what used to be known factors.
I definitely won't say it's user error.
Multiclassing is well established and particularly 5e is the standard everything else is being compared to. 5e allows you complete lunacy with multiclassing.
1 lvl dips get you access to absurd class features and you can dump pretty much any stat for little investment.
I wouldn't expect a new player to know what archetypes are and how they differ from multiclassing.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't a trap option though. "Your build has advantages in most encounters but requires you to convert those into different advantages in severe or extreme encounters" is not a trap. It is, certainly, a more complex set of options, but is still good.
That's entirely a trap, because it means your concept no longer functions and you are worse at the concept that you are being forced to embody due to your choice of investment.
In every ttrpg I've played that's been a trap because it amounts to the following being said.
"Well my character concept isn't working anymore so I'd like to change to x"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's only a trap if you hyper focus on boss encounters though...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't a trap option though. "Your build has advantages in most encounters but requires you to convert those into different advantages in severe or extreme encounters" is not a trap. It is, certainly, a more complex set of options, but is still good.That's entirely a trap, because it means your concept no longer functions and you are worse at the concept that you are being forced to embody due to your choice of investment.
In every ttrpg I've played that's been a trap because it amounts to the following being said.
"Well my character concept isn't working anymore so I'd like to change to x"
No it isn't a trap. Your character doesn't stop working just because they do less well against one kind of encounter. Doubly so since the advantages you gained in previous encounters by being able to lean on martial aspects should mean you have kept more resources back comparitavely.
Unless that type of encounter is overly common in your games. Which is fine, sometimes that happens and that should allow a character change.
But that isn't any more trap than "I have dedicated myself to being a melee barbarian but oh boy does my GM love flying enemies."
Incorrect. U can overcome that limitation with feats and items. You cannot overcome your lack of proficiencies
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that isn't any more trap than "I have dedicated myself to being a melee barbarian but oh boy does my GM love flying enemies."Incorrect. U can overcome that limitation with feats and items. You cannot overcome your lack of proficiencies
Yep, that melee barbarian can buy some bog standard bolas and you can use athletics to ranged trip... Toss in a few feats and you can double it's range... Wish I could do something like that for a warpriests proficiencies. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, that melee barbarian can buy some bog standard bolas and you can use athletics to ranged trip... Toss in a few feats and you can double it's range... Wish I could do something like that for a warpriests proficiencies. :PBut that isn't any more trap than "I have dedicated myself to being a melee barbarian but oh boy does my GM love flying enemies."Incorrect. U can overcome that limitation with feats and items. You cannot overcome your lack of proficiencies
And to be fair, I don't expect casters in this edition to compete with martials. I'm just illustrating how is resulted in concepts that no longer scale so no longer work
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And to be fair, I don't expect casters in this edition to compete with martials. I'm just illustrating how is resulted in concepts that no longer scale so no longer workYep, that melee barbarian can buy some bog standard bolas and you can use athletics to ranged trip... Toss in a few feats and you can double it's range... Wish I could do something like that for a warpriests proficiencies. :PBut that isn't any more trap than "I have dedicated myself to being a melee barbarian but oh boy does my GM love flying enemies."Incorrect. U can overcome that limitation with feats and items. You cannot overcome your lack of proficiencies
Oh, I agree but that's because I understand the system. If you look at it and think that because it has a weapon focus that the warpriest is going to let you be competitive with a weapon you're in for a bad time.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
And people can talk about having more spell slots at higher levels do not needing to melee with the warpriest.
You are objectively correct.
Too bad many players who pick warpriest until system mastery of 2e kicks in, will be doing so to melee. Not sit back and cast spells.
That applies to boss encounter's as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to repeat something that was said above that bears repeating: unlike in 1st edition, bards are full casters now. A bard isn't a "jack of all trades" like they were in PF1, where they mixed fighting with 6-level spellcasting. They are now full casters with 10 levels of spellcasting.
Everyone is a jack of all trades now. And should be built with that in mind.
In PF1 a bard's to hit bonus was a +15 and he didn't get anywhere near the stat boosts he gets now.
Here is how everyone's weapon attack proficiency ends now:
Expert which is most casters: +24
Master which most martials except fighter: +26
Legendary is only for the fighter: +28
Then modify by stat and and items.
Everyone's AC ends as follows:
24 proficiency + Dex and items: All casters
26 proficiency + Dex and items: All martials but Monk and Champion.
28 proficiency Dex and items: Monk Champion
Everything is very tight and close. There's almost no reason for even a caster not to have least one magic weapon and one physical stat for a ranged or martial weapon tricked out as a 3rd action option to do something.
PF2 is a wide open game. The breadth and difference between characters isn't as wide as it once was. You can build for a lot of different things in this game. You can't expect those options in any area to be as good as PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Extreme encounters against lots of fast lower level enemies, or ones with AoO, might have your caster wishing you had more melee options and better armor. And that extra +1 to your AC from Heavy Armor, plus possibly raising a shield, could be enough to make you nearly unassailable by the 10 or more level -2 creatures coming at you. Once they get around you your AoE spells are still good, but limited in the number you can bring down.
The point being, casters are not great with weapons against difficult higher level solo monsters is an even more restricted encounter type than just saying they are not great against extreme encounters. Barbarians are pretty terrible against higher level solo monsters as well, and have to compensate with a lot of party support in the form of healing and buffing or else they are going to have a miserable time and end up getting Ko'd in the second round of combat, at which point, even if they do get back up, the fight is pretty much over for them, since they can't rage again.
Being a bard that can hold their own in melee combat is not a trap option all the time. Thinking that you are ok in melee meaning that melee combat is always a good option for you is a player mistake that resolves from experience.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And an experience with a bard that I haven't seen ever subjected to until 2e.
Not bashing this fact, more showing why people like the op can come away with sour tastes in their mouth because no amount of reading is going to convey this reality to just people and it's never mentioned in the books.
A hard lesson for sure that's resulted in one of my usual players leaving the game and 2e for his cited reasoning being (I could do it in 5e and pf1e so pf2e sucks)
Do I agree with him that it sucks? Of course not. I prefer the system. But it's an understandable reaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds more like a failure of the GM to play up the dangerousness of the foe the bard is facing. Anyone would feel like they're playing an ineffective build if they assume they're fighting a standard enemy and whiffing a lot.
It'd be like if you were to give the Butcher in Diablo no voice line or lore.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, for the record, every melee hybrid character I ever made in PF1 would universally spend the first 3 rounds of any difficult looking fight using spells to make the fight easier.
If you imagine a difficult fight and envision your character primarily defaulting to a melee routine, you should take a melee focused class.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
@watersLethrle. No amount of GM description will stop a player that good 15 years have been able to make this concept work across various editions of ttrpg. Their concept is bard that hits things. Guess what he's gonna do. He's either gonna hit things or run.
As for how you played pf1e, not how everyone played it.
@malk_content. So you are saying it's unreasonable to assume that the concept that has functioned for over a decade across multiple ttrpgs to suddenly not work for the first time? Let's try not to fan boy defend 2e here. I've already said multiple times I'm for this paradigm shift and love this edition. I'm just relaying the numerous encounter's I've had with very similar outcomes of expectations vs reality that involved either the players abandoning their characters or just quitting the game.
It's actually less common for people with no prior experience
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll note that Heavy Armor + Dirge of Doom on a Bard gets you to better AC than many martials most of the time (you do better than a Rogue at all levels before 19, and equal at 19-20, you do better than a Ranger at every level but 11-12 and 19-20, and are equal at those levels, and so on).
Heck, with Heavy Armor alone you're ahead of everyone but Fighter, Monk, and Champion for something like 16 to 18 of the game's levels (and even with the Fighter for 16...they're only ahead at 11-12 and 19-20).
The lower HP for melee casters is definitely a factor, but they're not as fragile as people are making them out to be. Especially not with a shield, which Warpriests can use as well as anyone, and is only a General Feat away for others.
Extreme encounters against lots of fast lower level enemies, or ones with AoO, might have your caster wishing you had more melee options and better armor. And that extra +1 to your AC from Heavy Armor, plus possibly raising a shield, could be enough to make you nearly unassailable by the 10 or more level -2 creatures coming at you. Once they get around you your AoE spells are still good, but limited in the number you can bring down.
The point being, casters are not great with weapons against difficult higher level solo monsters is an even more restricted encounter type than just saying they are not great against extreme encounters. Barbarians are pretty terrible against higher level solo monsters as well, and have to compensate with a lot of party support in the form of healing and buffing or else they are going to have a miserable time and end up getting Ko'd in the second round of combat, at which point, even if they do get back up, the fight is pretty much over for them, since they can't rage again.
Being a bard that can hold their own in melee combat is not a trap option all the time. Thinking that you are ok in melee meaning that melee combat is always a good option for you is a player mistake that resolves from experience.
What you say is true for maybe the first 4 levels or so for barbarians. I was getting knocked down quite a bit and getting back into rage was a pain. I had to fight quite a few battles without rage. But at level 13 they are a beast to bring down and do crazy damage against even big solo encounters. I have 242 hit points, a single action ability that gives me 11 temp hit points a round, 8 DR to bludgeoning and cold, and hit like a semi-truck. I am hard to grapple or swallow when in Titan Form and have 15 foot reach with an AoO.
I'll admit barbarian starts off vulnerable, almost like a glass cannon for those first 4 to 5 levels. The barbarian really starts to rev up once you get that lvl 7 boosted damage and lvl 8 Renewed Vigor. Even your lvl 9 DR helps sometimes as well.
I've found casters against higher level monsters can usually hit once every other round with a martial attack. I like to keep a tricked out bow and some handwraps for my druid. The druid can do so much it's a matter of picking what to do each round. I feel that's how most casters should be built where they have a good number of options each round. I feel if a caster doesn't at least have a decent weapon of some kind, he's limiting himself in battle.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are thousands of combinations in PF1 that just sucked constantly, all the time (rather than occasionally if you don't adjust your play-style like this bard) and that wasn't printed in the books either.
And in PF1 when an option sucked for no reason we talked about it and tried to get Paizo to publish things to make it better. Sometimes they even did, eventually.
But I guess here it seems like a lot of people would rather just mock the player for wanting to play the "wrong" kind of character instead.
Cool.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone is mocking anyone else. No need to escalate this.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most helpful thing to tell a player that is frustrated that their full caster is struggling to melee attack in the most difficult combat encounters of the game, is to take a step back and see if all the players are feeling frustrated by niche protection, or if it is just one player at the table.
If it is the whole table getting frustrated, then the GM really should try Dual class options because those work wonders for making more high powered super hero options possible.
If it is just one character that is trying to do everything and the rest of the party is not experiencing frustration from having certain limits on character development happen at class selection, then it is probably better to talk to all the players about playing together well as a team.
If the rest of the party is expecting the bard to be the healer, and the buffer, and many important skill tasks, so they can all make combat monsters that don't pull their own weight outside of maximizing DPR, the problem is group dynamics and expressing expectations. It is not the bard player's fault if they are feeling pushed to cover roles they don't want to. But the flip side of that coin is that if the bard is expecting to be able to cover those roles and others, and still be a DPR machine, and the rest of the party feels like they don't get to have their own areas of expertise, then that is a problem too.
A lot of these issues get resolved best by playing the game, learning the classes, and talking often and openly with your table about what you want from your character.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
This means that the bard misses every other attack, which feels like they suck. In PF1, the bard still hit with their first attack 2 times out of 3, which is about where you feel reasonably competent.
The bolded part is super subjective, not true in my experience, and often poor game design if talking about enemies you should be on even terms with.
I think hitting foes half the time (60% of the time with flanking) is perfectly reasonable vs. on level foes you're attacking with no specific advantages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bolded part is super subjective, not true in my experience, and often poor game design if talking about enemies you should be on even terms with.I think hitting foes half the time (60% of the time with flanking) is perfectly reasonable vs. on level foes you're attacking with no specific advantages.
I Agree 100%
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is that people want to hit someone they're on equal terms with at ~70%, while also not wanting to be hit at ~70%.
I guarantee that if a primary caster enemy of the same level as a player hit PCs at 70%, you'd hear no end of complaints.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is that people want to hit someone they're on equal terms with at ~70%, while also not wanting to be hit at ~70%.
They solved this long ago by giving monsters more hitpoints, and lower armour classes.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is that people want to hit someone they're on equal terms with at ~70%, while also not wanting to be hit at ~70%.
I guarantee that if a primary caster enemy of the same level as a player hit PCs at 70%, you'd hear no end of complaints.
I wonder what percentage of people prefer the near utter lack of danger of PF1 where PCs ran over things and DMs had to take hours to design encounters at higher level.
I much prefer the difficulty of PF2. I want a game that is dangerous enough to make the PCs feel like they could die, but in the end they still win. Combats are fast and furious. Everything is much easier to run and design.
The illusion of challenge is much, much better in PF2 than it was in PF1 which was highly in favor of PCs and painfully difficult for a DM. Now it is about equal. And in a good spot.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They solved this long ago by giving monsters more hitpoints, and lower armour classes.I think the problem is that people want to hit someone they're on equal terms with at ~70%, while also not wanting to be hit at ~70%.
I remember this from 4e. I don't recall a lot of people enjoying that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Too bad many players who pick warpriest until system mastery of 2e kicks in, will be doing so to melee. Not sit back and cast spells.
That applies to boss encounter's as well.
Just want to comment on this, because I have very relevant experience. I'm running Age of Ashes, currently on book 5, which is I believe fairly well known for having some intense encounters.
One of my players is a warpriest of Gorum who just wants to hit things. He typically prepares true strike six times, enlarge twice, weapon storm at his highest level, and never casts anything else.
He has absolutely been a contributing member of the party, and honestly rarely casts his heals. He definitely struggles to hit bosses - although true strike helps there a lot - but he's about as dangerous as the party monk in melee.
You absolutely can melee as a warpriest and be effective. You won't be optimal, but you'll be effective.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is that people want to hit someone they're on equal terms with at ~70%, while also not wanting to be hit at ~70%.
I guarantee that if a primary caster enemy of the same level as a player hit PCs at 70%, you'd hear no end of complaints.
I wonder what percentage of people prefer the near utter lack of danger of PF1 where PCs ran over things and DMs had to take hours to design encounters at higher level.
I also cynically wonder how many of those were GMs.
I'm pretty cynical it wasn't many.
Preach. I am a GM running 1e Tyrants Grasp, and now that the party is at level 11 it's a silly montage of them dumpstering any foes they come across, interspersed with horrifying near-death unfun one-shot mechanics. 1e is "fun", but honestly people that hold up 1e combat over 2e combat are likely NOT the GMs.
I have enjoyed being a 2e player, it's probably the best therapy I could ever have for 1.5 years of 1e GMing. 2e is built to last and I love it.
I think the problem is that people want to hit someone they're on equal terms with at ~70%, while also not wanting to be hit at ~70%.
I guarantee that if a primary caster enemy of the same level as a player hit PCs at 70%, you'd hear no end of complaints.
This is less of a hypothetical and more of a "hey, look! Starfinder!"
Combining it with the PF2 critical method would be disastrous, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is that people want to hit someone they're on equal terms with at ~70%, while also not wanting to be hit at ~70%.
I guarantee that if a primary caster enemy of the same level as a player hit PCs at 70%, you'd hear no end of complaints.
This is less of a hypothetical and more of a "hey, look! Starfinder!"
Combining it with the PF2 critical method would be disastrous, though.
Less of a hypothetical and more of a "hey, look! Pathfinder 2!" Because if you pair an on-level high-attack monster against a non-champion's AC, "70% chance the monster hits" is about right.
A level 10 creature has a +23 to hit and a level 10 (non-champion) has around 30 AC (10 level + 4 expert + 5 stat/item combined).
That's a hit on 7 -> 70% hit chance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would they want to do that? Getting rid of six buff categories is a good thing! It was not fun in PF1 that most parties first reaction to any danger was to figure out how they could get in a situation to have 3 rounds where they could prebuff before triggering the encounter. And this happened every fight to the extent that when you couldn’t get that setup off people complained because they felt nerfed or it was unfair that the GM didn’t let them get off their 3 turn ramp up combo. Anyway the death of that type of gameplay and the fun of actually being okay to just be dropped into combat is a huge step up from PF1 to PF2 and one of the best things the devs have done.
Anyway the entire cause of most of the issues in this thread is the +/- 10 crit success/failure system. Switching the crit chance from the dice roll to the total modified roll means that math has to go closer to 50/50 at a baseline. This yes leads to more missing because if it was baseline 65/35 or more like PF1 then with buffs you’d just crit all the time. So that is pretty much what one has to blame for the current situation. They could have kept crits off the dice roll and not the modified roll and most of this issue would change to be like PF1. Would that be a good change? I’m not sure since I think PF2 combat on the enemies side is much more interesting and challenging compared to the rocket tag of PF1.
If they ever do a GMG 2 type of book, I could see a variant rule for dialing down crits being something presented there, but I would never want to play with it. I love the decision to balance the math of PF2 around 50/50 being average as opposed to bad, and giving characters 3 actions so that most characters will be able to succeed doing something each round, but not be expected for everything they they do to be a success.
I also love how awesome critical effects in PF2 feel and how much they contribute to powerful solo monsters being dangerous, especially ones with abilities that trigger off of critical hits. That and giving monsters incapacitation abilities does a really cool thing where players fight a monster once, and it wipes the floor with them, but when they come back and face one or more of them at higher levels, they can really feel how the tables have turned. It is a really elegant and fun mechanic to build encounters and adventures around.