If you're building a primary caster type, why are you using High attack instead of moderate for when they fall back on Strikes?
| 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%.
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.
Sorry, is this monster a full caster bard? Because that was the original thing that was commented about hitting at a 70% rate with melee Strikes.
Sorry, is this monster a full caster bard? Because that was the original thing that was commented about hitting at a 70% rate with melee Strikes.
What kind of bard is a full caster?! Oh you mean PF2, silly me.
67% of all monsters have "High" attacks, that includes spell casters.
But sure, lets drop them to "Moderate" at +21. That takes them down to a 9, then back up to 8, because the "about 30 AC" is more like "actually 29."
So you know, only a 65% chance to hit.
But sure, have some examples.
PHISTOPHILUS
All the dragons
GUARDIAN NAGA (only a +22 to hit with melee)
NILITH
RAJA RAKSHASA
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Monsters with a to-hit like this and full Occult casting and inspire courage are basically nonexistent.
As near as I can tell, they just don't give out those three things together to one monster, for very understandable reasons. I think the closest they've come to this combo is a Bard NPC in Extinction Curse, and that character's un-buffed to-hit is one below High and their damage is objectively terrible for their level (like, below the listed 'Low' number in monster creation), or the Lillend Azata who has High attack, inspire courage, and some spells...but not what I'd call full casting.
Other creatures tend to have even fewer spells if they have both good attack bonuses and Inspire Courage...and that combo is eminently buildable as a PC with a Fighter and Bard Multiclass.
|
|
| 5 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
It is the GM's duty to help players understand that PF2 is very different from PF1 (and in some ways the opposite).
And that using prior metagame in this new system can lead to a really bad experience.
It is in no way any kind of flaw with the system itself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, is this monster a full caster bard? Because that was the original thing that was commented about hitting at a 70% rate with melee Strikes.What kind of bard is a full caster?! Oh you mean PF2, silly me.
** spoiler omitted **
In fairness, the industry has been trending toward full caster bard for quite a while. The really interesting thing was making them Occult, which works super well for their wheelhouse.
| 1 person 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
It is the GM's duty to help players understand that PF2 is very different from PF1 (and in some ways the opposite).
And that using prior metagame in this new system can lead to a really bad experience.
It is in no way any kind of flaw with the system itself.
At the level of experience the player is supposedly at, it feels more like their responsibility.
Monsters with a to-hit like this and full Occult casting and inspire courage are basically nonexistent.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.
So.
A nilith.Extreme AC, High Attack (moderate damage), High spell DC, free Grab (with a crazy at-will damage ability against grabbed creatures), and Moderate HP with Physical Resist 5 (low, silver bypass).
It can't boost allies (only five creatures in Bestiary 1 have inspire courage* and only one in Bestiary 2), but it can cast invisibility (and has a High stealth modifier).
One of those is the Lillend, though. High AC, High melee Attack (low-moderate damage), High HP (high weakness, cold iron), High Spell DC.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, I think my initial point got lost in the shuffle, so here it is again.
I understand and accept that martialas are better at fighting. They do have that job after all. I’m just saying that the discrepancy between martial and caster is pretty big when you take into account that +10s crit. Like, why is warpriest even an option when they will never have the ability to stand up in melee? Why even give Druids spells like sheleligh if they can’t stand up in combat? Like I said, I don’t want a caster to out-martial a martial, but I would at least expect that three casters who reasonably invested in melee could equal one martial.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, why is warpriest even an option when they will never have the ability to stand up in melee? Why even give Druids spells like sheleligh if they can’t stand up in combat?
They can. Against the majority of the game's assumed combats, warpriests and druids can very well contribute with weapon or claw. This allows them to conserve their spells more effectively, so that they can contribute to big monster fights using their main specialization: spellcasting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, I think my initial point got lost in the shuffle, so here it is again.
I understand and accept that martialas are better at fighting. They do have that job after all. I’m just saying that the discrepancy between martial and caster is pretty big when you take into account that +10s crit. Like, why is warpriest even an option when they will never have the ability to stand up in melee? Why even give Druids spells like sheleligh if they can’t stand up in combat? Like I said, I don’t want a caster to out-martial a martial, but I would at least expect that three casters who reasonably invested in melee could equal one martial.
I think the game intentionally makes it very difficult for a caster invested in melee to equal a martial in combat. You can get close with War Priest. Divine spell list has plenty of nice buffing spells like heroism or bless. Combine that with flanking, and you are about the same level of hit chance as a regular non-Fighter martial. Plus, certain gods grant True Strike.
I do think most martial leaning casters will have to rely on a pattern of casting then using remaining action(s) to Strike. If you view it that way, its not too bad. A War Priest depending on your party's level, is either 1 to 3 points behind a non-Fighter martial. So if you spend an action or 2 on casting a spell, then your last action on Striking, its actually better than a non-Fighter's 2nd Strike (-4 to -5 from MAP), and definitely better than a martial's 3rd attack. Against lower level foes, you might be able to get away with attacking twice, especially pre-5th level.
For your martial Bard, its a little rough because you get experts in weapons so late at 11th level. So I'm guessing your 2 points behind other martials (18 in attack stat plus training in weapons) at 7th level, but that's not too bad. With flanking, its the same hit chance as a regular martial (19 in attack stat plus expert in weapons). Plus thanks to you being a Bard, you have access to wonderful 1 action cantrips like Inspire Courage that boost your whole party's accuracy (including your own!), which leaves you 2 actions to move to flank and strike, or cast True Strike then Strike. Or you can cast a 2 action spell then Strike with your last action.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, why is warpriest even an option when they will never have the ability to stand up in melee?
It's pretty funny that you are talking about your words getting lost in the shuffle, and then you gloss over my five books worth of experience of a warpriest standing up just fine in melee.
Just... throwing that out there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, why is warpriest even an option when they will never have the ability to stand up in melee?It's pretty funny that you are talking about your words getting lost in the shuffle, and then you gloss over my five books worth of experience of a warpriest standing up just fine in melee.
Just... throwing that out there.
Though not discounting your experiences this is dependent on a lot of factors:
1) Character build, e.g. there are many gods out there that do not offer True Strike to help melee accuracy.
2) Group composition, e.g. if there are additional means of damage mitigation, i.e. a second healer and/or champion and a tank.
3) Sensible GM target selection.
Not every WP in any group may be melee suitable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, I think my initial point got lost in the shuffle, so here it is again.
I understand and accept that martialas are better at fighting. They do have that job after all. I’m just saying that the discrepancy between martial and caster is pretty big when you take into account that +10s crit. Like, why is warpriest even an option when they will never have the ability to stand up in melee? Why even give Druids spells like sheleligh if they can’t stand up in combat? Like I said, I don’t want a caster to out-martial a martial, but I would at least expect that three casters who reasonably invested in melee could equal one martial.
I'd note that even if you discount a Warpriests offensive combat potential, you shouldn't discount their added ability to survive on the front lines and use support and healing magic over a cloistered cleric.
Having armor and shield block at level 1 means they can enter Bastion for enhanced shield support straight away at level 2, which is a HUGE increase in survivability if you pick up a Sturdy Shield (or even just pick up the ability to Raise your shield as a Reaction).
Id agree in the core rulebook Warpriests are pretty weak, but the APG added a very significant (and efficient) niche for them as a Front Line support caster with archetypes.
...but you shouldn't discount their offensive potential. They aren't competing with a full Martial, but its not a waste of actions for them to provide combat support by being a sturdy flanking buddy, an Athletics or Intimidate user (they tend to want str and cha as secondary stats quite a lot), and finally as decent (not action wasted) Striker.
Warpriests aren't exactly super stabby, but they're absolutely way more of a combat caster than a Cloistered Cleric.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, I think my initial point got lost in the shuffle, so here it is again.
I understand and accept that martialas are better at fighting. They do have that job after all. I’m just saying that the discrepancy between martial and caster is pretty big when you take into account that +10s crit. Like, why is warpriest even an option when they will never have the ability to stand up in melee? Why even give Druids spells like sheleligh if they can’t stand up in combat? Like I said, I don’t want a caster to out-martial a martial, but I would at least expect that three casters who reasonably invested in melee could equal one martial.
Warpriests and Druids can benefit from item bonuses to attack in a way their spells cannot, making them more accurate than spell attack rolls or DCs, and have Battle forms that can buff them to comparable martial numbers. They won't have Fighter to-hit or Champion AC, but their to-hit and AC will be more comparable to a Barbarian or a Ranger.
In my group where I am the Wizard and we have a fellow Warpriest, with a Ranger, Fighter, Bard, and Witch, the Warpriest is actually the 2nd most armored character in the group, having insane healing capabilities to outlast any of our characters, and with Channeled Smite and True Strike (I know, not typical for a Cleric to possess), he is able to do more burst damage than our Fighter. Doing 9D8+2D6+6 damage on a hit with twice the chance for a potential critical is more than the Fighter could match with a Power Attack D12 critical. Not to mention, as a spellcaster, I have put a stop to more encounters than the martials have. Wall of Force to prevent escapes, Longstrider with insane movement to chase down retreating foes, Chain Lightning to decimate the enemy's numbers, Haste and Greater Invisibility on the Ranger so they can get upwards of 4 attacks a round with a maximum MAP of -4, meaning they are getting 2-3 hits a round with about 25 damage a hit, criticals not included. I could also cast Mirror Image and be more tanky than any Champion by the simple principle of making the enemy miss not by reducing his to-hit, but by manipulating the result of their action to affecting images (which means no damage) instead of hurting characters. And if my AC isn't extremely terrible, criticals aren't that likely from boss monsters. Even if they are, there's a fairly good chance that it still will not be a critical hit due to Mirror Image mechanics.
There are plenty of ways for Casters to outshine martials, and vice-versa. It's not the end of the world that spellcasters can't swing a sword that well. If I wanted to swing a sword well, I'd play a martial character. That's what they are there for. If I swing a weapon competently, why do I have the martial there?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the issue is that an ideal gish turn is casting a spell and striking. With feats like Bespell Weapon this can actually do really respectable damage. The problem is that against an APL+3 enemy, unless you are quickened that basically involves ending two turns next to a boss. And that is just really really hazardous. No one can really withstand that. Casters will drop sooner if they don't have defensive buffs, but watch what happens to fighter or monk that the boss focuses on.
One not so obvious advantage of defensive buffs for Mirror Image, Greater Invisibility, or Blur is that you're much less likely to be targeted in the first place. If you and the fighter are flanking the boss, even if you put out fighter level damage the boss is a lot less likely to attack the target with concealment, and will focus on the one that doesn't.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Near as I can tell DMing PF2 the following has occurred:
1. Fights are faster with lots of swingy big damage both ways.
2. Fights feel dangerous again. You can die.
3. There are times when fights are frustrating to the players due to immunities or tactical capabilities because the players (at least my players) just want to do their schtick and nothing else.
I blame this more on the players lack of preparation. They in essence want to play PF2 like a video game rather than a dynamic world. I find that boring myself and would rather give up DMing if my players don't want to use their minds to figure out how to be effective when their schtick doesn't work.
My feeling is every player should have some kind of ranged weapon. Yet I have players who just want to rely on their melee weapon every fight and if they can't, then stand there doing nothing playing on their phone until they can leaving it to others with abilities that work to win the fight.
4. Fights are extremely well balanced with monsters providing a good challenge to the players.
5. The players do achieve victory after a hard fought battle. That is the feel I want.
There is no real gaming the system like there is in PF1, 5E, and nearly every game system I've ever played other than GURPS and some of the more swingy dangerous games which were often too deadly.
One of my only concerns is combat fatigue. If you have too many boss type mobs in a series of encounters it can cause combat fatigue. Sometimes you gotta let the heroes be heroes and hammer through some easy encounters. Sometimes players can get worn down slogging through a lot of difficult monsters.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This game is about the linear math. 1 roll with x bonus vs y DC. This aspect of the game means that if you have 6 hybrid, wanna-be martials, they equal 6 hybrid, wanna-be martials. They will never equal 1 martial.
Against at-level enemies, those hybrid, wanna-be martials are going to perform well.
Against a boss level enemy, the entire system is designed for you to use what you are good at, not what you wanna-be good at.
Now...if you cleverly utilize your spells to truly maximize your wanna-be martialness, then you will see a difference. Otherwise, it is what it is and I like it this way.
(Note: This comes from a player of a wanna-be martial)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. There are times when fights are frustrating to the players due to immunities or tactical capabilities because the players (at least my players) just want to do their schtick and nothing else.
I agree with you on all of these points, but wanted to single this one out as saying something I've had a hard time expressing. Like, in combat, there are tactically sound actions that many players seem to avoid because, "That's not what I want to use my actions for."
I had a barbarian facing off against a golem complaining about not being able to do anything to it when one player pointed out that he could Trip it and protect the party. His response was, "But I don't want to trip it, I want to hit it." Similarly, when up against a level + 2 solo opponent, the smarter option isn't to swing a second time, but to get out of the way. Yet sure enough, I would hear my players chant "crit fish!" and roll away.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So.
A nilith.Extreme AC, High Attack (moderate damage), High spell DC, free Grab (with a crazy at-will damage ability against grabbed creatures), and Moderate HP with Physical Resist 5 (low, silver bypass).
The nilith is scary (though it doesn't actually quite hit Extreme AC, it does get close though, and is actually at Low HP by the guidelines), but it fundamentally doesn't do the same thing as a Bard, which is serve as a force multiplier for the whole party on top of being a full caster and, if built for it, being a pretty decent secondary melee character.
They just do very different things and comparing them directly is odd and very much an apples to oranges comparison.
It's also probably overtuned a little for its level. I've just been going over 10th level creatures and comparing them for my own reasons, and most are a fair bit less impressive than the Nilith is in a few different ways.
It can't boost allies (only five creatures in Bestiary 1 have inspire courage* and only one in Bestiary 2), but it can cast invisibility (and has a High stealth modifier).
The thing is that Inspire Courage is, mathematically, often something like a +15% to +20% damage on the whole party. With even one martial, that's an enormous effective DPR on the Bard even if their own attack is mediocre. There's a reason I included it in my requirements for comparison, ignoring it is ignoring what's fundamentally probably the most impressive thing the Bard is doing, in a math sense.
One of those is the Lillend, though. High AC, High melee Attack (low-moderate damage), High HP (high weakness, cold iron), High Spell DC.
I actually specifically addressed the Lillend. I would not call the lillend a full caster or say that her spell DC is especially relevant most of the time. Her magical offense is limited to a single 4th level Sound Burst for 4d10 damage, and a single 3rd level Sleep. That's not being a full caster in a meaningful sense, IMO, though she does also get one decent heal, I suppose.
She's much more equivalent mechanically to a Fighter multiclassing Bard than a real Bard in several ways. And that's not an accident. In PF1 lillends had full Bard casting so the switch to the sub-par version they get now is an intentional design decision and says a fair bit about how much being an actual caster is valued.
I understand and accept that martialas are better at fighting. They do have that job after all. I’m just saying that the discrepancy between martial and caster is pretty big when you take into account that +10s crit. Like, why is warpriest even an option when they will never have the ability to stand up in melee? Why even give Druids spells like sheleligh if they can’t stand up in combat? Like I said, I don’t want a caster to out-martial a martial, but I would at least expect that three casters who reasonably invested in melee could equal one martial.
Er...they can? Honestly, I think two probably can, though it depends to some degree on what creatures we're talking about.
Like, a Bard with Dirge of Doom and a Warpriest both flanking at level 10 vs. starting AC 30 is around +18 to hit for them vs. AC 27.
Assuming the Bard is sticking to a longsword but the Warpriest has a greatsword, they're doing 2d8+4+2d6 and 2d12+4+2d6 is optimal, and that's something like 30.8 damage assuming only one attack each and no debuff spells beyond Dirge of Doom.
Meanwhile, the first attack of, say, a Dragon Instinct Barbarian is gonna be +21 to hit for 2d12+14+2d6. Attacking the same foe solo without either flanking or Dirge their damage on their first attack is only 23.8. Flanking will get that to 30.6 and higher than the two casters...but not by much. Dirge of Doom on top of that ups it to 34, but that extra damage is down to the Bard and should be credited to them rather as much as the Barbarian, when you get down to it.
So...yeah, if all you want is two casters focused on melee to equal one martial, I think you've got that. Given that this is the relatively unbuffed version, I think you've more than got it, really.
Yes, that's subjective. Feelings are inherently subjective. I'm sure that if you kept a log of all the rolls and how you did at things, you could look back and see a 50% success rate and go "yeah, that's fair."
But the thing is, people are generally very good at remembering bad things, and less good at remembering good things. That is a large part of how we learn - "I guess THAT didn't work". I reckon it's part of the same mechanic that makes us focus more on bad events than good. This, combined with the inevitable streaks of bad luck (which are far more memorable than streaks of good luck), makes it feel like you suck, or at least like you're mediocre (one of the definitions of which is "of moderate quality", which is a pretty good match for a 50% chance).
Right, the thing is that, in practice, your odds are actually way higher than 50%. That's a white room, unbuffed, number not even taking flanking into account, and vs. on level or above opposition. A lot of the time, you're fighting below-level enemies, you can certainly arrange to flank, and you're definitely able to buff yourself. The example I did above gets to 60% accuracy with zero spells beyond their standard Inspire Courage/Dirge of Doom, and can hit much higher than that with actual spellcasting, even of low level slots (True Strike exists, after all).
It's also worth noting that Level 10 is one of the single worst levels for casters in this paradigm, since they get to Expert attacks at 11th and martials just hit 20 in their attack stat, so it's one of the levels they are most playing catch up at (being -1 behind where they were comparatively last level, and -2 from where they will be next level). I'm not sure if it's the single worst, but it's up there.
And remember, my example has a bard that's been focusing pretty heavily on fighting. They are starting with a 16 in Str or Dex, and they have gotten a +2 item bonus as soon as they hit 10th level (usually I'd expect a caster to be a level or two behind on that). So they're working their butts off to be good at fighting, and the best they can do is "mediocre".
Bards are the best buff and debuff class in the game. To a game shattering degree sometimes. If the Bard can't manage to enhance their accuracy a bit they're fundamentally doing something wrong.
Warpriests are a bit more of an issue, but do have some good buffs of their own as they level (Heroism leaps to mind), and a lot of healing to fall back on in many cases.
The designer of the upcoming RPG Troubleshooters actually used the 2/3 number as an explicit benchmark for what they expect a starting character to have in their primary skills. It matches things I've seen elsewhere, but I don't have an actual source available, and googling it doesn't seem to be working so well.
2/3 unbuffed on a Class that can readily buff does not result in a healthy play experience. Melee Casters can absolutely hit this level of accuracy, or above, pretty readily...they just need to expend their resources (which include actions, bear in mind) on doing so rather than sitting there and passively having it like martials do. The tradeoff of course being that martials have fewer resources they can spend on such increases than casters do (as well as caster resources spent on this often benefiting the martials as well).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, I think my initial point got lost in the shuffle, so here it is again.
I understand and accept that martialas are better at fighting. They do have that job after all. I’m just saying that the discrepancy between martial and caster is pretty big when you take into account that +10s crit. Like, why is warpriest even an option when they will never have the ability to stand up in melee? Why even give Druids spells like sheleligh if they can’t stand up in combat? Like I said, I don’t want a caster to out-martial a martial, but I would at least expect that three casters who reasonably invested in melee could equal one martial.
I'd note that even if you discount a Warpriests offensive combat potential, you shouldn't discount their added ability to survive on the front lines and use support and healing magic over a cloistered cleric.
Having armor and shield block at level 1 means they can enter Bastion for enhanced shield support straight away at level 2, which is a HUGE increase in survivability if you pick up a Sturdy Shield (or even just pick up the ability to Raise your shield as a Reaction).
Id agree in the core rulebook Warpriests are pretty weak, but the APG added a very significant (and efficient) niche for them as a Front Line support caster with archetypes.
...but you shouldn't discount their offensive potential. They aren't competing with a full Martial, but its not a waste of actions for them to provide combat support by being a sturdy flanking buddy, an Athletics or Intimidate user (they tend to want str and cha as secondary stats quite a lot), and finally as decent (not action wasted) Striker.
Warpriests aren't exactly super stabby, but they're absolutely way more of a combat caster than a Cloistered Cleric.
guess the reason most people coming from dnd and pf1e want to play WARpriest
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, why is warpriest even an option when they will never have the ability to stand up in melee? Why even give Druids spells like sheleligh if they can’t stand up in combat?They can. Against the majority of the game's assumed combats, warpriests and druids can very well contribute with weapon or claw. This allows them to conserve their spells more effectively, so that they can contribute to big monster fights using their main specialization: spellcasting.
i haven't seen this as helpful, what i have seen is this resulting in the caster eating dirt and resulting in a harder fight or tpk because they didnt stand back and be a support character. wich is what all casters appear to be relegated to at those situations, wich is an automatic turn off for some players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, I think my initial point got lost in the shuffle, so here it is again.
I understand and accept that martialas are better at fighting. They do have that job after all. I’m just saying that the discrepancy between martial and caster is pretty big when you take into account that +10s crit. Like, why is warpriest even an option when they will never have the ability to stand up in melee? Why even give Druids spells like sheleligh if they can’t stand up in combat? Like I said, I don’t want a caster to out-martial a martial, but I would at least expect that three casters who reasonably invested in melee could equal one martial.
I dm a party with a feral druid and a champion. (Switched from PF1 at level 12, at 16 now) Both MC into fighter for AoO and feats. I see no proof that a feral druid meaningfully lags behind a champion in melee damage. Certainly not 3 needed to match one martial.
Anyway you have failed to provide proof that 3 melee built casters can’t match one martial. What we have mostly talked about is 2 things. If a bard can hit a boss in melee and if a bard with plate can survive against in melee. Enough math has been shown for the second to show there is not a meaningful difference in the defense category. There is more of a difference in the to hit but that can be made up by your spells. Ofc it’s likely better to use those same spells on the martial, but if you are solely concerned on your own numbers you can buff your hit to keep up.
champion is the single lowest damage martial in the entire game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet sure enough, I would hear my players chant "crit fish!" and roll away.
Riposte should be on more monsters ....
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. There are times when fights are frustrating to the players due to immunities or tactical capabilities because the players (at least my players) just want to do their schtick and nothing else.I agree with you on all of these points, but wanted to single this one out as saying something I've had a hard time expressing. Like, in combat, there are tactically sound actions that many players seem to avoid because, "That's not what I want to use my actions for."
I had a barbarian facing off against a golem complaining about not being able to do anything to it when one player pointed out that he could Trip it and protect the party. His response was, "But I don't want to trip it, I want to hit it." Similarly, when up against a level + 2 solo opponent, the smarter option isn't to swing a second time, but to get out of the way. Yet sure enough, I would hear my players chant "crit fish!" and roll away.
This is my players more often than not. Just roll away hoping for a crit. If they don't do damage on nearly every roll, they feel like they wasted their time.
I get frustrated sometimes as a DM. I have to tell them stop boring me. This is the encounter. You have to figure out how to win even if it means picking up improvised weapons, dodging around, tripping, and the like. Not every fight is going to be a straight-forward use of your core abilities.
I'm glad PF2 brought this bag. Part of the reason they are in the mindset they are in is because they are so used to succeeding with ease from PF1 and succeeding using the same "rotation" from video games. That's what it feels like when they want to do the same thing over and over again like they're playing a video game rotation of buttons.
champion is the single lowest damage martial in the entire game.Guys, I think my initial point got lost in the shuffle, so here it is again.
I understand and accept that martialas are better at fighting. They do have that job after all. I’m just saying that the discrepancy between martial and caster is pretty big when you take into account that +10s crit. Like, why is warpriest even an option when they will never have the ability to stand up in melee? Why even give Druids spells like sheleligh if they can’t stand up in combat? Like I said, I don’t want a caster to out-martial a martial, but I would at least expect that three casters who reasonably invested in melee could equal one martial.
I dm a party with a feral druid and a champion. (Switched from PF1 at level 12, at 16 now) Both MC into fighter for AoO and feats. I see no proof that a feral druid meaningfully lags behind a champion in melee damage. Certainly not 3 needed to match one martial.
Anyway you have failed to provide proof that 3 melee built casters can’t match one martial. What we have mostly talked about is 2 things. If a bard can hit a boss in melee and if a bard with plate can survive against in melee. Enough math has been shown for the second to show there is not a meaningful difference in the defense category. There is more of a difference in the to hit but that can be made up by your spells. Ofc it’s likely better to use those same spells on the martial, but if you are solely concerned on your own numbers you can buff your hit to keep up.
Sword and Board. I think you could build a pretty good 2-handed weapon damage champion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in the "Before Times," my player made a color-coded graph of chances to hit with each successive attack and pinned it on the wall. When our martial declared he was ready to attack for the third time, he'd just point at the chart.
"Look at it, Barbarian. Look at it."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've yet to see a spell destroy anything but low level mooks tbh. Saves time i guess.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've yet to see a spell destroy anything but low level mooks tbh. Saves time i guess.
The 2 casters in my group are the boss killers. Elemental Druid, Diviner Wizard. And they have the record of highest damage in one shot by far
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've yet to see a spell destroy anything but low level mooks tbh. Saves time i guess.The 2 casters in my group are the boss killers. Elemental Druid, Diviner Wizard. And they have the record of highest damage in one shot by far
I don't see how unless your GM is running home brew bosses. But cheer's to them.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how unless your GM is running home brew bosses. But cheer's to them.
Im the GM, I use the monsters on the bestiary for the game. No melee can achieve the damage of a well rolled Shocking grasp crit, or a crit fail on Tempest Surge
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've yet to see a spell destroy anything but low level mooks tbh. Saves time i guess.
Really? I've seen it happen a few times unless you mean kill in one shot which I haven't seen anyone do past low level.
I had a boss roll one on a vampiric exsangination. Did 104 points of damage to them and I gained 52 temp hit points.
I've had a tempest surge do 91 points with 14 points of persistent electricity to a challenge +2 boss.
Had more than a few bosses get some bad rolls on AOE attacks. Obliterated their minions and hurt them badly. Not sure why taking mooks off the board quickly to allow focus fire on the boss isn't an awesome display of power.
I've seen it more with the druid more than any other caster. She tears apart mook encounters and often does lots of damage to bosses too.
Unfortunately, not seen it much with wizards or sorcerers, but I haven't played them to high level. I'm sure some others have seen it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how unless your GM is running home brew bosses. But cheer's to them.I've yet to see a spell destroy anything but low level mooks tbh. Saves time i guess.The 2 casters in my group are the boss killers. Elemental Druid, Diviner Wizard. And they have the record of highest damage in one shot by far
What do you mean destroy? You never seen a spell crit on a boss? I've never seen a martial destroy a boss if by that you mean kill them in one shot past low level. I've seen plenty of martial and spell crits on bosses.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what really destroys bosses? Crit fail on 3rd level slow.
Guess who had that happen on the final boss of the campaign thanks to a natural 1. He still managed to pose a decent threat, but 1/3 of his actions let them just ignore his minions and burst him down as quickly as possible.
Conclusion: I need Villain Points.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. There are times when fights are frustrating to the players due to immunities or tactical capabilities because the players (at least my players) just want to do their schtick and nothing else.I agree with you on all of these points, but wanted to single this one out as saying something I've had a hard time expressing. Like, in combat, there are tactically sound actions that many players seem to avoid because, "That's not what I want to use my actions for."
I had a barbarian facing off against a golem complaining about not being able to do anything to it when one player pointed out that he could Trip it and protect the party. His response was, "But I don't want to trip it, I want to hit it." Similarly, when up against a level + 2 solo opponent, the smarter option isn't to swing a second time, but to get out of the way. Yet sure enough, I would hear my players chant "crit fish!" and roll away.
I had a very similar experience actually. Giant Barbarian (yours is one as well, right?) keeps charging golems. Even in situations where the party could rain down attacks from afar, he charges in there and gets trounced. Even he could have done it. He had a 15 foot reach in Giant Stature and the golem was effectively immobilized. I even pointed out he could do this. But he was like nah, I want to Sudden Charge it.
I think the Giant Totem barbarian is really bad for this. The type of player that goes for it is the type who is most likely to prioritize dealing damage over self preservation. Which is really bad when you consider they also have the lowest AC of any martial. Utilizing reach and hit and run tactics, they could be very efficient. But they don't want to play that way.
(Really, if you want to play that way, you should go with a flurry ranger or fighter with some good press feats. Those builds encourage three attacks a round much better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what really destroys bosses? Crit fail on 3rd level slow.
Guess who had that happen on the final boss of the campaign thanks to a natural 1. He still managed to pose a decent threat, but 1/3 of his actions let them just ignore his minions and burst him down as quickly as possible.
Conclusion: I need Villain Points.
That happened to my bandersnatch. I worked so hard on converting it. XD
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean destroy? You never seen a spell crit on a boss? I've never seen a martial destroy a boss if by that you mean kill them in one shot past low level. I've seen plenty of martial and spell crits on bosses.I don't see how unless your GM is running home brew bosses. But cheer's to them.I've yet to see a spell destroy anything but low level mooks tbh. Saves time i guess.The 2 casters in my group are the boss killers. Elemental Druid, Diviner Wizard. And they have the record of highest damage in one shot by far
I have never seen a spell crit on a boss
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what really destroys bosses? Crit fail on 3rd level slow.
Guess who had that happen on the final boss of the campaign thanks to a natural 1. He still managed to pose a decent threat, but 1/3 of his actions let them just ignore his minions and burst him down as quickly as possible.
Conclusion: I need Villain Points.
People always seem to assume that since NPCs/Bosses often succeed on low numbers, fails and critical fails never happen.
...which is not how dice work. Make them roll enough, and they're going to fail and critical fail, and its going to happen more than once in a session or a campaign.
I'm not recommending anyone formulate tactics based on the critical fail effects of spells, but they DO happen, and they're hilarious (for the PCs) when they do.
And honestly, the rarity of that really makes the moment. Its not every fight that a boss blows a save against a spell and essentially loses on the roll, so when it does happen it feels great.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have two notes! The first is that TTRPG groups have to be compromises of what everyone finds fun to last in good condition, so what Deriven's players enjoy doing conflicting with what Deriven likes to encourage and see doesn't necessarily mean either side of the group is at fault. They probably find a middle ground if the campaign is persisting.
The other note is that I don't agree with everything Martialmasters has said but I do notice legitimate tension between what people expect of how classes and gameplay function and how they seem to be designed to play. PF2 is better about guiding and informing the player about how the game works and how things interact than PF1...but only sometimes. A lot of the current discussions about balance and game feel are emergent, or about options and mechanics that never got playtested ahead of time, but sometimes it does seem like what the system says about itself just doesn't match up with what is borne out.
I don't follow Know Direction a ton, but I recently listened to an episode about PF2 homebrew (and heard smaller and fewer adjustments/quibbles than I was expecting). One of the things that stood out to me was an offhand mention that the system has turned out to be more difficult in its tuning than intended (no specifics on which dev gave this opinion, that I recall). Accordingly, they brought up the suggestion of treating all enemies as one level higher for encounter creation than they actually are, and part of their upcoming house rules involve making sure every character gets 18 in their key stat independent of other ability boosts for stronger/safer characters overall (or something to that effect).
What I'm getting at is that, though I'm quite happy there's a legitimately challenging and intricate and overall-balanced system in the tradition of modern D&D now, it may be worth considering adjustments to that challenge expectation for better feel or different desires. At the very least, I feel like it's a bad idea as the game currently is to jump into PF2 without (at least) the GM being knowledgeable about the system's intended+emergent design (thus able to help inform less seasoned players), as well as open to accommodations and adjustments where it falters or doesn't fit.
A podcast I listen to called Dice Will Roll is both spruced up with houserules in its second season and a little loose with/slightly forgets rules on occasion, and I bristle when the latter happens until I realize they usually make for a slightly softer, less prescriptive game that suits the style of entertainment they're going for. So, basically, I think it's best to remember Rule 1 of PF2 exists and observe it over any of the others.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never seen a spell crit on a bossWhat do you mean destroy? You never seen a spell crit on a boss? I've never seen a martial destroy a boss if by that you mean kill them in one shot past low level. I've seen plenty of martial and spell crits on bosses.I don't see how unless your GM is running home brew bosses. But cheer's to them.I've yet to see a spell destroy anything but low level mooks tbh. Saves time i guess.The 2 casters in my group are the boss killers. Elemental Druid, Diviner Wizard. And they have the record of highest damage in one shot by far
That is surprising. You've never seen a boss crit fail a saving throw in all those rolls. I wonder what the statistical probability of that is.
Critical fails on spells are quite impressive.