| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure are, even for relatively unimpressive spells. A boss level enemy, a gangster holding a knife to a captive's throat, crit failed against my sorcerer's Command spell, dropped the knife, and then the encounter ended before we could even get to the hostages because all of the other hostages had beaten the gangster into pudding before we could physically walk there.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 farThat 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.
It gets crazy. I still remember casting my vampiric exsanguination with a boss mixed in. I was thinking, "I'll hammer the minions and do almost nothing to the boss. They only fail on a 7 or less or something. Then what do you know the boss rolls a 1 and takes 104 damage. I gain 52 temporary hit points. Pretty nice. And my bard doesn't even cast that much as he's mostly buffing the party because the martials get b+~#%y if they don't get their buff music.
|
| 1 person 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
During our last Secrets of Magic playtest, our 13th level group (magus, summoner, investigator, sorcerer) went into the final fight facing off against a pair of nalfeshnees. The summoner started the combat with a sunburst - and not just one, but both of the demons rolled nat 1s. In an instant, each of them had a third of their hit points evaporate and were permanently blinded.
We didn't bother playing out the rest of the combat, because none of us could persuade ourselves that it would be a helpful addition to the dataset.
Even bosses crit fail rolls sometimes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seeking to find the right squares is an extra action cost, and therefore definitely a relevant part of the effect, but plenty of targets (PC and NPC alike) are easy enough to find that blinding something (while a big deal) often doesn't mean the danger has entirely passed. Especially if blinding one target doesn't mean blinding every threat present, due to other enemies, hazards, etc.
| 1 person 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.
I completely agree, and especially about the third point, with the caveat that even from a video game mentality it doesn't generally make sense, when you play Zelda every boss is a puzzle fight that requires you to adjust your tactics, in Monster Hunter not wanting to dodge or whatever will just get you murdered, MMO fights are completely about their mechanics if you don't wanna wipe. Not adjusting in a MOBA like League of Legends is liable to mean never improving and getting loads of toxicity thrown your way.
I think the problem is actually more of a social dynamic issue, this might be cynical of me (because boy some experiences have made me bitter), but it feels like some players react to the presence of a GM who can adjust content by "dead-fishing" when they need to adjust or think hard to solve a problem. They reinterpret the problem as being the need to adjust rather than their own lack of adjustment, because someone else can allow them not to adjust. Throw on some window dressing about 'I should be able to play the way I want to' and you have a recipe for passive aggression when faced with failure or resistance.
This happens I think, because there's an avenue for that kind of negative pressure to affect change in the game, and in TTRPGs its right there standing in front of you.
I have no problem with players using bad tactics in play, but I also have no problem with characters dying when their bad tactics catch up to them. It is a heroic game and if player's want their character remembered for their stubbornness and always attempting to accomplish the impossible, even though it eventually killed them, then hurray for them. But if players are starting to feel like the game is too hard, that is when I like to start providing them retrospective feed back about why X encounter was so difficult and ways they could have made life a lot easier on themselves.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They reinterpret the problem as being the need to adjust rather than their own lack of adjustment, because someone else can allow them not to adjust. Throw on some window dressing about 'I should be able to play the way I want to' and you have a recipe for passive aggression when faced with failure or resistance.
I wonder how much of this is actually the game's design's fault:
That is, so much about what makes a character a character in Pathfinder is something that can't be changed from day to day, much less fight to fight.Partly due to how important reliable scouting information is and how trivial it is to either "always win" on the information front or "always lose" (depending on how clever or vindictive the GM is...or isn't).
Sure, a wizard or cleric can completely swap out their entire spell list, but how often is someone going to say, "ok, yeah you have all your spells still, but they're not going to work against this fight coming up. Lets rest the whole rest of the day so you can re-prep."? How often does the fighter really really need to swap weapons or chose a different flex-feat?
How many other classes can't do any of that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They reinterpret the problem as being the need to adjust rather than their own lack of adjustment, because someone else can allow them not to adjust. Throw on some window dressing about 'I should be able to play the way I want to' and you have a recipe for passive aggression when faced with failure or resistance.I wonder how much of this is actually the game's design's fault:
That is, so much about what makes a character a character in Pathfinder is something that can't be changed from day to day, much less fight to fight.Partly due to how important reliable scouting information is and how trivial it is to either "always win" on the information front or "always lose" (depending on how clever or vindictive the GM is...or isn't).
Sure, a wizard or cleric can completely swap out their entire spell list, but how often is someone going to say, "ok, yeah you have all your spells still, but they're not going to work against this fight coming up. Lets rest the whole rest of the day so you can re-prep."? How often does the fighter really really need to swap weapons or chose a different flex-feat?
How many other classes can't do any of that?
I've always found this to be the player's mentality. Many people use games including TTRPGs to escape the world and feel powerful and heroic. Some also enjoy the mechanical aspect of building the most mechanically powerful character they can. When they run into encounters that make them feel weak or disrupt their carefully constructed mechanically powerful character, they disengage because it is not fun to them.
Whereas many DMs or GMs run games to engage in story-telling using a game system as their medium. They want the players to engage with the story and feel like the world is a dynamic living world. That means when a character runs into a difficult obstacle, they don't just give up and wait for the next encounter they can dominate. That ruins DM engagement.
I feel like players need to be ready to work to survive and win when the encounter isn't ideal for their mechanical advantages. They need to take the story seriously like winning and losing are a matter of life and death for someone, even it is just them needing to survive against some terrible oozes that are immune to their precision damage and crits while exploring a lost dungeon.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But then the players who get too much into the "win/lose" mentality are also accused of being bad.
There are also a lot of people who don't care much for the story and just want to play with people. Or people who do want to get into it, but the story doesn't interest them.
There is also the whole thing about crunchy games being more liked by people who like building characters. People who get bored while playing narrative games. So there needs to be a balance that is met. With the GM having a large burden as he is the one who sets up encounters. If the GM wont help a player have fun, there is nothing a player can do.
(Unless of course the player is just there to listen to the story.)
I wouldn't even play with a player who wasn't going to engage with how I run the game. I wouldn't expect a player to play with a GM who wasn't going to run the game in a way they like. TTRPGs are for fun. If neither person is having fun, they should find something else to do.
That's how I see it. If I'm the GM, I have to have fun too. Players not engaging with the story and wanting a human video game engine can find someone else to play with.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It does seem a little counter-intuitive that the biggest guy on the field keeps delivering love taps before running off like a namby pamby.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weird how you always meet the young and bold heroes, but never the old and bold heroes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weird how you always meet the young and bold heroes, but never the old and bold heroes.
They're the ones who became gods.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.It does seem a little counter-intuitive that the biggest guy on the field keeps delivering love taps before running off like a namby pamby.
Well, they aren't love taps. They still hit harder than any other class in the game, and the real advantage they have is how big their reach is for AoO and things like Swipe. They should be trying to make every attack at max bonus, not crit fishing at -10.
Which is part of why your DPR shouldn't actually suffer much using hit and run. Every time you fall back the enemy has to come provoke again or just get ripped apart from 15 feet away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I've seen a piece of media in which the larger (skilled) fighter doesn't do their best to keep their opposition at their own optimal threat range. Not doing so is just stupid.
And if their optimal threat range is zero, do they keep backing off?
You can expect your first few character to be unoptimized as you learn the system. Here are the raw number differences for being a gish character.
Compared to other martials you roughly have...
-2 AC roughly
-2/3 to hit (-2 if you started with 16 and -3 on levels where they have an even stat modifier for starting at 18)
-2/4 hp per level depending on the caster you chose.
IMO that makes melee casters perfectly viable. I still wouldn't charge in there though, but enter melee the turn after your martial allies. Monsters in general hit a lot so players can expect to go down fast against tough enemies no matter what class. I really don't feel that as being a horrible negative for gaining full casting and all other benefits of your class.
I didn't count Fighter/Champion/Monk in those numbers since they are specialist and you would have to compare them each separately.
Special note: Casters are pretty much just as good as Martials when it comes to combat maneuvers. They would just have a -1 sometimes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-2/4 HP per level sound like a little but the difference is huge.
A level 10 Ranger has 100 HP + Con.
A level 10 Wizard has 60 HP + Con.A level 20 Ranger has 200 HP + Con.
A level 20 Wizard has 120 HP + Con.The level 10 Wizard with their -2 to AC and saves has an extra 10% chance to get crit, while having almost half the HP.
That means that Wizards can easily be knocked down by 1-2 crits. While being much more likely to be crit.
Hypothetical Wizard also has native access to Invisibility and Mirror Image, which massively reduce their incoming damage at the highlighted levels.
Hitpoints are relevant, but there are a lot of factors to consider as well - I wouldn't say that high level wizards are in as bad of a place survival wise as would be implied by this one number.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That only works so well for so long, though. A wizard can't get back an expended spell whereas a ranger (fighter, champion) can recover their HP in an hour or less using no other resources.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are talking about a Wizard that decided he wanted to go in melee. Yes he might have Mirror Image.
You know who else has Mirror Image? The Fighter/Wizard that has much better AC, Attack, Saves, and feats.
I mean, yes.
Ultimately, its an intended aspect of the system that if you want to do multiple things in the system using multiclassing, pick the base class that supports accuracy for whatever you're going to use as your primary offense.
If that's swinging a weapon, go Fighter and pick up Wizard.
If it's casting spells, a Wizard can be reasonably proficient in weapons in addition to (but not instead of) casting spells, while also having options to stay safe.
Depending on which way the hypothetical Gish leans, they can make their choice appropriately- but both can be made to work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Expert and no 18str or dex is not reasonably proficient. Just because they use the word expert doesn't mean it's reasonably proficient.
That said I do like automatic bonus progression for casters in my groups because they can take a pot shot with a short bow for better damage per action then a 2 action cantrip.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Expert and no 18str or dex is not reasonably proficient. Just because they use the word expert doesn't mean it's reasonably proficient.
That said I do like automatic bonus progression for casters in my groups because they can take a pot shot with a short bow for better damage per action then a 2 action cantrip.
I am curious why do you say that isn't reasonably proficient? Only time it is bad if you are comparing against fighter. Against every other class your hit rate fluctuates between -1/-2/-3. How is that bad while gaining full casting benefits?
Also the way stats work 18 means the stat matters 50% of the time... which I admit actually makes it even weirded but pushes it towards casters since the modifiers are equal roughly 50% of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-2/4 HP per level sound like a little but the difference is huge.
A level 10 Ranger has 100 HP + Con.
A level 10 Wizard has 60 HP + Con.A level 20 Ranger has 200 HP + Con.
A level 20 Wizard has 120 HP + Con.The level 10 Wizard with their -2 to AC and saves has an extra 10% chance to get crit, while having almost half the HP.
That means that Wizards can easily be knocked down by 1-2 crits. While being much more likely to be crit.
Just wanted to mention the hp/ac is definitely a little scary but if someone wanted to be an upfront caster they could even go 100% in to a multiclass dedication for 1.5 hp per level.
Also dont forget toughness/ancestry! Yes martials can take them too but having 140 life compared to 220 life is a much higher percent to each other.
Yeah I admit Sorcerer/Wizard/Witch make being an upfront character tough because of this. Poor Sorcerers/Wizard/Witches are so squishy. Gish characters with 8 hp a level really dont suffer that much though.
|
|
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.It does seem a little counter-intuitive that the biggest guy on the field keeps delivering love taps before running off like a namby pamby.
Giant totem does not need to become Large and Clumsy. It is a tactical choice that should be the optimal tactic when they decide to do it. If it is not, better not to do it.
Choosing sub-optimal tactics is really dangerous in PF2.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can expect your first few character to be unoptimized as you learn the system. Here are the raw number differences for being a gish character.
Compared to other martials you roughly have...
-2 AC roughly
-2/3 to hit (-2 if you started with 16 and -3 on levels where they have an even stat modifier for starting at 18)
-2/4 hp per level depending on the caster you chose.
The HP and attack bonus stuff is correct.
The AC penalty mostly isn't, really. When wearing the same armor (and anybody can get to Medium Armor with Sentinel at 2nd level, leaving them only behind at 1st), casters are behind half of martials in AC only at 19th and 20th levels (specifically, Barbarians, Investigators, Rogues, and Swashbucklers). Of the others, they're behind two at only 11th to 12th and 19th to 20th (Fighters and Rangers), and the remaining two are the actual AC specialists (Champions and Monks).
So for 75%-90% of the game, many casters are actually on par with most martials in AC. And, aside from maybe 1st level, the levels where they aren't they have access to pretty big guns in the spell department (6th and 10th level spells, respectively). Used defensively, that will tend to make up for the lower base AC, IMO.
Some casters can even do better than this, such as a Bard using Dirge of Doom and Heavy Armor is on par with Ranger AC even at 11th to 12th and 19th to 20th, since they're getting +1 AC and applying -1 to enemy attacks.
Really, the real defensive down sides of being a caster are in Saves (where they do worse than Fighter, who do worse than most other martials), not AC, and those apply whether you're in melee or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The to-hit and attack bonus stuff is correct.
The AC penalty mostly isn't, really. When wearing the same armor (and anybody can get to Medium Armor with Sentinel at 2nd level, leaving them only behind at 1st), casters are behind half of martials in AC only at 19th and 20th levels (specifically, Barbarians, Investigators, Rogues, and Swashbucklers). Of the others, they're behind two at only 11th to 12th and 19th to 20th (Fighters and Rangers), and the remaining two are the actual AC specialists (Champions and Monks).
So for 75%-90% of the game, many casters are actually on par with most martials in AC. And, aside from maybe 1st level, the levels where they aren't they have access to pretty big guns in the spell department (6th and 10th level spells, respectively). Used defensively, that will tend to make up for the lower base AC, IMO.
Some casters can even do better than this, such as a Bard using Dirge of Doom and Heavy Armor is on par with Ranger AC even at 11th to 12th and 19th to 20th, since they're getting +1 AC and applying -1 to enemy attacks.
Really, the real defensive down sides of being a caster are in Saves (where they do worse than Fighter, who do worse than most other martials), not AC, and those apply whether you're in melee or not.
Sorry, for some reason I thought martials got expert earlier. Normally I would have double checked, but was multitasking. With those stats I am really confused why people are saying "gish" characters are bad when they are "almost" as good while keeping full casting. Their worse levels are at 10-14 but by that time they have plenty of good spells imo. Only game where it was easier to make gish characters was 5e... but that was a little odd. Since every character was exactly as good at hitting people...
Sadly I don't get to play enough 2e to test out all my theorycrafting. But it really seems like Martial/Caster or Caster/Martial should be great fun. Only problem with Martial/Caster is it takes a LONG time to get a decent amount of spells.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they aren't love taps. They still hit harder than any other class in the game, and the real advantage they have is how big their reach is for AoO and things like Swipe. They should be trying to make every attack at max bonus, not crit fishing at -10.
Which is part of why your DPR shouldn't actually suffer much using hit and run. Every time you fall back the enemy has to come provoke again or just get ripped apart from 15 feet away.
While you're right, I think that just highlights some of the disconnect.
The 'fantasy' of the giant barbarian is a massive warrior wielding a giant weapon brutalizing their enemies through sheer force, but in practice you're a lot better off grabbing a reach weapon or a shield (or a reach weapon and a shield) and playing a much more methodical game.
So behavior that 'feels' like it should be a core part of the build's identity ends up being one of the worst ways to play it and the mechanics instead end up incentivizing something that feels almost antithetical to its themes.
Choosing sub-optimal tactics is really dangerous in PF2.
Agreed, but it's a design problem when leaning into a specialization's flavor makes you suboptimal.
Well, they aren't love taps. They still hit harder than any other class in the game, and the real advantage they have is how big their reach is for AoO and things like Swipe. They should be trying to make every attack at max bonus, not crit fishing at -10.
Which is part of why your DPR shouldn't actually suffer much using hit and run. Every time you fall back the enemy has to come provoke again or just get ripped apart from 15 feet away.
While you're right, I think that just highlights some of the disconnect.
The 'fantasy' of the giant barbarian is a massive warrior wielding a giant weapon brutalizing their enemies through sheer force, but in practice you're a lot better off grabbing a reach weapon or a shield (or a reach weapon and a shield) and playing a much more methodical game.
So behavior that 'feels' like it should be a core part of the build's identity ends up being one of the worst ways to play it and the mechanics instead end up incentivizing something that feels almost antithetical to its themes.
Choosing sub-optimal tactics is really dangerous in PF2.Agreed, but it's a design problem when leaning into a specialization's flavor makes you suboptimal.
In these cases, it really does feel like the intended flavor isn’t currently achievable. You’d need some sort of reward mechanic - where everytime you mash a foe into paste you gain a measure of temp. HP, or remove one foes action, or completely fend off/ignore a blow; gain immunity to one attack from one foes single action, reduce crits against you, improve your own, unlock mega-heroic weapon crit specialisations or make an immediate new strike, or move tactically or...something. I’m sure many of these are already feats.
If the flavor is rush in, hold your own and create pudding then you should be able to, even occasionally if not solidly, maintain that.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues and Investigators are not front liners, they are flankers, they have the same problem as casters until they get Master in armor. Relying on having another martial to take the blows in the mean time. Barbarians are getting passive DR, a huge chunk of HP, and a no check 1 action source of temp HP.
Swashbuckler's is not event meant to stay next to the enemy given they are all about dashin in an out.
This is literally one full half of of martials you're talking about here.
So no Casters don't get the same AC or Defenses as Martial at the same levels.
So you're redefining martials to exclude half the actual martial classes? Okay.
But even if ignoring those, they're still equal to Ranger and Fighter at 15 or 16 out of 20 levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they aren't love taps. They still hit harder than any other class in the game, and the real advantage they have is how big their reach is for AoO and things like Swipe. They should be trying to make every attack at max bonus, not crit fishing at -10.
Which is part of why your DPR shouldn't actually suffer much using hit and run. Every time you fall back the enemy has to come provoke again or just get ripped apart from 15 feet away.
While you're right, I think that just highlights some of the disconnect.
The 'fantasy' of the giant barbarian is a massive warrior wielding a giant weapon brutalizing their enemies through sheer force, but in practice you're a lot better off grabbing a reach weapon or a shield (or a reach weapon and a shield) and playing a much more methodical game.
So behavior that 'feels' like it should be a core part of the build's identity ends up being one of the worst ways to play it and the mechanics instead end up incentivizing something that feels almost antithetical to its themes.
Choosing sub-optimal tactics is really dangerous in PF2.Agreed, but it's a design problem when leaning into a specialization's flavor makes you suboptimal.
'I'm so mighty I'm swinging a telephone pole like a wimpy little monk!' *bludgeon with bo staff from fifteen feet away*
Seriously, what's not awesome about a giant barbarian swinging an equally giant halberd? And let's also imagine said giant barbarian using Grapple ... by putting her hand on a smaller foe's head as it swings its sword feebly. Think Lone Starr versus Dark Helmet for the image, but Lone Starr's twice as tall.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are you talking about, those are the martials you mentioned.
They are some of the martials I mentioned. I actually talked about all of them.
The other half gets legendary in armor, or in the case of Fighter has Expert at level 11.
Ranger and Fighter are better than casters for only four levels in most cases.
I am not redefining anything.
I said 'They're equal to most martials at 75% to 90% of levels.' You proceeded to say that, somehow, apparently Rogues, Investigators, Swashbucklers, and Barbarians 'don't count' for those purposes and casters are thus still behind.
How is that not redefining terms?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could you list some such abilities? I can't really think of much that's better than a shield, and any caster can acquire one of those easily enough.
At high levels there's a few things, but mostly they're specific to Champion or Monk rather than martials more generally, though Swashbuckler and Fighter have a few as well.
But most importantly, none of those are required. Defensive Feats available to certain martials may be very nice, but many don't take a single one and do fine, which is why I'm comparing casters to martials who lack such Feats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarian Renewed Vigor, even at level 8 assuming they conservatively have 18 Con thats: +8 Temp HP every turn, which is 1/3 of an attack at that level. By level 20 that has become +15 Temp Hp every turn, which is more than most shield hardness. Not to mention they get DR and a wall of HP.
Rogues can apply debilitations, and have ways to move around. Which makes them have an easier time acting as a secondary martial. Not to mention easy access to acrobatics.
Swashbuckler wants to move around and panache rewards them for it. And distance is a natural barrier.
Investigators have the fewest defenses of the martials. I wont deny that, but they are also the weakest martial being more of a pure skill class than even the Rogue. Not to mention easy access to acrobatics like Rogues.
Not to mention the inherent fact that all martials have better action economy. Which is a large part of why casters are bad in melee. Not having access to free raise a shield is rough. And the shield spell does not grant much a bonus if you actually try blocking with it thx to the penalty.
It is quite hard to compare every minor detail about a class to compare defensive abilities. Especially since with dedications most characters can get each others abilities.
What was being compared was their AC at a base level. There are crazy amount of things to compare and casters by default without any feats get full casting. They can easily cast spells that rival or exceed what you mention.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other half gets legendary in armor, or in the case of Fighter has Expert at level 11.Ranger and Fighter are better than casters for only four levels in most cases.
Not entirely on the same page as you two but just came to mind reading this.
I'm not really a fan of the way PF2 staggers proficiencies. It creates these really awkward gaps that don't always make a lot of sense to me and make certain classes feel weirdly bad compared to others, but only for very narrow windows.
Like, as you said, it's only a few levels. So why those levels? Why is it an important balance consideration that Fighters have better AC at level 11, but not at level 10? Or at level 14?
Same thing with offensive proficiencies. What's particularly special about levels 5 and 6 that necessitates Barbarians having an edge on attack rolls vs a Wizard's spell attacks that doesn't exist at levels 4 or 7? (Or Warpriests having a specific four level window where they're better with weapons than a Cloistered Cleric).
I'm just not entirely sure how they make the game better for existing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarian Renewed Vigor, even at level 8 assuming they conservatively have 18 Con thats: +8 Temp HP every turn, which is 1/3 of an attack at that level. By level 20 that has become +15 Temp Hp every turn, which is more than most shield hardness. Not to mention they get DR and a wall of HP.
Temp HP don't stack, so it's not actually every turn. Also, I'm pretty sure this is not only worse than a shield, but much worse, since it doesn't come with +2 AC, but still costs an action.
It's still a decent Feat because it can be combined with a two-handed weapon in a way shields cannot, but that's an offensive advantage not a defensive one.
Rogues can apply debilitations, and have ways to move around. Which makes them have an easier time acting as a secondary martial. Not to mention easy access to acrobatics.
Debilitations are, as a defensive bonus, worse than a shield, though they admittedly don't cost an action. Their offensive perks are much better and a Rogue who used almost exclusively those still does just fine defensively.
Swashbuckler wants to move around and panache rewards them for it. And distance is a natural barrier.
As for movement, the big hurdle is action economy more than anything, Rogue and Swashbuckler have additional options in that regard, certainly, but nothing miles better than casters can get pretty readily (Wand of Longstrider leaps to mind) aside from avoiding Reactions...and AoO is actually pretty rare all things considered.
Investigators have the fewest defenses of the martials. I wont deny that, but they are also the weakest martial being more of a pure skill class than even the Rogue. Not to mention easy access to acrobatics like Rogues.
Investigators do fine defensively, though. As do Rangers (who likewise have few defensive Feats). Which is rather my point really. Casters can easily do as well as them at most levels, and that's more than good enough.
Not to mention the inherent fact that all martials have better action economy. Which is a large part of why casters are bad in melee. Not having access to free raise a shield is rough. And the shield spell does not grant much a bonus if you actually try blocking with it thx to the penalty.
Haste can fix this to some degree, which is very helpful. But yes, this is definitely a problem. I wouldn't consider it an insoluble one or a primarily defensive one, though.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarians is one of the few martials with weak AC. Which means they are more likely to get hit and lose that temp HP. Even then they are able to stack the free shield feat with renewed vigor to get the benefit of both. Also being able to not use a hand on the shield is just great flavor wise.
Stacking a shield and that Feat is almost always gonna be a bad idea for action economy reasons. And I said it was good, just that an on-level shield was significantly better, which it is.
Rogue debilitations are -1 to strength (most attack rolls use strength) and -10 to speed which mean monsters have more dificulty following.
Right, if you use those. The Feats to improve Debilitation mean that most characters wind up almost literally never using those (at least once they have the Feat), and are very good but purely offensive advantages.
Swash buckler does spend an action to move. But they get rewarded by getting panache which they can spend for better attacks. Which balances out.
Sure. Never said otherwise. My point was that, movement and some HP aside, their defenses are no better than the caster most levels unless they take specific Feats. They certainly get to move more, but that's part of the action economy advantage I was discussing more than movement in and of itself.
If they're using it to gain Panache, they're also usually not winding up very far away from their opponent since that's done via Tumble Through.
Rangers typically are archers and have good AC and HP.
Melee Rangers are an entirely viable thing. And they have more HP but my whole point is that no, they don't have more AC at most levels.
Inquisitors have more HP.
Assuming you mean Investigators, not more than Bards, Druids, or Clerics they don't.
Those 2 HP per level seem small, but they matter.
Sure, and I never said otherwise. But it's not character breaking only having 8, as both Rogue and Investigator demonstrate. 8 HP zand decent Con make for perfectly valid melee characters.
Barbarians is one of the few martials with weak AC. Which means they are more likely to get hit and lose that temp HP. Even then they are able to stack the free shield feat with renewed vigor to get the benefit of both. Also being able to not use a hand on the shield is just great flavor wise.
This is my experience. Renewed Vigor is a great 3rd action to bolster hit points. Hammer a couple of times. 3rd hit mostly misses anyway. Get a little hit point buffer. If you have DR as well and a ton of hit points, you can stand for ages.