| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
When comparing baseline martial offense and defense between full casters specced into melee and full martials, please stop handwaving or dismissing spells as an important factor to balance around.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
When comparing baseline martial offense and defense between full casters specced into melee and full martials, please stop handwaving or dismissing spells as an important factor to balance around.
Yeah, if optional feats can be considered, spells can as well.
Also, I do agree with Squiggit's point on proficiencies. It makes a lot more sense for classes to never or always have similar proficiencies than to only sometimes have them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Yes I 100% agree, this is one of the few things that just make no since to me. Only reason I can think is so characters feel "different' but honestly instead it just makes those characters that get the proficiency staggered feeling worse at random times.
I really love Pathfinder 2e but things like this are just so odd. Overall if I could make two changes I would have loved if proficiencies were more streamlined and characters got offense/defense proficiency at the same level, I hate casters having 4 levels they have to hit problems.
The other thing would be letting players choose whatever for their class stat and the class dc be the same thing where you choose from X choices just not effect stats. It does the same thing as proficiencies where starting with an 16 vs 18 for the most part only matters 50% of the time but makes it so gish characters can "feel" bad at those levels.
The last thing of course is super subjective and in the grand scheme of things they are quite minor since the game still feels great imo, I feel like most agree all the random proficiency gaps just make classes feel bad at certain levels rather than making the other classes feel good.
I feel bad for our alchemist who is level 6, he pretty much just likes to throw bombs and he has such a bad hit chance even for his first hit. Luckily he still does some damage on a failure.
I think staggered proficiencies that result in random seeming levels is just a consequence of having discrete bonuses representing a curve of power. The curve of power was what they were designing and that includes an array of bonuses and features.
Focusing too much on a +2/-2 here or there is a far too simplistic mindset, and doesn't take into account actual play where those off levels have other things going on.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Focusing too much on a +2/-2 here or there is a far too simplistic mindset, and doesn't take into account actual play where those off levels have other things going on.
"Every +1 matters" but "don't worry about these +2/-2s here or there in class progression."
Yeah. Ok. Sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane and Occult are fine with longstrider, mirror image, blur, levitate and invisibility all as powerful low level spells that help you stay alive.
Divine and Primal however do fall behind there lacking those options. Ofc classes with those spell lists are generally hardier but the fewer spells they have like Barkskin just don’t stand up well.
This is also a place where things like scrolls and wands work nicely since most of these defensive spells are low level and you can be pretty effective using minimal gold for upgrades there.
This is honestly my biggest problem with the way spells get divided up. A primal sorcerer for instance having few of the defensive options of the Druid or the arcane spell list alike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Divine and Primal however do fall behind there lacking those options. Ofc classes with those spell lists are generally hardier but the fewer spells they have like Barkskin just don’t stand up well.
Don't forget the potential for Heal as a defensive spell. So long as you aren't dropped, nothing frustrates the opposition like using a spell slot to just undo all the damage they just put on you.
The visuals might not be the same as damage prevention, but the fact that healing became meaningfully efficient makes it a valid and winning use of actions now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Focusing too much on a +2/-2 here or there is a far too simplistic mindset, and doesn't take into account actual play where those off levels have other things going on."Every +1 matters" but "don't worry about these +2/-2s here or there in class progression."
Yeah. Ok. Sure.
All I'm saying is that it's foolish to look at two numbers on two different classes at one level out of twenty in a vacuum and decide whether it's fair or not.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Talking about power curves and class budgets is too theoretical and too dismissive of actual play.
The fact that it might make sense down the road has no bearing on a couple of level 5 characters fighting a group of enemies. If it's a one-shot instead of a campaign, it might never be relevant. That's the whole point and the whole reason these gaps feel silly.
Moreover, "oh well don't worry about it it'll be fine later" isn't even remotely a justification. It does nothing to explain why that gap is good for the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When comparing baseline martial offense and defense between full casters specced into melee and full martials, please stop handwaving or dismissing spells as an important factor to balance around.
I would but since it requires the majority of my round to lay down a single spell. The only time this holds any water in actual play is if you were able to prebuff.
Or you can spend 2-3 rounds buffing yourself up to martial prowess and watch as the right is over or almost over. That's fun too I guess.
Talking about power curves and class budgets is too theoretical and too dismissive of actual play.
The fact that it might make sense down the road has no bearing on a couple of level 5 characters fighting a group of enemies. If it's a one-shot instead of a campaign, it might never be relevant. That's the point of the issue.
Such an argument still does nothing to explain why these gaps are good for the game either. It's foolish to try to dismiss that as a problem that just sorts itself out in the long run if there's no reason for that to even exist in the first place.
Getting access to something before someone else can provide a significant inter-class differentiation. In most of these arguments people neglect the full arc of play. Sure one-shots may highlight gaps because of the unfortunate nature of having discrete bonuses mapped to a smooth curve. However, that doesn't mean they should design all classes with exactly the same ability deltas for the whole game.
I personally only play games that span at *least* three levels. Unless I'm constantly comparing my numbers to my team mates, I don't actually ever feel these dips and gaps, I experience the arc of my character's progression which includes gear, spells, feats, and even player skill. These greatly help to smooth out the gaps that people are getting into a tizzy about.
I'd rather they design around the full experience rather than individual pieces.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I have limited hands on experience with the war pricest, but mine did pretty well from levels 1-5 and level 9. (Those numbers do skirt around a proficiency gap at level 5, I'll admit .) They always felt like they were contributing in a party with a fighter, barbarian, and monk.
Leahy Warpriest of Gozreh.
2 Emblazon Armament
4 Druid Dedication
6 Domain Initiate
8 Emblazon Energy
With Ray of Frost and Electric Arc, I was potent at long, mid, and close range. While the beef cakes were wasting actions navigating difficult terrain (Age of Ashes has several fights where just reaching the enenmiesnis a whole thing) I was hurling magic. Once I got the returning rune I could chuck that too. With a different ancestry I could get those cantrips running up sooner and probably squeeze in Divine Weapon for more damage.
By 8th level, I could throw lightning bolts or searing lights in the same turn that I threw and recalled my lightning charged trident like it was Thor's hammer. The depth of the offensive toolbox and the tactical flexibility it provided felt great.
Nor did I find I took a lot of damage. Part of that was because I played my character smarter than the martials, but I also played it like a caster first. Switch hitting is really effective this edition. I moved into melee when a good opportunity presented itself, but not when it didn't. I rarely raised my shield, but having the buffer when I needed it was nice too.
Ranged martial casters definitely seem a lot more effective than melee ones, because the action cost of moving into position doesn't play well with casting and striking every round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranged martial casters definitely seem a lot more effective than melee ones, because the action cost of moving into position doesn't play well with casting and striking every round.
Agreed, but with the asterisk that the short range of many spells means a ranged weapon can just be a melee weapon with the thrown trait. Which does preclude some big two handed stuff, bit still leaves a bunch of cool options.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting access to something before someone else can provide a significant inter-class differentiation. In most of these arguments people neglect the full arc of play. Sure one-shots may highlight gaps because of the unfortunate nature of having discrete bonuses mapped to a smooth curve. However, that doesn't mean they should design all classes with exactly the same ability deltas for the whole game.
I personally only play games that span at *least* three levels. Unless I'm constantly comparing my numbers to my team mates, I don't actually ever feel these dips and gaps, I experience the arc of my character's progression which includes gear, spells, feats, and even player skill. These greatly help to smooth out the gaps that people are getting into a tizzy about.
I'd rather they design around the full experience rather than individual pieces.
While I agree significant inter-class differentiation is important I completely disagree that the rest can be considered good game design and a game with such tight math as PF1e.
Accuracy is super tight in pf2 and a massive contributor to how a class feels to play. Having one class jump ahead in accuracy in their primary attacks compared to another is a crappy experience for those that fall behind. Every level should feel good. Sure 3rd level spells are nice at 5th level but its crappy when they are frequently saved against while your martial buddies succeed far more frequently. Does waiting 2 level really 'add to significant differentiation?' I don't feel it does at the expense of fun/satisfying play.
Casters (wizards/sorcs in particular) feel terrible till about level 7. We had a new player come over from 5e excited to play a lore oracle. When she reviewed how little she really had to contribute in combat (woo daze hit for 4pts of damage - the second time after the mob made their save the first time) she became quickly disheartened. Claims but 'it will get better in 6 levels' weren't really great reassurance. The dwarf ranger in the party had a lucky double crit and did 48pts of damage on the same turn just made it worse. Low level casters don't have great moments and that can be a crappy first experience.
Every level, particularly levels 1-5 matter. Saying it evens out in the end is a terrible game experience. You never know what level a new player is going to join at and you need to make sure no matter what class they pick its going to feel good. Creating levels with lower accuracy in their primary schtick than other types of classes get in theirs is a terrible feeling and largely arbitrary. As others in this thread have raised does delaying proficiency actually improve the game or experience? Does it make a great difference? 3rd level spells are cool and all but they just waited 5 levels to really come online only to have to wait to more to get the same level of reliability other party members already got.
TLDR - arbitrarily holding some classes back 'for class differentiation' is a terrible way to go about it. All levels matter, being less accurate at your main schtick (especially when it is resource limited) is a terrible feeling. Classes are already different enough without delaying how good one class is able to do its thing.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness, Alchemist (which has lots of issues, this included) aside, almost all the Proficiency differences are defensive rather than offensive.
The only offensive disparity aside from Alchemist is the one you mention, between martials and casters at level 5-6 specifically...but that's really not an apples to apples comparison on most things, because casters are using Save spells while martials are rolling attacks. If they manage to target low Saves, their 'accuracy' winds up on par with martials even counting the martial's Proficiency increase and magic weapons, and actually at 'even' Proficiency Save spells are just better since they have effects even on a 'miss' (ie: a successful Save).
I'm not saying the situation is ideal, but it's not nearly as bad as having a character lag until 7th for actual attack Proficiency like Alchemists have to.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
because casters are using Save spells while martials are rolling attacks.
Casters are often rolling attacks too, especially at lower levels where cantrips are more relevant, because a lot of those are attack based.
Moreover, a caster can target average or high saves too, especially relevant for prepared casters who might not always be able to know in advance what the save distribution of their enemies. So I don't think it's a fair assertion that they'll always be targeting the best save to make up the difference.
But, the most important thing here is that all of that is totally irrelevant.
The issue at hand isn't whether or not Casters are accurate enough (that's another topic), it's the inconsistency of the accuracy at issue here. A fourth level Wizard is one point behind the Barbarian (owing to striking runes) and has identical proficiency. A fifth level wizard is three points behind and a seventh level wizard is once again one point behind.
Regardless of whether or not a Spellcaster is balanced around having lagging proficiency to make up for their ability to target weak saves, you'd expect the curve one way or the other to be consistent, or at least change in a relatively linear fashion. Instead we get two level dip that... doesn't appear to serve any actual game balance purpose, or at the very least no one has put forward one yet. That's bad.
That said, yeah, Alchemists also have some pretty lame proficiency issues too.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness, 3rd level spells, which kick in at 5th, are a big upshot in the power of many casters, so there's an argument for the -2 at those levels being a balancing measure and their new +2 at 7th being compensated for by martials Weapon Specialization and improved defenses.
I'm not sure I entirely buy that, but it's not completely out there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness, 3rd level spells, which kick in at 5th, are a big upshot in the power of many casters, so there's an argument for the -2 at those levels being a balancing measure and their new +2 at 7th being compensated for by martials Weapon Specialization and improved defenses.
I'm not sure I entirely buy that, but it's not completely out there.
That is an argument I can understand, however not fully get behind, as e.g. on the divine list the prime attack spells for level 5 are Searing Light (requires spell attack roll), Blindness (Incap, Fort save) and Vampiric Touch (Fort save). This is bar any hightened spells of course.
So a cleric either has to hit AC as any martial needs to (but with much worse accuracy because of missing proficiency and to-hit rune), has no AoE capability and no variance in which save to target (Fort often also is the best save for many creatures).
|
|
Yeah, I'm not sure I quite buy it either.
My point is not that I agree that the current martial/caster Proficiency break at 5th and 6th is correct (I'm not sure either way, actually), just that comparing Proficiencies between Attack Bonus and Spellcasting is not a direct 1 to 1 comparison in the way comparing two Classes Proficiency in the same thing is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm not sure I quite buy it either.
My point is not that I agree that the current martial/caster Proficiency break at 5th and 6th is correct (I'm not sure either way, actually), just that comparing Proficiencies between Attack Bonus and Spellcasting is not a direct 1 to 1 comparison in the way comparing two Classes Proficiency in the same thing is.
I think part of the problem is that martial proficiency mostly only serves one purpose or application, i.e. attacking (yes I know class DC is a thing).
However in their efforts to simplify the system the designers of PF2 have baked 3 different applications into just one spellcasting proficiency, namely spell attack bonus, spell DC and counteract modifier each of which could theoretically use their own modifier (and for good reason).
The "problem" is that while doing so you probably need to go by the most restrivive denominator in order to not break the system. So when an early increase in DC would pose a problem due to the availability of more powerful AoE spells the spell attack and counteract modifiers will need to stay down regardless even if those two would not prove critical to the system on their own.
Decoupling of applications would have its merits, like giving the Warpriest better condition removal chances without making him as powerful as the Cloistered Cleric when it comes to offensive spells or removing the "need" for spell attack items, however in our case the design team chose simplicity over flexibility.
One hypothetical example of where an inconsistent gap could exist and be beneficial to the game is a caster that gets new levels of spells one level behind full casters (like 1e sorcerers vs wizards)
A magus built with such a paradigm would be one level on par with a full caster's max spell level and the next behind. Looking at that in a vacuum one could say "If it's okay to be on par one level, why isn't it okay for all levels?"
But a hypothetical magus designed such a way would allow the full casters to show off new spell capabilities before the partial caster could (like flight or plane hopping) . This would allow the full casters to feel like substantially better casters throughout their careers.
I'm not 100% convinced that proficiencies are a fantastic example of such a paradigm, since they're just hard boring numbers, but I think it's worth considering.
It would be best if people compared to-hit values against some standard, rather than class to class. Say, chance to hit at-level enemies. If such a curve over 20 levels is very uneven and bumpy, dropping below expected hit % frequently, I'd be more convinced it's a problem. Comparing it class to class means tying one class's competence to anothers, despite advancing competence being a major class feature.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be best if people compared to-hit values against some standard, rather than class to class.
It would be best if all class evaluations were done this way, as opposed to class to class.
Way too many conclusions are reached because one class is less good than another, while forgetting this isnt a competitive game.
A class is viable so long as its a meaningful contributor with enough potency to help a party overcome obstacles designed according to the standards laid out in the rules.
Even an alchemist hits that benchmark - as does, I suspect, something like a sorcerer built to live on the front lines and use the occasional third action making a weapon or unarmed strike.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm not sure I quite buy it either.
My point is not that I agree that the current martial/caster Proficiency break at 5th and 6th is correct (I'm not sure either way, actually), just that comparing Proficiencies between Attack Bonus and Spellcasting is not a direct 1 to 1 comparison in the way comparing two Classes Proficiency in the same thing is.
I think part of the problem is that martial proficiency mostly only serves one purpose or application, i.e. attacking (yes I know class DC is a thing).
However in their efforts to simplify the system the designers of PF2 have baked 3 different applications into just one spellcasting proficiency, namely spell attack bonus, spell DC and counteract modifier each of which could theoretically use their own modifier (and for good reason).
The "problem" is that while doing so you probably need to go by the most restrivive denominator in order to not break the system. So when an early increase in DC would pose a problem due to the availability of more powerful AoE spells the spell attack and counteract modifiers will need to stay down regardless even if those two would not prove critical to the system on their own.
Decoupling of applications would have its merits, like giving the Warpriest better condition removal chances without making him as powerful as the Cloistered Cleric when it comes to offensive spells or removing the "need" for spell attack items, however in our case the design team chose simplicity over flexibility.
I cannot agree enough with the idea that the developers clearly chose to condense the complexity of casting by having saves, attacks and counteract into one consistent spell casting proficiency, and that trying to look at only one of the three in comparison to other classes is going to be problematic.
Spell casting proficiency effects all three. At level 5, when martials get their weapon boost, it comes a level after monsters get an extra boost to ACs (level 4), but they don't get the boost to saves until level 6. Spell attack spells are much worse than saving throw spells for casters at level 5, and then close to equally bad at level 6 again.
My problem with the divine list is that there is too much incredible utility on it to ever even consider taking damage spells. Wandering through the woods in a massive hexcrawl, Wander's Guide is basically as good as a 15th level legendary survival skill feat (legendary guide) as long as you know your end destination. Dream message allows for coordination of intercontinental communication with running an organization. As long as you explain what you are doing in advance and don't expect a response, it is nearly as good as the 5th level sending spell. These kinds of spells make your character feel incredibly powerful and magical, much more so than chilling darkness/searing light one time in an encounter.
I know a lot of it has to do with the tradition of the game, but I wish a lot more combat spells could have been battle form spells like fiery body, giving you one action blasts comparable to martial attacks for one full combat, rather than trying to balance the individual spells with those attacks and having them have to be so swingy with the damage, because they have to contend with being on level for accuracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be best if people compared to-hit values against some standard, rather than class to class.It would be best if all class evaluations were done this way, as opposed to class to class.
Way too many conclusions are reached because one class is less good than another, while forgetting this isnt a competitive game.
A class is viable so long as its a meaningful contributor with enough potency to help a party overcome obstacles designed according to the standards laid out in the rules.
Even an alchemist hits that benchmark - as does, I suspect, something like a sorcerer built to live on the front lines and use the occasional third action making a weapon or unarmed strike.
Man we almost died in that last fight. But that alchemist actually hitting for once helped.
This is not something I've heard
It would be best if people compared to-hit values against some standard, rather than class to class.It would be best if all class evaluations were done this way, as opposed to class to class.
Way too many conclusions are reached because one class is less good than another, while forgetting this isnt a competitive game.
A class is viable so long as its a meaningful contributor with enough potency to help a party overcome obstacles designed according to the standards laid out in the rules.
Even an alchemist hits that benchmark - as does, I suspect, something like a sorcerer built to live on the front lines and use the occasional third action making a weapon or unarmed strike.
Man we almost died in that last fight. But that alchemist actually hitting for once helped.
This is not something I've heard
Alchemists don't really need to "hit" to deal damage, which is a big plus for them. Splash isn't great... until you're exploiting a weakness, and an alchemist with Quick Bomber or whatever just melts a target.
That said, their damage when stacking and abusing persistent damage via sticky bombs is actually pretty solid too.
Their real "big" contribution is as a (admittedly not terribly fun for everyone) elixir and poison vending machine.
Things like cheetah and mistform elixirs are solid buffs that are pretty easy to have in effect "perpetually" for all practical purposes (one action at the start of a fight is a good deal for mistforms), and there are a ton of elixirs which are situational but awesome.
Poisons are... better than most assume. Poison immunity is surprisingly NOT omnipresent at high levels, and many poisons deal good damage and have good side effects to boot. Combine contact poisons and Master/Legendary stealth for some fun shenanigans with the proper setup.
The big problem with alchemists is they don't really play like they advertise... their strongest use isn't the whole "mad bomber" thing. But even that isn't useless, just mediocre.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My flurry ranger really appreciates an alchemist with bottled lightning in the party. That flat-footed condition saves me a move action to flank which means I get another attack with my neck splitter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
AoA Book 2 and my Draconic Sorc, Harm Cleric, Giant Barbarian were completely overshadowed by a alchemist who prepped a bunch of Frost Vials.
Alchemists passing out bombs can also be really effective. Especially if they have a ranger with quickdraw in the party. The red dragon/fire giant encounter from the playtest got wrecked by this combo.
Course, that stretches their reagents pretty thin, but that's part of why I like "advanced alchemy makes 4 items" house rule.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That implies every creature you fight will have weakness. Or that you will know it. Or that you will be able to target it.
3 ifs is a lot of ifs
Plus most persistent damage without weakness is terribly poor. But then I look at impact on the fight for performance. Not consolation prize damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness, 3rd level spells, which kick in at 5th, are a big upshot in the power of many casters, so there's an argument for the -2 at those levels being a balancing measure and their new +2 at 7th being compensated for by martials Weapon Specialization and improved defenses.
I'm not sure I entirely buy that, but it's not completely out there.
As a Wizard, 3rd level spells help, but it's not enough. Fireball isn't really useful as enemies and allies may be intermingled, making using it not a good idea. Lightning Bolt requires lining them up just right (possible against dumb enemies, not so against trained enemies), and AOE spells in general don't match anything the martials do in a round unless you get 3-4 targets (or more), targeting a save they aren't good at. Vampiric Touch is also relatively weak since there is no such thing as a bad Fortitude save, and the likely targets will have superb saves or immunities against it. Slow is decent, but runs into the same problems as Vampiric Touch. Haste is literally the best spell of 3rd level, best used on someone with the best party contributions, like a Martial; surprise surprise, the best spells are the ones that make the Martials shine and not the caster themselves. And that's using 3rd level Magic Missile as a baseline for effectiveness, which averages 20 damage for 3 actions, no saves, no resistances, nothing. 23 if you're a Sorcerer.
Meanwhile, a Monk is flurrying for better bonuses at a presumably easier number to hit, with an average of 17 damage from a single action, not including things like Ki Strike, Inspire Courage, flanking, frightened, etc.
I really think that if spellcasters had proficiencies identical to the martials in terms of spellcasting (with Master being the baseline just like with martials), they'd feel a lot better to play. Expert at 5, Master at 13, Legendary at 19...maybe, at least for a class like the Wizard, who is the spellcasting equivalent of a Fighter.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That implies every creature you fight will have weakness. Or that you will know it. Or that you will be able to target it.
3 ifs is a lot of ifs
Plus most persistent damage without weakness is terribly poor. But then I look at impact on the fight for performance. Not consolation prize damage.
1) No, it doesn't. We are saying that the bomber is great when creatures have those weaknesses, not that all creatures have weaknesses. The fact that they have problems when this isn't the case has already been acknowledged.
2) The creatures with the most common elemental weaknesses are elementals, dragons, and giants, all of which are identified with Intelligence based skills the Alchemist probably has. Also, it doesn't exactly take meta knowledge to think "maybe I should try fire on the giant with ice breath."
3) With quick alchemy any alchemist worth their salt should be able to whip up the appropriate bomb. (Though this is part of where a modicrum of system mastery comes in. I'm of the opinion low level formulas should "heighten" automatically.)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Way too many conclusions are reached because one class is less good than another, while forgetting this isnt a competitive game.
Game not being competitive doesn't make missing more often because your proficiency lags behind for no discernible reason any more fun, though.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Game not being competitive doesn't make missing more often because your proficiency lags behind for no discernible reason any more fun, though.
Way too many conclusions are reached because one class is less good than another, while forgetting this isnt a competitive game.
Thats true - but I'm talking more about things like certain classes being dismissed as bad because they deal less damage than other classes, and classes being dismissed as not being functional in combat because their Strikes are at -2 (despite the class in question being a full caster than can make other, more powerful contributions in addition).
Bards may be "relatively" bad at melee because their accuracy lags, but they're functional enough that someone shouldn't feel bad about building to survive up close and make melee strikes - so long as they understand thats secondary to compositions and being a full spellcaster.
The standard for a "melee bard" shouldn't be a Fighter replacement - it should be a Bard whose actions in melee are a net contribution, and a total deficit of -4 at level 20 (2x attribute due to starting 16 and no apex item bonus, and -2 for proficiency) does not make making weapon strikes a waste.
You can easily make a Bard who hangs out in melee with armor, who can be quickened to still afford a composition, a spell, and a strike every turn. Use lingering comp when you need to move. And its totally fine - so long as you don't maintain that the standard for meaningful melee is a barbarian of fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very well put Krispy!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad you agree they shouldn't feel bad about speccing into melee as a caster.
Unfortunately they do. Because they are bad at it. Sure not at low level. But soon as proficiencies kick in it begins and becomes worse.
You can either spend entire first rounds setting up buffs to still do less. Or just do less. No amount of investment makes you a good weapon attacker.
This all said. I'm fine with the discrepancy. I'm fine with bard's being casters who don't do the martial thing well. I'm fine with casters being stuck as casters and martials being stuck as martials.
Though I am hoping we get more Magus style classes in the future. Or some kind of unique prestige class specific archetype that can give up say.. magic for more martial prowess in some way. But I don't have high hopes for that
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
-4 is absolutely massive in this system. Flat disagree. We are not playing pf1e math here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-4 before spells, where half of that difference is explicitly another class's main feature.
At 20th level the bard could, you know, stop time to get buffs going too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
-4 before spells, where half of that difference is explicitly another class's main feature.
At 20th level the bard could, you know, stop time to get buffs going too.
Right.
-4 is appropriate for a casters second contribution during a turn, exactly like -4 or -5 is appropriate for a Martial characters second contribution.
A Bard should not be relying on a Strike as their main thing, but that doesn't mean a Strike at -4 isn't a valuable action worth expending some effort for.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
-4 is absolutely massive in this system. Flat disagree. We are not playing pf1e math here.
That's better than a fighter's second attack. Unless you think it is never worth attacking twice as a martial?
Otherwise, Krispy's cast once/strike once formula is pretty dang solid. And honestly seems like a fine balance point. Yes, this might not meet everyone's expectations, but "casters should probably cast spells instead of only swinging a sword" is not a big jump to make.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
-4 is absolutely massive in this system. Flat disagree. We are not playing pf1e math here.That's better than a fighter's second attack. Unless you think it is never worth attacking twice as a martial?
Otherwise, Krispy's cast once/strike once formula is pretty dang solid. And honestly seems like a fine balance point. Yes, this might not meet everyone's expectations, but "casters should probably cast spells instead of only swinging a sword" is not a big jump to make.
Fighter would be ahead by +6 and probably any other +4 martial would deal way better damage on a second strike. Just for completeness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't view it as solid sorry. They are better off being a caster and finding a one action support move they works with either their primary or secondary stat.
I won't ever diss a player that makes a melee bard. Cringe to myself maybe. And I won't pull punches just for their choice either.
But invariably I find players realize how this edition works. How the math isn't going to go in their favor and they retrain or ask you change characters. I let them. So you could argue it works itself out as well
I think the delay on caster proficiency upgrade levels makes no sense, personally, and will definitely toss at least their spell attack proficiency 2 levels back, if not the whole thing. Along with the lack of a bonus item for spell attacks, it seems like Paizo being a bit overly cautious on balance, which others have felt in other elements of the system.
It also feels like the growing pains of having a unified system of even levels for choices and odd levels for class math upgrades, with the need to mix things up between classes (because you'd almost certainly have more people crying 4E if everyone also had the same levels for every type of proficiency upgrade), while also being mindful of tight math in a chunky (every two levels, can't have more than 1-2 per level) structure. As noted, most differences are at least only for defensive upgrades, which are important but for some reason not as focused on for players most of the time. The few classes that have different offensive upgrade levels tend to feel...weird, and/or bad, though. At least for some.
All of this said, I do vaguely agree that a caster physical attack having the same MAP as a martial second attack (with less damage) isn't non-viable or anything.
...
I wonder if it would feel better to people if caster proficiency for physical attacks was the same as martial proficiency, but with double the MAP to make second or third attacks pretty much a no-go (but have one almost as accurate attack). That'd probably be a little wacky, admittedly.