| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just had a pretty fun encounter involving a cliff and climbing. You can throw 40 ft cliffs at your party pretty easily by level 3 or 4 and there will probably be at least one character who can take that fall without even thinking about it.
The party decided to have one player climb the cliff and tie a rope to one of two statues at the top of the cliff. When she got to the top and started tying to try the rope around the statue, it turned out the statues were gargoyles and the both attacked. Realizing that fighting two equal level monsters by herself was not going to go well, she decided to jump off the cliff to rejoin the group that could fight the gargoyles from range. PF2 makes it a lot of fun to incorporate the terrain into encounters and let challenges include more than just a straight monster fight.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason this is a problem in PF2 is that outside of combat almost no obstacle is overcome by more than 3 rolls. That's way way too few in order to be something that the player is interested in being a character superstar at doing.Which is why no classes are superstars at specific skills.
Which is why every class is boring at skills.
That is definitely, definitely, an issue that is down to taste.
In general, I'd rather a challenge be resolved in as few rolls as possible - one per person, if reasonable.
Asking for a series of rolls to overcome a single obstacle is asking the players to roll until one rolls badly IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah that hasn't been my experience at all, while some minor obstacles or knowledge checks are a single roll, more comprehensive challenges arent only possible they're specifically encouraged.
Look at Chapter 3 of the gamemadter's guide, there's gonna be a massive research challenge for my party tonight, and of course infiltration are another example.
A lot of that boils down to even asking yourself if a roll is necessary. While the players and GMs are still learning the system, it can be nice to figure it out and actually roll it, but in actual practice, unless you write consequences into the encounter that are related to time, you are probably better off not having the players roll it, and going with assumed progress.
For example swimming across a river is only actually an encounter, and not narrative imagery when the DC is high enough that the risk of critical failure is more than a 1, even if the river is really, really wide. I had this come up when the players managed to get stuck on a large boat in the middle of wide river. They had no chance of piloting the boat with just the four of them, since they killed the crew of pirates and none of them had any relevant lore skill. I let them cast the anchor, but they were around 190ft from shore. We rolled out the athletics checks, because the rules for it were all still new enough for us that we wanted to see how it would work out, but the rules for swimming only really matter if there is a reason you can't breathe. Otherwise, even two critical failures in a row really have no serious consequence.
Without the GM preparing a consequences tree in advance, there are still certain skill challenges that are completely meaningless within the rules as written. We might eventually get some support for whipping something up on the fly (a wilderness exploration GM resource with lots of interesting consequence trees built into it for common wilderness situations would be pretty cool) but for now, there are definitely times where the rules don't give you much to work with on your own.
Picking locks seems like another one of these areas where "only roll when the GM has reasons for making time mater" is one of them. It is slightly funny that climbing is not one of them while swimming is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah that hasnt been my experience at all, while some minor obstacles or knowledge checks are a single roll, more comprehensive challenges arent only posdible theyre specifically encouraged.
Look at Chapter 3 of the gamemadter's guide, theres gonna be a massive research challenge for my party tonight, and of course infiltrations are another example.
The "Quick Encounter" scale Victory Point subsystem is the basis of my favorite setup.
Generally, it means that everyone rolls once, and you need more net successes than failures (IE, 3 Vps for 4 PCs).
I've used longer variants in the past, but generally I like this sort of setup - everyone working toward a goal, and only Critical Failures set you back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general, I'd rather a challenge be resolved in as few rolls as possible - one per person, if reasonable.
In terms of climbing a wall or whatever, sure. Low number of rolls is great, it keeps the game flowing (which is why picking locks in PF2 is freaking ridiculous).
But you could say the same thing about combat too, "killing a goblin should be resolved in as few rolls as possible, one per person." (7th continent resolves combat in a single check! But it also resolves everything in a single check).
But that's not a problem with how good you are at skills its a problem of making skill challenges interesting with a multitude of options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
making skill challenges interesting with a multitude of options.
Ngl, that kinda sounds like like a group specific thing to me.
Like, that doesn't sound like a system wide issue, more than it does a reflection of how your gm builds obstacles. Unless you're directly referencing certain adventure paths or what have you, in which case the issue would be with them, not the system.
Case in point, I have never experienced what you're talking about. In my current campaign, we've gone from level 3 to 11, and we've never had an obstacle that amounted to "you roll this specific skill, better hope you're good enough at it". There's always options, and choices, and often times there's a way to surpass the obstacle without even having to roll. We get out of it what we put in, which I think is fair in games like pathfinder.
I get that every table is different, and my experiences clearly aren't the same as everyones', but I think that could also apply to the idea that obstacles are a single roll pass or fail type thing - that is to say, it sounds kinda specific to your table, especially considering the response from some others in the thread.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanna briefly pipe up (almost never post here) and add to the discussion of competition for spotlight and say that in my various groups, I have not had this problem at all. In fact, a primary motive of every player at the table has been to ensure that everyone **else** is getting their moment in the sun. Literally people are yielding up left and right and acting in a way that elevates their teammates. It's really positive.
The idea of everyone jockying for their shot isn't universal by any means.
I would argue that PD2E's design both encourages this and makes it easier to do.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have started to believe that the PF2 playtest had it right with +1 for proficiency levels, rather than +2. At the time it really looked lame to have a +30 to-hit, of which only +4 come from being LEGENDARY in weapons; but by playing a lot of PF2 you realize that's just a perception issue. A +2 to hit compared to non-martials that is essentially insurmountable is HUGE and will be felt! It took until the game came out to realize how big of a difference a +1 is! Playtest multiclass combinations could achieve some really interesting things because proficiency wasn't so throttling. Those -2 or sometimes -4 differences are painful when enemies are benchmarked to challenge optimized fighters. It's compounded slightly by non-martials being unable to get a starting 18 on STR/DEX and usually not getting the potency runes as fast.
I might be experimenting with that as a house rule to see if it makes people become able to play things like melee focused Bard/Druids/Oracles without making the dedicated martials feel unimpressive (which can be fixed with more feats or something). It could also make martials with MC spellcaster or some other form of spells with bad scaling become more palatable. Should allow more "dabbling"!
Think 5E kinda had it right making the underlying math be equal for everyone, with the actual abilities from your class being the main differentiators. Fighter has the same to-hit as the Wizard at every level, but they have better weapons, better class support for weapons and multi-attacks, so they're still top tier fighters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, that doesn't sound like a system wide issue, more than it does a reflection of how your gm builds obstacles. Unless you're directly referencing certain adventure paths or what have you, in which case the issue would be with them, not the system.
Oh its not the system's fault that the people who made the system use it in a particular way when building adventures?
Because let me just pop open some of the modules made by the designers...
To get the wagon moving
again, at least two PCs must help, although it will be
easier if more assist.
Everyone helping on this task must attempt a
DC 15 Athletics check. As long as two PCs succeed,
the wagon gets moving again without incident.
Simple check involving two people. Two rolls needed.
A PC who succeeds at a DC 14 Medicine check
determines that Bort is not choking on anything, but
that his windpipe has swollen shut, indicating that he
has been poisoned. Allow an extra Medicine check to
use Treat Poison (against the virulent poison’s DC of
24) to help Bort attempt his Fortitude save to resist,
but the amount put in his porridge is just too great,
and even if his throat is somehow opened so he can
breathe, he still fails every save against the poison
and dies (22 Hit Points, Fortitude Save +6).
One roll actually matters here, because the additional rolls are superseded by "he still fails every save."
The books are large and filled to the brim with
details about his travels and transactions over many
years. Acquiring any useful information from them
takes at least 4 hours and requires a successful DC 18
Decipher Writing check (using Society or a related Lore
skill).
One roll.
Disable DC 15 Thievery to carefully excavate a path through
the wall without upsetting its balance, or DC 17 Athletics to
hold up any unstable portions
One roll to disable a hazard.
Treasure: A PC who succeeds at a DC 13 Nature check
notices a patch of chanterelle mushrooms among the
fungus
One roll, get stuff.
With a successful
DC 18 Arcana check to Recall Knowledge, a PC realizes
that faerie dragons are friendlier towards those who are
especially responsive to their tricks. PCs who succeed at
a DC 13 Deception, Diplomacy, or Performance check
to dramatically play along with Irilini’s pranks can draw
the dragon out into the open
Two rolls. Woo.
The closet is locked
with a slightly rusted padlock, so a successful DC 15
trained Thievery check is required to unlock it. On a
critical failure, the lock jams and becomes impossible to
open. If none of the PCs are able to open the lock, they
can instead bash the door down with a successful DC
17 Strength check—repeated failures do not affect the
PCs’ ability to try again.
One successful roll, get stuff. Failed, just keep rolling against a higher DC until you succeed.
Succeeding at a DC 18 Perception check allows the PCs to
notice a muffled, monotonous knocking sound coming from
under the remains of a destroyed bookshelf propped against the
wall in one corner of the room. Clearing the wreckage reveals
a tiny animated (but non-combatant) toy dwarf with an equally
tiny pickaxe, working relentlessly to enlarge an egg-sized hole
through the wall just above the floor
One check, advance the plot. (In an unimportant way, probably)
A character can study a lightless door as if examining a magic
item, and by succeeding at a DC 25 Spellcraft check can discover
how to use them.
One check.
This leads to area C1
on the mansion’s third floor. Succeeding at a DC 20 Knowledge
(arcana) check can reveal this method of activating the platform.
Again, one check.
I basically just searched three or four different published adventures for "DC 1" or "DC 2" and skimmed the results.
Every.
Single.
One.
Was one or two rolls. A lot were things that the entire party could attempt (eg. perception to notice a thing, knowledge to know a thing), but none of them were "do this skill, then that skill, then this other skill" to do anything. It was either one-and-done, a choice between two different skills, or 'if you fail, some minor bad stuff' (eg. "you failed picking the lock on this chest, there's a DC for breaking it, but there's no penalty for failing that check" or "you don't learn a thing about the plot" or "you have to fight some things").
I'm not sure what your groups are doing, but if the official way to use the system is "one-and-done" style checks (except picking locks because Reasons!?) then I'd say its a systemic flaw: that's the way the designers intended the system to be used.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Think 5E kinda had it right making the underlying math be equal for everyone, with the actual abilities from your class being the main differentiators. Fighter has the same to-hit as the Wizard at every level, but they have better weapons, better class support for weapons and multi-attacks, so they're still top tier fighters.
Agree. Not a huge fan of 5e personally but this is one thing I think they did a lot better.
Importantly, by making damage and other abilities the primary differentiating factor between martials and non-martials with weapons, they made it so the primary differentiator is degree of success, rather than success itself.
This is a big thing, imo, from a perception angle because in games where you define skill based around accuracy (like PF2), being worse at something means failing at something a lot more often... and failing consistently at doing something you want to do tends to feel really bad.
The other big thing is that by making it a damage gap, they can provide more intermediate options for specific builds, creating a gradient where a non-martial can take feats and class feature that give them some extra power without going all the way.
In PF2, because the math is so tight and martials have so few core class features, you can't really make an expert-tier class a little better at hitting someone without threatening to throw the whole thing out of whack.
Think 5E kinda had it right making the underlying math be equal for everyone, with the actual abilities from your class being the main differentiators. Fighter has the same to-hit as the Wizard at every level, but they have better weapons, better class support for weapons and multi-attacks, so they're still top tier fighters.Agree. Not a huge fan of 5e personally but this is one thing I think they did a lot better.
Importantly, by making damage and other abilities the primary differentiating factor between martials and non-martials with weapons, they made it so the primary differentiator is degree of success, rather than success itself.
Yeah, I can see that. I've only done a little 5e (and most of those games have been run by people who should not be GMs, one of which was an adventure that should never have been published*), so I don't have a good grasp on how it handles differentiating characters (though I do think its progression is way too flat).
And that's the least b!$~#+&@ part of the adventure.
Enmity of Thay. You have wronged Zulkir Dar’lon
Ma and he has made his displeasure known. Every
time you complete an adventure and for each day of
downtime you spend, roll a d20. On a roll of 20, you
are accosted by agents of the Thay – typically three
Red Wizards and two Assassins. Once you die to these
agents you may cross this story award off; alternately,
you can sacrifice one rare or better permanent magic
item and 10,000 gp to pay off your debt of dishonor to
the Zulkir. Your DM may choose to have you check for
the Thayan attack whenever you begin to take a long
rest, if they wish.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have started to believe that the PF2 playtest had it right with +1 for proficiency levels, rather than +2. At the time it really looked lame to have a +30 to-hit, of which only +4 come from being LEGENDARY in weapons; but by playing a lot of PF2 you realize that's just a perception issue. A +2 to hit compared to non-martials that is essentially insurmountable is HUGE and will be felt! It took until the game came out to realize how big of a difference a +1 is! Playtest multiclass combinations could achieve some really interesting things because proficiency wasn't so throttling. Those -2 or sometimes -4 differences are painful when enemies are benchmarked to challenge optimized fighters. It's compounded slightly by non-martials being unable to get a starting 18 on STR/DEX and usually not getting the potency runes as fast.
I might be experimenting with that as a house rule to see if it makes people become able to play things like melee focused Bard/Druids/Oracles without making the dedicated martials feel unimpressive (which can be fixed with more feats or something). It could also make martials with MC spellcaster or some other form of spells with bad scaling become more palatable. Should allow more "dabbling"!
Think 5E kinda had it right making the underlying math be equal for everyone, with the actual abilities from your class being the main differentiators. Fighter has the same to-hit as the Wizard at every level, but they have better weapons, better class support for weapons and multi-attacks, so they're still top tier fighters.
I was a huge proponent of keeping proficiencies at +1 in the playtest, because I saw that the tightness of the math made a +8 gap unreasonable for important stats, and that it was going to mean everyone had to advance in everything, at least to expert, which was going to do all the weird things like make wizards become expert (and only one tier behind full martials) in weapon proficiencies, when it would have been much better for trained alone to be a sufficient base line, with feats and abilities unlocked by proficiency making the meat of the difference between ranks, instead of raw numbers (like we see with weapon specialization and skill feats), but it was not a popular position at the time because people wanted to see more difference in numbers when they looked at a character sheet.
House ruling it back would be a ton of work because it is a pretty fundamental design difference that should change everything about the way proficiencies are given out, and you need extras to tag on to proficiency boosts outside of bonuses to the D20 if you want the differences to feel significant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with shroudb. The gap is meaningful at 2/tier, and closing that gap would also be meaningful, as would the sacrifice required to do so.
Imagine things like the bonus hp per archetype feat taken from a martial class extended to a culmination of greater weapon proficiency. Going all in on feats for multiclassing would be a significant investment and getting such a boost would be very interesting.
Class archetypes trading out spell levels, feats that let you burn resources like spells to catch up, stances that limit your spellcastinc... there are ways to do it
Master in weapon proficiency also giving you a +3 to damage through weapon specialization, as opposed to a trained character makes a big difference in being noticeably better at weapon attacks.
The problem with giving casters ways to get a +2 bonus to weapon accuracy, but not martial characters (ones stuck at master by class) makes a really weird dynamic where getting more accurate with weapons is something that casters can invest their time in, but not martial characters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A martial can spend five feats, three skill boosts, and two ability boosts to get master casting and up to 8th level spells.
8th level spells are a first accessed at 15th level by full casters. Further ability score investment isn't required to utilize lower level buff spells that retain their usefulness. Utility spells are also available for out of combat. Wands and staves are unlocked. Cantrips scale up to full level.
If a full caster could spend five feats and three skill boosts (athletics maybe?) for master weapon proficiency (which comes online at 13th level for martials) and some other martial goodies, I think it would be pretty fair.
Casters are always going to be behind from the start since they can't get an 18 in their attack stat.
Could also have something like a feat that lets you gain a rank in proficiency in exchange for reducing your weapons damage die one step. This would let you switch between high damage mob clear and low damage boss mode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Refining the idea of +1 proficiency jumps a bit, my group came up with a potential house rule to address these issues that would not require updating every statblock in the game:
If your character is a spellcaster, you get a +1 proficiency bonus to attack rolls. If you are a martial, you get a +1 proficiency bonus to all spell attacks and save DCs (for all traditions). This is in effect starting on level 1 (thought there's an argument to start at 5). No effect on Magus for now.
It seems pretty jank and backwards (It is a half-baked house rule, after all), but the goal is to make characters more competent at stuff that is already suboptimal for them, in case they want to build around it. Enemy stat blocks don't have to be adjusted (Hell, most NPCs already have something like this), and you can have Melee Bard, Melee Druid, Melee Sorc (after jumping through some hoops), and a very nasty Warpriest. On the flip-side, it also helps Martial-first gishes that want some offensive spells.
Will be playtesting some version of this in my games. I expect it might be too strong during the few levels where caster weapon proficiency overlaps with that of some martials (1-4 and 11-12), but that is yet to be seen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Master in weapon proficiency also giving you a +3 to damage through weapon specialization, as opposed to a trained character makes a big difference in being noticeably better at weapon attacks.
The problem with giving casters ways to get a +2 bonus to weapon accuracy, but not martial characters (ones stuck at master by class) makes a really weird dynamic where getting more accurate with weapons is something that casters can invest their time in, but not martial characters.
the other way to see it is that "martials gain their expertise for free while casters need to invest heavy resources for it"
as an example, a martial can get up to master in spellcasting though archetypes. it does take pretty significant investment for it though and doesn't come online until level 18.
but casters don't have the opposite venue to purse "martial proficiency"
Casters don't have venue to pursue martial proficiency because they already get it by default. The standard for martial proficiency is master and casters get expert by default-- one tier below martials. That is without multiclassing.
Meanwhile, casters get up to legendary proficiency in casting as the standard and martials can get one below that through spending a bunch of feats.
I feel like this really just nitpicking your example though, not your broader point.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also "a handful of spells from the lower utility spheres" is way better than "now I can use swords, axes, AND bows."
Having master spell casting proficiency and 2 second highest level spells is significantly behind even the warpriest who has probably 7 spells at the highest possible level. Spell slots are a big part of the balance of spell casters in PF2, that works both ways. Wizards getting more is a part of their balance, Multi-class characters being a level behind and getting less of them is a big part of the balance. Maybe if there was a way to give casters Master proficiency only in simple weapons it would be comparable, but that ship has sailed with archetypes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Worth noting - Legendary Casting is NOT EQUAL to Legendary Weapons.
Caster proficiencies are a tier ahead (probably) because casters lack item bonuses to hit, creating a baseline imbalance in accuracy.
A Legendary Caster vs a Master Martial is still behind by +1 on attack rolls.
Therefore, Master Casting from Archetypes is already equivalent to Expert Weapons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Worth noting - Legendary Casting is NOT EQUAL to Legendary Weapons.
Caster proficiencies are a tier ahead (probably) because casters lack item bonuses to hit, creating a baseline imbalance in accuracy.
A Legendary Caster vs a Master Martial is still behind by +1 on attack rolls.
Therefore, Master Casting from Archetypes is already equivalent to Expert Weapons.
Well yes.
But just because one part is broken lets fix it by breaking another part doesn't mean that they aren't both broken.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Worth noting - Legendary Casting is NOT EQUAL to Legendary Weapons.
Caster proficiencies are a tier ahead (probably) because casters lack item bonuses to hit, creating a baseline imbalance in accuracy.
A Legendary Caster vs a Master Martial is still behind by +1 on attack rolls.
Therefore, Master Casting from Archetypes is already equivalent to Expert Weapons.
True, but if casters all capped out at master (maybe Wizards get legendary to mirror fighters), then the game would look different. You could then have +1/2/3 wands that enhance spell attacks/saves similar to +1/2/3 weapons for martials. I'm curious why Paizo decided to go with the route of all casters hitting legendary vs everyone caps out at master. Then you can have a couple select classes (fighter and wizard) start off with expert and max out at legendary. Under this system, school specialist wizards could get legendary in spells from their school for example. Not sure how generalists would work with this framework. Archetypes that grant better martial/casting proficiencies would then cap out at expert.
This is just me spitballing some ideas
Worth noting - Legendary Casting is NOT EQUAL to Legendary Weapons.
Caster proficiencies are a tier ahead (probably) because casters lack item bonuses to hit, creating a baseline imbalance in accuracy.
A Legendary Caster vs a Master Martial is still behind by +1 on attack rolls.
Therefore, Master Casting from Archetypes is already equivalent to Expert Weapons.
True, but if casters all capped out at master (maybe Wizards get legendary to mirror fighters), then the game would look different. You could then have +1/2/3 wands that enhance spell attacks/saves similar to +1/2/3 weapons for martials. I'm curious why Paizo decided to go with the route of all casters hitting legendary vs everyone caps out at master. Then you can have a couple select classes (fighter and wizard) start off with expert and max out at legendary. Under this system, school specialist wizards could get legendary in spells from their school for example. Not sure how generalists would work with this framework. Archetypes that grant better martial/casting proficiencies would then cap out at expert.
This is just me spitballing some ideas
I believe that this came down to spell slots. Having 2 or 3 spell slots per level is a lot different than having unlimited martial attacks. Having high level spells target saves and have effects on misses are all ways of mitigating the feel bad effect of spending 2 actions to have have a limited resource miss. Add limited proficiency on top of that and you would end up with bards being in pretty bad shape if they only went to master. For the warpriest, they get that massive pool of top level spells, which they can use through channel smite to not even be based upon their own casting proficiency, but a bard with master would pretty much be incredibly discouraged from considering any spell that interacted with proficiency in how it is cast.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But "only going to master" would also come with +3 from item bonuses. If anything, bards would be +1 better than they are now despite being a rank behind (than they are now).
Worth noting - Legendary Casting is NOT EQUAL to Legendary Weapons.
Caster proficiencies are a tier ahead (probably) because casters lack item bonuses to hit, creating a baseline imbalance in accuracy.
A Legendary Caster vs a Master Martial is still behind by +1 on attack rolls.
Therefore, Master Casting from Archetypes is already equivalent to Expert Weapons.
True, but if casters all capped out at master (maybe Wizards get legendary to mirror fighters), then the game would look different. You could then have +1/2/3 wands that enhance spell attacks/saves similar to +1/2/3 weapons for martials. I'm curious why Paizo decided to go with the route of all casters hitting legendary vs everyone caps out at master. Then you can have a couple select classes (fighter and wizard) start off with expert and max out at legendary. Under this system, school specialist wizards could get legendary in spells from their school for example. Not sure how generalists would work with this framework. Archetypes that grant better martial/casting proficiencies would then cap out at expert.
This is just me spitballing some ideas
I mean, yes, absolutely. Spellcasting on the exact same improvement progression as Martials with items makes a lot of sense, and I'm not sure why they didn't go that route.
But that degree of change isn't really implementable at this point, due to the sheer amount of errata involved. So other than considering it as a hypothetical, the only real likely productive discussion along those lines is likely to be as house rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But "only going to master" would also come with +3 from item bonuses. If anything, bards would be +1 better than they are now despite being a rank behind (than they are now).
While a dedicated wizard would be targeting saves with a +3 over what they have right now? That seems like a pretty massive swing at game balance. The most powerful martial attacks are not nearly as likely to just take a powerful enemy out of the game with a single roll. I think a rebalancing like this would have to see a complete reworking of spells, especially ones with swingy damage die like all of the bolt spells. (Shocking grasp, sudden bolt, lightning bolt), or with powerful debilitating critical effects.
Target the right save and even a level +2 monster might have to roll a 13 or higher to succeed on their save against pretty debilitating effects., which means that they could be looking at a 15% or chance of crit failing. That is really high for boss level monsters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I think such a change risks invalidating many martials.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a rebalancing like this would have to see a complete reworking of spells, especially ones with swingy damage die like all of the bolt spells. (Shocking grasp, sudden bolt, lightning bolt), or with powerful debilitating critical effects.
Well, yes.
But that was kind of the point of the original comment. Its doable. Paizo didn't do it, and it makes the game look weird because Legendary was supposed to be special, but spellcasters are always legendary because anything less breaks.
I agree it would have been possible, but I also prefer not having to pay lots of my casters character wealth towards items that make them base line functional when that math can just be built into the game. If proficiency was just a +1, I think I would have liked for casters to top out at master instead of legendary, but at +2 it is just too much to get left behind. In PF1, by the time you had greater spell focus, it felt terrible casting any spell that didn't benefit from your investment. I think that is what would have happened if proficiency stays at +2 but becomes more restricted.
I am glad that it came down from +5 to +3 on the martial side, and would probably have rather seen it go away entirely, with magic weapons just bypassing Resistances and doing cool magical things like property runes too, but tradition has been hard to walk away from. Non-fighter martial characters needed pretty intensive class features to make up for that proficiency shift, and it has left many MC gish characters feeling like martial attacks are just not worth specking into. Which, like casting spells you don't have greater spell focus in, is probably more of a perception issue than a real power issue, since expert weapon proficiency + item bonus + status bonus is a great 3rd action for a caster, better than many martial's second action.
...For the warpriest*, they get that massive pool of top level spells, which they can use through channel smite to not even be based upon their own casting proficiency,...
*Certain types and playstyle of Warpriest...
...For the warpriest*, they get that massive pool of top level spells, which they can use through channel smite to not even be based upon their own casting proficiency,...*Certain types and playstyle of Warpriest...
I agree. Although the other type is usually a healing powerhouse of the party undying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. Although the other type is usually a healing powerhouse of the party undying....For the warpriest*, they get that massive pool of top level spells, which they can use through channel smite to not even be based upon their own casting proficiency,...*Certain types and playstyle of Warpriest...
Thats the plan! ;)
Worth noting - Legendary Casting is NOT EQUAL to Legendary Weapons.
Caster proficiencies are a tier ahead (probably) because casters lack item bonuses to hit, creating a baseline imbalance in accuracy.
A Legendary Caster vs a Master Martial is still behind by +1 on attack rolls.
Therefore, Master Casting from Archetypes is already equivalent to Expert Weapons.
True, but if casters all capped out at master (maybe Wizards get legendary to mirror fighters), then the game would look different. You could then have +1/2/3 wands that enhance spell attacks/saves similar to +1/2/3 weapons for martials. I'm curious why Paizo decided to go with the route of all casters hitting legendary vs everyone caps out at master. Then you can have a couple select classes (fighter and wizard) start off with expert and max out at legendary. Under this system, school specialist wizards could get legendary in spells from their school for example. Not sure how generalists would work with this framework. Archetypes that grant better martial/casting proficiencies would then cap out at expert.
This is just me spitballing some ideas
I mean, yes, absolutely. Spellcasting on the exact same improvement progression as Martials with items makes a lot of sense, and I'm not sure why they didn't go that route.
But that degree of change isn't really implementable at this point, due to the sheer amount of errata involved. So other than considering it as a hypothetical, the only real likely productive discussion along those lines is likely to be as house rules.
For sure, I was more thinking out loud. It would be cool to get a "design intent" article or video by Paizo explaining the design designs behind 2E. I love game design, so it would be fascinating for me, but I think it could also help provide a lot of clarity on macro-level questions some people have with the game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alternatively, if all the martials had legendary and Master was used as an in intermediary step (with Fighters just getting some other combat gimmick) that people could buy into, I think that would make more sense too.
It's awkward that there's only one tier of proficiency between someone who's designed to never use a weapon ever and someone who's entire kit revolves around making weapon attacks, since it basically means you can never just make someone better at hitting without risking infringing on someone else's design space.
These ideas don't seem great to me, with how tight the math is anyway I don't see any benefit to having a tier between Expert and Master, and it would make the proficiency system even more complicated.
Expert isn't designed to never use a weapon, its designed to never use a weapon at full MAP, which is how the Warpriest and Bard both work, and work better than seems to be accepted on this forum.
Spellcasting math could have been designed differently in the first place, but I'm not sure there would have been much benefit, because it would have just paralleled Martial proficiency and had runes anyway, since those were literally a product of playtest feedback demanding them.
I think it's a little harder to add an item at this point, just because they wouldn't want something that changes the fundamental math of all the casting classes to be outside of core.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a little harder to add an item at this point, just because they wouldn't want something that changes the fundamental math of all the casting classes to be outside of core.
Honestly, an item for attack rolls only in the Secrets of Magic book seems totally plausible to me. That fiddles with the math, sure, but really only for a very narrow subset of spells, and it's the first actual magic book, so magic essential items being in it makes sense to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a little harder to add an item at this point, just because they wouldn't want something that changes the fundamental math of all the casting classes to be outside of core.
Sort of reminds me of D&D 4e. People complained about the math being really tight, especially for unoptimized characters and parties and they ended up releasing an easily accessible scaling to-hit bonus in one of the later rulebooks to try to fix the numbers.
Not saying PF2 would do anything like that but the parallel is interesting.