I don't remember this coming up in the playtest at all, but I started thinking about this today and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me for witches to not get 8 HP. Let's compare them to the bard in terms of abilities and proficiencies, since they're the most similar in terms of general abilities.
Areas where they're the same at 1st level:
They both get 3 spell slots per level.
They both get 1 action focus cantrips (let's ignore the power of those cantrips for now)
They both get light armor training.
Their saving throws are the same.
Areas where they're different:
Spontaneous vs prepared (I see these as equal in power, I know not everyone will agree)
Witches get a cool familiar
Bards get expert perception, witches are only trained
Bards get an extra 2 hp per level
Bards get a few martial weapon proficiencies
The discrepancies definitely seem a bit odd, and it leads to me thinking that witches having only 6 HP feels wholly unnecessary. Not getting expert perception I can get, familiars help quite a bit with scouting and it feels like there's more reasons for bard to not get it than for witches to get it. And the weapon proficiencies seem like purely a legacy thing. But I don't see any reasons for witch to not be a bit sturdier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They both get light armor training.
Their saving throws are the same.
Witches don't get light armor proficiency. And while equal at level 1, the bard has actually better saves, going up to legendary in Will saves. Not to mention the bard has better Perception.
The witch is closer to the wizard and sorcerer than the bard in design. I assume that includes the 6 HP chassis. The Familiar and the hexes are meant to make up for the lower number of spells, I guess. I find it more than questionable if that is true, but that's another matter.
They both get light armor training.
Their saving throws are the same.Witches don't get light armor proficiency. And while equal at level 1, the bard has actually better saves, going up to legendary in Will saves. Not to mention the bard has better Perception.
The witch is closer to the wizard and sorcerer than the bard in design. I assume that includes the 6 HP chassis. The Familiar and the hexes are meant to make up for the lower number of spells, I guess. I find it more than questionable if that is true, but that's another matter.
Ah right, I was going off memory for the armor part and got it confused with oracles. And the main reason for comparison to the bard over sorcerer or wizard is the equal number of slots and both getting focus cantrips (basically, they're easier to compare since they have similar core gimmicks).
They didn't want an Arcane witch to outclass Wizard, so they played it very conservative. With a few tweaks to cantrip hex availability and power, the Witch chassis will be extremely good in comparison to Wizard.
It's very true that any support oriented witch should probably play a bard and reflavor, for now at least.
HP is one of the defining factors meant to separate the general role of classes. Higher HP means you are meant to be closer to the front line.
Bards, while serving a similar caster role, also traditionally have the option to at least some melee (typically because their buffs can work on them too). so they get a 'mid' amount of HP. Not full melee, but not paper.
While armor is another factor that can define these roles, it becomes somewhat more moot as you go up in level and hit the +5 armor+max dex cap. So instead, they focus on HP since it gives you that slightly larger margin of error that makes it less of a risk to be close to the enemies.
the main reason for comparison to the bard over sorcerer or wizard is the equal number of slots and both getting focus cantrips (basically, they're easier to compare since they have similar core gimmicks).
Funny, I actually think bard and witch are the exact opposites. Bards can easily weave all kinds of action in combat. Demoralize, spells, focus cantrips and even do SOMEthing in melee/ranged combat if need be thanks to decent proficiencies. With special mentions going to their whip proficiency allowing them to trip at 10 ft, which is a VERY good way to spend a spare action.
The witch can basically only use her spells. And maybe a recall knowledge check on occasion. The fact that nearly all of her hexes require concentration makes her the least flexible caster by far in my opinion. I seriously doubt she would be overpowered with 4 spells for each level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to the reasons stated by others, it likely comes down (at least in part) to the fact that Bards as a class are likely overtuned and Witches were written very conservatively when it comes to power.
It probably wouldn't break anything if you gave them 8 hitpoints per level. I dont think they're unplayable without it, though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest Witch was essentially a familiar-thesis wizard with different focus spells (and pick-a-tradition), so it had an almost identical chassis to the wizard (though the Witch had better weapon proficiencies).
I sort of got the impression that when they were tweaked into 3-slot casters their core chassis was never really given a second look.
Once they print a bunch of powerful cantrip hexes that you can pick up with witch feats or a class archetype, I think they'll be pretty good. Would be excellent without the whole tying your first cantrip (and currently only) to your spell list.
because they are weak
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ability to pick up multiple hex cantrips and a few more powerful hex options and feats in general would do a lot for the witch. They could be raised in power a full 25% and still wouldn't come close to threatening the core classes overall imo.
It's true an arcane witch in that scenario might outclass a wizard, but almost everything right now outclasses the wizard. A better solution to that might be to fix the wizard (I guess ideally through new options for the poor mages.) Sorcerers need a lot of love too.
As long as they keep the bard as the ceiling it currently is, I don't think they actually risk power creep in the rules. They do have to be a little careful, of course, but I don't think they need to wring their hands over it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's not much of a game balance reason why Bards, Clerics, and Druids get better armor, better weapons, and more HP compared to Sorcerers, Wizards, and Witches. There was in previous versions, but the more martially oriented casters have gotten some pretty big upgrades in the spell casting department. Druids are not worse spell casters than Wizards anymore. They really weren't in first Edition that much either.
I think it's mostly tradition, but also the fiction. Like Wizards and Witches are not these dashing figures who mix it up in the same way Clerics and Bards traditionally do.
It's also far less of a real gap then it's ever been. When acting in archetypal ways really only the HP difference matters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's not much of a game balance reason why Bards, Clerics, and Druids get better armor, better weapons, and more HP compared to Sorcerers, Wizards, and Witches.
While not exactly the OPs topic, the issue most people have is that clerics, druids, and bards get a lot more than just that. Better saves, better focus spells, better perception, etc. Individual druids and clerics are a bit more hit/miss on some of that, but bards as far as I know are across the board.
That said, the thread is comparing one of the weakest classes to arguably the best class in the game pound for pound, so that discrepancy was bound to be huge (though not as big as those gaps were in PF1, and definitely wizards, witches and sorcerers are playable if curiously conservatively tuned.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once they print a bunch of powerful cantrip hexes that you can pick up with witch feats or a class archetype, I think they'll be pretty good. Would be excellent without the whole tying your first cantrip (and currently only) to your spell list.
The thing is, we don't know if such a feat will ever be printed. And even if it is, any new Hex cantrips would have to be REALLY amazing since even the best ones the witch currently has barely go beyond "mediocre".
the thread is comparing one of the weakest classes to arguably the best class in the game pound for pound, so that discrepancy was bound to be huge (though not as big as those gaps were in PF1, and definitely wizards, witches and sorcerers are playable if curiously conservatively tuned.)
The bard being better isn't that much of a deal. The main problem is the STAGGERING gap between the bard and the witch. It's not that the bard has more HP. He has more - and better - everything. And the bard isn't even overpowered. His abilities aren't vastly more powerful than other classes, he just works much better within the game's systems.
The only advantages of the witch are the ability to swap spells daily and the familiar. Well, that and more trained skills and languages, I guess?
Sorcerer and Wizard at least get more spells to compensate a bit. I'm not saying it's enough, but it's something.
I really wished all casters would be closer to the bard. But unfortuately every other caster so far is worse in proficiencies, ability to make use of the 3-action-system and feats. (Seriously, what's up with the feats for the other casters? Most of them have barely half a dozen feats that are useful and interesting. The rest is mostly "meh".)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the witch class, compared to, say, a wizard, is that their focus spells are far superior. It will become hard to justify choosing a wizard over a witch for that reason.
OTOH, in an upcoming book odds are good we'll get more wizard feats with better focus spells, which will even the playing field somewhat.
6 hit points per level is the right choice. Witches and primary spellcasters, not melee characters. They are supposed to be fragile.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wished all casters would be closer to the bard. But unfortuately every other caster so far is worse in proficiencies, ability to make use of the 3-action-system and feats. (Seriously, what's up with the feats for the other casters? Most of them have barely half a dozen feats that are useful and interesting. The rest is mostly "meh".)
Uh, this is certainly NOT true of the druid. They have lots of interesting feats, lots of choices, etc. And basic abilities at least as good as the bards.
Together with a spell list that is far more versatile than the bards.
Don't get me wrong. Bards rock. But so do druids
I really wished all casters would be closer to the bard. But unfortuately every other caster so far is worse in proficiencies, ability to make use of the 3-action-system and feats. (Seriously, what's up with the feats for the other casters? Most of them have barely half a dozen feats that are useful and interesting. The rest is mostly "meh".)Uh, this is certainly NOT true of the druid. They have lots of interesting feats, lots of choices, etc. And basic abilities at least as good as the bards.
Together with a spell list that is far more versatile than the bards.
Don't get me wrong. Bards rock. But so do druids
Clerics are also amazing, with more relevant spellcasting endurance than anyone else due to their Divine Font.
So long as your party hasn't otherwise "solved" incoming damage, a pile of extra Heal spells is going to be super useful, and the Divine Spell list actually has plenty of great options if you look for them.
While their class feats aren't 'the best', their base spellcasting and divine font cover all their "role" considerations built in, meaning they have nearly complete freedom to do whatever they want via archetypes. Theres a lot of room to build whatever character you want on top of the Cleric chassis, which I think is a great deal in a setting where what defines a priest can range from a classic cleric, to a spy, to a bartender.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only problematic spellcaster imo is the wizard, and that's not because they are "weak" but because they are... blant.
Even if the extra spells of the wizard offer a bit more overall power compared to the hexes of the witch, i'll gladly play a Witch 10 times before playing a wizard just because her rounds are much more versatile and she has some actual mechanics behind her.
Sorcerers have the same blandness. Their focus spells are not incredible, their Blood Magic is laughable and they don't have much class abilities beside that. The only non bland ability they have is their choice of tradition.
But it is also, in my opinion, their biggest asset. Because Druids, Bards, Clerics and Witches are forced (if played optimally) to use their Focus Spells/Cantrips/Divine Font. Some will like it, as it gives them identity, others won't, as it makes them repetitive.There is nothing like a typical Wizard/Sorcerer round. And I think it's the best part of their gameplay.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, wizards and sorcerers are best if you like regular spells. If you don't, you won't like those classes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers have the massive advantage of being extremely flexible in the moment. They start off flexible, and don't diminish in flexibility throughout the day until they've used all their resources of a given level/spell slot.
That actually feels like a significant advantage this edition, since you aren't getting it at the expense of later spell access.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics are also amazing, with more relevant spellcasting endurance than anyone else due to their Divine Font.So long as your party hasn't otherwise "solved" incoming damage, a pile of extra Heal spells is going to be super useful, and the Divine Spell list actually has plenty of great options if you look for them.
While their class feats aren't 'the best',.
I completely agree that they're a great class.
The following is pretty much agreeing with you, just shifting the emphasis a little.
Their feat selection IS pretty darn boring. My level 8 cleric has taken a second archetype rather than bother with ANY cleric feats.
Which, given the proliferation of archetypes, really is NOT a problem. But it is pretty much true that their feats are very, very meh.
Well they clearly went with PF1 methodology with both cleric and wizard. They were both the boring vanilla classes there with very few class features. Basically they were spell chassis and were very good at that. That remains the same in PF2 for both as their feats depending on how you look at it are either 1. Bland and vanilla or 2. Not necessary for the power of the class (see druid or bard feats) and are more easily able to multi class. So it really depends if you’re a glass half full/empty person since both points have merit.
Yeah, my big gripes about the Cleric feeling boring or limited died with the release of the APG.
Cleric class feats are generally very focused and meh - the most exciting Cleric Build to me in Core was the one where you just took all the casting archetypes and made yourself an omni-theurge, because why not.
With the archetypes in the APG, suddenly the skies the limit. I can build all sorts of totally valid (if not optimal) Clerics, and also a couple really potent ones (Sentinel, Bastion, and Beastmaster are all standouts to me).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify my previous point about caster feats:
Cleric: Nearly all of their caster feats deal with Heal and Harm. Both are nice spells but if you want to play a cleric caster using your caster feats you're pretty much shoehorned into using those two spells. The Divine spell list is limited enough by itself, I really don't need my feats to only work with 2 spells.
Druid: Druid has very nice feats. Just not many good caster feats. If you don't want an Animal Companion or use Wildshape it's a bit hard to find a good feat every level.
Sorcerer: Are mostly about being flexible with lots of casts, especially via the evolution feats. Which is nice and all but still very little in terms of actually making spells any better.
Wizard: The worst class, when it comes to feats. I was playing a Wizard during paytest, already being underwhelmed by its feat selection back then. When the game was released, I retconned him to be an arcane sorcerer, which felt at least a bit better.
Bard: Not many caster feats either, but LOADS of interesting feats that make you more versatile and give you better stuff to do in and out of combat.
I won't talk about witch and oracle since I don't have too much exposure to them yet. Suffice to say that I'm also having trouble finding a good number of really interesting feats on them.
This is of course all in my opinion. I stand by the fact that it is near impossible for me to play a non-bard caster without archetype and not feeling like I waste half my class feats on stuff I don't actually want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cleric: Nearly all of their caster feats deal with Heal and Harm. Both are nice spells but if you want to play a cleric caster using your caster feats you're pretty much shoehorned into using those two spells. The Divine spell list is limited enough by itself, I really don't need my feats to only work with 2 spells.
This is 100% intentional and will likely not change in a major way. They see the Divine font as the primary defining cleric class feature, what makes the cleric a cleric and not just a priest, with Deity second and Divine spellcasting third.
I really think it depends on people and tastes. Amongst my dozen of characters (no comment) the only one who's not multiclassed at level 2 is my Sorcerer. And my Wizard is multiclassed only because Dangerous Sorcery is for me a tax feat for Wizards.
I really think it depends on people and tastes. Amongst my dozen of characters (no comment) the only one who's not multiclassed at level 2 is my Sorcerer. And my Wizard is multiclassed only because Dangerous Sorcery is for me a tax feat for Wizards.
Funnily I am the exact opposite. I have an embarrassing number of characters and literally the only time I ever MC is via ancient elf or multi talented. That's it. (Talking about my non variant rules characters)
This includes all casters as well as martials.
This is from a player who never didn't MC in pf1e or DND 5e.
Funnily I am the exact opposite. I have an embarrassing number of characters and literally the only time I ever MC is via ancient elf or multi talented. That's it. (Talking about my non variant rules characters)
This includes all casters as well as martials.
This is from a player who never didn't MC in pf1e or DND 5e.
It's funny because I'm a player who didn't MC in PF1 (only one MCed character out of a dozen, the exact opposite of PF2). We may be onto something!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of them stem from the fact that Int is much, MUCH, worse than Cha at the moment.
Trained proficiencies are a dime a dozen, only half of the recalls are Int based, and etc, while the Cha based skill feats/actions offer direct impact to the battlefield.
One funny thing I've noticed is that if you use your spare int based skill points on skills such as lore (undead), then you could ID every monster at level 1 using only int.
You might want to spend skill feats to get additional lore instead, because it automatically upgrades your skill proficiency for free, but the general point remains. Even if you don't upgrade the skills, they are still probably more reliable than using the wisdom recall skills since you are putting your good stat into it.
A lot of them stem from the fact that Int is much, MUCH, worse than Cha at the moment.
Trained proficiencies are a dime a dozen, only half of the recalls are Int based, and etc, while the Cha based skill feats/actions offer direct impact to the battlefield.
I missed this post earlier. That's an interesting observation, especially considering the very many threads and posters (myself included!) who saw/sees Charisma as underpowered.
I still would have liked Will as Cha based for thematic reasons, but you give me something to consider if it is actually necessary or balanced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of them stem from the fact that Int is much, MUCH, worse than Cha at the moment.
Trained proficiencies are a dime a dozen, only half of the recalls are Int based, and etc, while the Cha based skill feats/actions offer direct impact to the battlefield.
One funny thing I've noticed is that if you use your spare int based skill points on skills such as lore (undead), then you could ID every monster at level 1 using only int.
You might want to spend skill feats to get additional lore instead, because it automatically upgrades your skill proficiency for free, but the general point remains. Even if you don't upgrade the skills, they are still probably more reliable than using the wisdom recall skills since you are putting your good stat into it.
This is the first time I considered the value Additional Lore gains as an INT based primary.
I'm not sure what range of Lore you're allowed to apply as a selector though.
I think there's still contention on whether Lore (Undead) is legal, especially considering one of the examples in the book is Lore (Vampire), which is a much smaller subsection of Undead (thus sort of by extension implies Undead is "too broad").
That said, I think at my tables I've sort of just decided that the degree of specialization under the Lore skill derives the difficulty of the DC (aka Lore Undead DC on a Vampire a 25 DC, Lore Vampire is a 20 DC, and maybe Religion is a DC 27 standard).
But nonetheless, Lore getting INT to identify creatures that are normally under a WIS based check is kinda neat.
I missed this post earlier. That's an interesting observation, especially considering the very many threads and posters (myself included!) who saw/sees Charisma as underpowered.
I still would have liked Will as Cha based for thematic reasons, but you give me something to consider if it is actually necessary or balanced.
On the contrary, I very much agree that INT is much weaker than CHA right now.
To me, the "CHA is weak right now" stems from two things:
1. CHA didn't "gain" anything new between editions really in terms of what it affects. CHA, for the most part, still only applies to Skills and Spellcasters that are CHA based as well as some abilities like Font.
2. It was a really weak Ability Score in previous editions and was also extremely expensive.
Now, IMO what happened is because CHA didn't take a "huge step forward", everyone sort of lead into PF2 thinking it's kinda the same story.
The reality is that CHA gained some of the best actions in the game now. It gained Demoralize, a single action debuff usable by anyone, it gained Feint a single action debuff usable by anyone, and a LOT of really powerful Skill Feats can build on CHA (such as Bon Mot).
Meanwhile, INT gives you languages, your bonus to Arcana, Crafting, Occult, and Society, and Skill Training equal to your modifier.
And the cost to invest in CHA is actually not that bad. It's pretty nice to be able to open up a whole other set of actions to yourself for when the opportunity presents itself.
I wouldn't call CHA the best ability, but to me personally (even when I run RK super value) I still feel like CHA has better actions, and thus by extension comes out ahead.
I think it is fine even if you have the same DC 27 check as religion. It still allows Int to feed into one of its main purposes- more skills into more knowledge. It also means that you don't have to pump wisdom, which isn't quiet as useful for most int classes because will is their good save.
Of course, this is more interesting for an investigator- who has the extra feats for additional lore- than most int based classes.
I'm not sure what range of Lore you're allowed to apply as a selector though.I think there's still contention on whether Lore (Undead) is legal, especially considering one of the examples in the book is Lore (Vampire), which is a much smaller subsection of Undead (thus sort of by extension implies Undead is "too broad").
That said, I think at my tables I've sort of just decided that the degree of specialization under the Lore skill derives the difficulty of the DC (aka Lore Undead DC on a Vampire a 25 DC, Lore Vampire is a 20 DC, and maybe Religion is a DC 27 standard).
I'm running this as a degrees of specificity myself.
Lore (Undead) is meaningfully more restricted than Religion, and therefore relevant checks are Easy (-2).
Lore (Vampires) is meaningfully more restricted than Lore (Undead), which is more restricted than the base skill Religion, and therefore relevant checks are Very Easy (-5).
Same thing would apply for things like Lore (Fiends) vs Lore (Demons).
I'm running this as a degrees of specificity myself.
Lore (Undead) is meaningfully more restricted than Religion, and therefore relevant checks are Easy (-2).
Lore (Vampires) is meaningfully more restricted than Lore (Undead), which is more restricted than the base skill Religion, and therefore relevant checks are Very Easy (-5).
Same thing would apply for things like Lore (Fiends) vs Lore (Demons).
This was my thinking as well, since Religion applies to Outsiders, Undead, etc. and not just Undead.
That said, perhaps the "top level" creature types should be the same DC if chosen as a Lore (aka Lore Undead because it is soo broad, has to roll at the same DC as Religion because by and large Lore is cheaper than Religion).
shrug
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what range of Lore you're allowed to apply as a selector though.I think there's still contention on whether Lore (Undead) is legal, especially considering one of the examples in the book is Lore (Vampire), which is a much smaller subsection of Undead (thus sort of by extension implies Undead is "too broad").
That said, I think at my tables I've sort of just decided that the degree of specialization under the Lore skill derives the difficulty of the DC (aka Lore Undead DC on a Vampire a 25 DC, Lore Vampire is a 20 DC, and maybe Religion is a DC 27 standard).
I'm running this as a degrees of specificity myself.
Lore (Undead) is meaningfully more restricted than Religion, and therefore relevant checks are Easy (-2).
Lore (Vampires) is meaningfully more restricted than Lore (Undead), which is more restricted than the base skill Religion, and therefore relevant checks are Very Easy (-5).
Same thing would apply for things like Lore (Fiends) vs Lore (Demons).
I think the person in my group who GMs when I don't would really go along with this system, and now I love the idea of a character obsessed with a single very specific monster like owlbears who's legendary in the skill and knows every possible thing about them at the lowest possible DC.
It wouldn't be super useful of course, but the idea is amusing and wouldn't really cost any significant resources.
I'm running this as a degrees of specificity myself.
Lore (Undead) is meaningfully more restricted than Religion, and therefore relevant checks are Easy (-2).
Lore (Vampires) is meaningfully more restricted than Lore (Undead), which is more restricted than the base skill Religion, and therefore relevant checks are Very Easy (-5).
Same thing would apply for things like Lore (Fiends) vs Lore (Demons).
This was my thinking as well, since Religion applies to Outsiders, Undead, etc. and not just Undead.
That said, perhaps the "top level" creature types should be the same DC if chosen as a Lore (aka Lore Undead because it is soo broad, has to roll at the same DC as Religion because by Lore is cheaper than Religion).
shrug
I'm personally going to save "Same as Base DC" for Lore checks which are reasonable, but indirect.
IE, a player wants to use Lore (Cheliax) to identify a devil, or Lore (Abyss) to identify a Demon.
That's a reasonable request to use those for that purpose, but there were obviously more appropriate Lores that could have been chosen if that sort of identification was your primary goal.
I think Lore (Undead) is reasonably narrow as compared to Religion that I'd want to reward a character who chose to take it instead of (or more likely, in addition to) Religion.
If someone is taking Additional Lore (Vampires) or (Demons), its because they wanted to play an expert and thats a big enough feat expenditure for me to make those Very Easy (-5) checks.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's still contention on whether Lore (Undead) is legal
It's a listed lore 4 times in the regional backgrounds from the world guide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's still contention on whether Lore (Undead) is legalIt's a listed lore 4 times in the regional backgrounds from the world guide.
Did not know that! Thanks for the info.
Then that does seem to imply that maybe the thing that seems to be commonly conceptualized with "funneling down the DC" is possibly how it's intended to work, since in the Core Rulebook it gives the Lore Vampire as an option (and I think I've seen elsewhere the Lore Gnoll is also a thing) and if the two are meant to co-exist, presumably, it wouldn't be equal DC if the knowledge is funneled.
If someone is taking Additional Lore (Vampires) or (Demons), its because they wanted to play an expert and thats a big enough feat expenditure for me to make those Very Easy (-5) checks.
Interestingly, that is actually greater than expert if we're speaking relative bonuses. It's the equivalent of Master+ minus the qualifying proficiency.
______________________
Maybe we've derailed too much from the original thread.
In which case: "IMO, as other's have said, the reasoning on the Witch is pretty solid and I think the class is good. I've seen it in play, and even with abilities that are a bit more niche (such as Baba Yaga patron's object moving), it does well.
I've only seen the release Witch in play once, but so far, it has been nothing but favorable (player was an avid 1E witch that first time played a Witch, did well and enjoyed it.)"
As for the Bard comparisons, Bard is just a smidge overtuned IMO (only on initial proficiencies, some of which it doesn't deserve... how come the Bard gets Whip and Longsword but Rogue doesn't? That's two QUALITY Martial Weapons...)
I could have sworn "funneling down the dc" based on lore specifity was in the rulebook somewhere...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny because I'm a player who didn't MC in PF1 (only one MCed character out of a dozen, the exact opposite of PF2). We may be onto something!Funnily I am the exact opposite. I have an embarrassing number of characters and literally the only time I ever MC is via ancient elf or multi talented. That's it. (Talking about my non variant rules characters)
This includes all casters as well as martials.
This is from a player who never didn't MC in pf1e or DND 5e.
in pf1e i just had a field day with multiclassing, dnd 5e i multiclassed for either interesting synergies or to actually power down casters (id mc out of bladesinger into arcane trickster to cap my spell slots at 6th level)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I missed this post earlier. That's an interesting observation, especially considering the very many threads and posters (myself included!) who saw/sees Charisma as underpowered.
Both Cha and Int suffer from having very limited 'passive' benefits compared to the Save stats, but there are a lot of really strong Cha-driven skill activities and feats to augment them. Charisma is still bad on its own, but bon mot and scare to death and other options are really sweet.
I think Int might feel especially bad to people who were really into PF1 and are drawing comparisons between the two, because Int was already kind of a mediocre stat in that game and has only gotten weaker in the edition transition.