| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this does contribute a lot to the bad feelings too, though. PF2 tried really hard to accuracy gate everything in this game, but losing a strike feels a lot less terrible than losing a third or a quarter of your top level spell slots.Not really what you said exactly but personally I think the way Paizo handled accuracy in PF2 is one of the worst aspects of the game. Accuracy is both tight and graded, which leads to players failing a lot, especially at things they aren't specialized at.
This is precisely why I quit PF2.
Currently I am in a Starfinder game, however when that ends the only table top game I have remaining will be Lancer (mecha RPG).
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
And telling those martials to shut up and deal with it was one of the most common responses from caster players.
I mean, not especially. There were a lot of massive threads that largely agreed upon a number of problems with martials in PF1.
Though even if you're right, "someone was dismissive and mean to me years ago so I'm going to be dismissive and mean to a completely different person now" is, frankly, kind of a horrifying life philosophy.
Two wrongs don't make a right! A good, classic saying.
On a side note, fair enough on noting that PF1 action economy for casters wasn't actually much better most of the time! I don't have a ton of personal experience to say, there, other than a Psychic for a dozen sessions — other games I'm in have seen me play martials or use Unchained Action Economy which is like proto-PF2. I just think people would enjoy playing with some more variation in actions used for spells, rather than mostly having variation in the effects of those 2 actions, and I also think this could be done in a way that wouldn't take caster power out of wack. Already noted that the action system in general is an improvement over PF1 as it stands, of course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though even if you're right, "someone was dismissive and mean to me years ago so I'm going to be dismissive and mean to a completely different person now" is, frankly, kind of a horrifying life philosophy.
No one is actually telling casters to shut up though. It's more like "someone was dismissive of half the player bases issue years ago and now won't shut up about their issues and expects everyone to listen to them with an amount of empathy they failed to show others when they were the ones who benefitted."
They just repeat over and over how the game now fundamentally disadvantages them in thread after thread after thread, and yes I know I can avoid reading those threads.
It's just I feel that as a fan of PF2 I shouldn't have to avoid threads in the PF2 forum because of the inundation of people who are only here to complain about how PF2 doesn't work the way they want it to.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, more variety would definitely be good. Flexible action spells are a big one. Martials also have a lot of unique activities they can pick up through feats and I think it could be fun for spellcasters to have some too (right now they only really have metamagic).
I do think one potential danger though is that if you make one action options that are too enticing it can kind of break the action economy even worse.
Bards for instance are really strong but, at least from my experience, kind of terrible to play because spell/cantrip + composition(usually IC or Dirge) feels like it's always right right option. Sort of a pointless anecdote, but I remember once being involved in three different campaigns at the same time that each had bards that were all different muses and had completely different character designs but they all had essentially identical combat routines they'd do every round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, more variety would definitely be good. Flexible action spells are a big one. Martials also have a lot of unique activities they can pick up through feats and I think it could be fun for spellcasters to have some too (right now they only really have metamagic).
I do think one potential danger though is that if you make one action options that are too enticing it can kind of break the action economy even worse.
Bards for instance are really strong but, at least from my experience, kind of terrible to play because spell/cantrip + composition(usually IC or Dirge) feels like it's always right right option. Sort of a pointless anecdote, but I remember once being involved in three different campaigns at the same time that each had bards that were all different muses and had completely different character designs but they all had essentially identical combat routines they'd do every round.
It's interesting, the way opinions on Bard go, because it's common to hear that they're one of the strongest classes in the game and also increasingly common to hear that they're not the most fun to play, and these are by no means mutually exclusive sentiments! Just depends on preference in character type and playstyle, probably — I wonder sometimes if Paizo recognised that keeping Inspire Courage as it generally was from PF1 could be monotonous, and opted to keep it strong(er) in the context of the new system as an enticement.
Having more 1A-capable normal spells wouldn't be as much of an issue, I think, just because slot economy is still a thing to consider.
Perhaps the way out of this dilemma is to give every character 30 points in each of the six attributes at character creation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps the way out of this dilemma is to give every character 30 points in each of the six attributes at character creation.
You're being facetious but I have thought about giving characters in my game an extra boost in the Background step or something (with all the normal rules in place for stat allocations). PF2 statlines tend to naturally min-max and the game's math encourages that, especially for characters with two or more critical attributes and I've found it's kind of discouraged some of my players from trying things outside the norm in a way that wasn't true in PF1 with its looser math.
Having more 1A-capable normal spells wouldn't be as much of an issue, I think, just because slot economy is still a thing to consider.
Very much hoping for a 1A melee cantrip in SoM for Magus play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, that is a huge strength of PF2. The dials of the game are very easy to set and modify as a GM, more so than any other game I have played, that has this level of depth of character options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't you EVER even think about multiclassing. That never worked, except for munchkiny dipping to poach all the nice abilities.
I'm sorry but I'd Like to dispute this Fact Immensely... Multiclassing WAS Never a trap option for me in PF1 (though I won't say that that's necessarily true for Full-Caster classes, though I did Enjoy my Shaman/Bloodrager character). If anything it almost Always accentuated into creating a better character and I'm one of those people, who because I came from 3.5 before it (where multiclassing too far would Penalize you) I would make multi-classed characters who were more evenly balanced between the classes...
I won't get into the Feat-Classing of PF2e atm, because yeah I Absolutely Dislike that, but I don't wanna come off as too biased >.<
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't you EVER even think about multiclassing. That never worked, except for munchkiny dipping to poach all the nice abilities.I'm sorry but I'd Like to dispute this Fact Immensely... Multiclassing WAS Never a trap option for me in PF1 (though I won't say that that's necessarily true for Full-Caster classes, though I did Enjoy my Shaman/Bloodrager character). If anything it almost Always accentuated into creating a better character and I'm one of those people, who because I came from 3.5 before it (where multiclassing too far would Penalize you) I would make multi-classed characters who were more evenly balanced between the classes...
I won't get into the Feat-Classing of PF2e atm, because yeah I Absolutely Dislike that, but I don't wanna come off as too biased >.<
I can't speak for everyone, and obviously not for your experience, but my experience with PF1 multiclassing is definitely that it generally fit into two categories:
1: A dip into a heavily front-loaded class; stuff like Swashbuckler for an easy dex-to-damage, Oracle for an important CHA to AC/Save/certain skill/etc, Monk for Wis/Cha to AC + a flurry, Paladin 2 for CHA to all saves + heavy armour, etc. These were almost all mechanically minded choices (though obviously that doesn't prevent you from making an interesting character with them, just that the desire for the multiclass came from the mechanics), and were very effective at boosting these characters. I enjoyed making use of them to try and make terrible concepts functional, but they're certainly hugely unbalancing.
2: Someone trying to pretty evenly multiclass for character reasons. This varied in effectiveness, with martial/martial multiclassing normally working pretty decently (though definitely disadvantaging some classes that relied heavily on their class progression, stuff like Sneak Attack and Favoured Enemy), and caster/anything else working terribly in almost all cases.
The end result, for me, came down to a huge amount of trap options for your builds that were difficult for new players to avoid (why not play fighter/rogue? I'm an ex-member of the town guard who has joined the thieves' guild to make a living!) and a limited amount of exceptionally powerful dips that were easy to abuse. If one wanted to fix the first problem, I think it's just very difficult with the way the game worked - potentially something like 'caster level is across all classes and determines what spell slots you get' 5e style, but just really tricky. The second could be fixed by taking away front-loaded options, but that's not very fun for most players. You want to get your Inspire Courage early as a bard, your Smite as a paladin, your Riposte as a swashbuckler. But if the old multiclassing system was maintained, getting those early was basically impossible to keep while making multiclassing more balanced.
Now casters can build for using a weapon and be effective. It's this group of PF1 players wanting a return to the god wizard that are narrowly viewing the options as casting only. Casters don't need to cast only any longer.
A sorcerer for example, can shield, Intimidate, and strike with a weapon all in the same round. So it's very easy now to build an armored caster who can engage in effective melee damage, especially at lower level. I've done this with my caster. That is more build variation than build a caster to cast and wait until you can Quicken Spells at higher level.
A caster can now use Recall Knowledge to determine a creature weakness and follow up with a spell in the same round versus PF1 where recall knowledge took the round's action.
You can build to intimidate or Bon Mot followed by a spell cast making it land more easily.
Yes, but a martial character can also do these things just as well as a caster in addition to having more ways of interacting with the 3-action economy than casters do.
With that in mind, I think more variable-action spells would be a good thing.
Why do you think this? I should ask first. Have you actually played the game?
You know there are spells that use an action called a Sustain Action that interacts with spells. So a caster can do the following:
1. Cast Flaming Sphere.
2. Use a sustain action the following round to attack with the flaming sphere, then move, then demoralize. Or some such action economy.
I'm not sure what you think martials can do that are better that casters can't. The higher level you get, the more actions and varied you can do as a caster.
My bard for example can cast a composition cantrip boosting the entire party as a quickened action, cast a 2 action spell, and still do something else like Demoralize or Scare to Death or Sustain.
Martials do not interact with the 3 action system better than casters. In fact, they interact less effectively as you rise.
For example, my druid gets to sustain an action for free at lvl 16, caster Storm of Vengeance using a sustain action to keep activating, and can use a weapon, cast another spell, or do something else while attacking.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but it's wrong.
I think for the most part casters are fine other than the wizard. They could fix quite a few issues with some simple changes:
1. Make an item to allow bonuses to attack for attack type spells like spiritual weapon or spells that use an attack role.
2. Allow you to use your spellcasting attack roll for summons.
For the wizard, just make some good focus spells that use the wizard's playstyle. Wizard's aren't melee attackers and their focus abilities need to work more reliably in more situations. That would do a lot to fix wizards. Make their school focus abilities game changers in their given specialty.
Casters benefit from the three action economy, but more tools to play with it would be fun, and are like to continue filtering into the game starting with Secrets of Magic.
I'm currently looking at an angelic sorcerer who spends their first turn moving into an ideal position for Angelic Halo (as many allies in 15 feet as possible), starting up the Halo, and then using the last action to demoralize.
Next turn I'd be ready to either drop spells as usual or heal depending on what I need to do. Heal is a variable action spell with interesting tradeoffs between two and three action variant, especially for an Angelic Sorcerer boosting the raw healing they can channel into the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example and at first glance there is not much difference in our Wizard casting a single-target spell, getting resisted and casting Shield to - say - our Fighter striding up to the same enemy, missing his attack and raising his shield. However for some reason the former often feels much more terrible. Perhaps its the spending of a finite ressource, perhaps it is the one action less, perhaps its both, the thing is that for some players all of this...
It's probably because the fighter rolled the die and failed, whereas the wizard's opponent rolled and succeeded. The wizard didn't do anything wrong, whereas the fighter did by rolling low. The result is the same, but the method of getting there is not. It's about agency, the spending of a resource is just added pain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is something that might be better off in its own thread, but I just came to a potentially sad realization. I know I'm not alone in waiting for a bunch of awesome first edition stuff to come to 2e that has yet to be announced. There's a ton of stuff; I'm super excited for things like weapon summoning (gloomblade/spirit blade/etc) and other things that mix spells and martial. But I wonder how much 1e content is simply not going to work with the 2e power balance?
There are a lot of things it seems this edition is trying to get away from, and a lot of those things are sort of necessary to make builds work. I could definitely be wrong, but it seems like weapon runes are so important that devs don't want any sort of spell to be able to make an item that can match it in power. And I'm sure there are a ton of other types of builds in 1e that just aren't going to work anymore because of thins like spell durations being much lower or one of the many other design changes going into 2e.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps the way out of this dilemma is to give every character 30 points in each of the six attributes at character creation.You're being facetious but I have thought about giving characters in my game an extra boost in the Background step or something (with all the normal rules in place for stat allocations). PF2 statlines tend to naturally min-max and the game's math encourages that, especially for characters with two or more critical attributes and I've found it's kind of discouraged some of my players from trying things outside the norm in a way that wasn't true in PF1 with its looser math.
Honestly, I would expect that you could let literally every player start with 18 in all stats and it wouldn't break anything at all. It would simply diversify what a character might build and choose to be good at.
Because of the previous mentioned accuracy gating you simply can't get your bonuses high enough to break things.
But being 4/5 points behind in a stat (like charisma) means you shouldn't bother investing in charisma skills because you're not going to succeed.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a conversation about the differences between editions, it is a really good idea to ask ourselves, "who is my comment going to help understand one of these editions better or get greater enjoyment out of the games that they want to be playing?"
There is no winning at conversations. It is not a competition. Discussions on this board will not magically make one edition go away, or the choices that informed it change. Sharing your perspective is wonderful. Using it as a club to belittle the perspectives of others is not a good look for anyone.
In a public space like a product message board, your words will stick around for a very long time and be seen by people for a very long time. Think about how you want to present yourself and what benefit you really have to gain from participating in a conversation that is not helping you understand something better or improve your appreciation of a game you like to play.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, things got sour. I'm gonna post anyway as I have something relevant!
I was playing the Slithering with an Infernal sorcerer who mixed healing and the granted fire magic. As the game went on, I decided to give a Swashbuckler dedication a try and I can tell you that it was a great choice.
I chose the wit Swashbuckler and used bon not to give myself panache while also giving myself in edge in mental spells. Mixed with tumbling and flaming sphere, I had a lot of interesting choices that I didn't have beforehand.
I guess I recommend Swashbuckler for casters. Or at least bon mot.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, things got sour. I'm gonna post anyway as I have something relevant!
I was playing the Slithering with an Infernal sorcerer who mixed healing and the granted fire magic. As the game went on, I decided to give a Swashbuckler dedication a try and I can tell you that it was a great choice.
I chose the wit Swashbuckler and used bon not to give myself panache while also giving myself in edge in mental spells. Mixed with tumbling and flaming sphere, I had a lot of interesting choices that I didn't have beforehand.
I guess I recommend Swashbuckler for casters. Or at least bon mot.
I have also had incredible fun with a barbarian who is a MC witch. The spirit instinct and creepy familiar make a very weird, flavorful and fully functional character. The way scrolls work in PF2 makes being a MC caster a lot easier and more interesting than anything I ever tried to do in PF1 with multi-classing into a caster to do more than grab a single entry level ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Currently having a lot of fun with my tiger stance iruxi monk with a deinonychus buddy from beast master in an EC campaign my friend is running. Next character I wanna run is a dhampir war cleric with an undead wolf pet....the moral of the story is beast master is a great archetype
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of venturing into a heated argument, I very much get the lack of options to manipulate the action economy for spellcasters. And for the most part, I do like 2e.
Most martials have options that let them combine what would be multiple actions into fewer ones. And these are low-level abilities that give them lots of flexibility right off the bat. Fighters and Barbarians have Sudden Charge, 2 actions for 3 (stride, stride, strike). Rangers are king of this with Hunted Shot, Twin Takedown, and Monster Hunter all taking 1 action for two strikes or a Hunt Prey+Recall Knowledge. Investigators have Known Weakness. Monks have Flurry of Blows. Rogues impose conditions, which can be similar. For instance, a Ruffian has Brutal Beating, which is like a strike+demoralize. Champions have an awesome reaction, which is like having a 4th action.
Spellcasters don't really have these options. The one exception I might say is the Bard where Lingering Performance allows you to "save" actions in future rounds. While I enjoy my Druid, it's often a straight turn of 2 action spell + 1 action. What if a feat let you move while sustaining a spell? Or cast a spell + Recall Knowledge? A Sorcerer's bloodline ability could be cast a non-cantrip and get a free demoralize out. Or a feat could let you do a metamagic action + move. Multi-action spells would be interesting, but require thinking up new spells. These types of combination feats would just add some dynamics to a spellcaster's turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking about some of those feats again, I can see spell level being a particular gating. But things that work like Bespell Weapon or the Magus’ slide casting, where you siphon off an extra effect after casting a spell, would still be awesome to bring more motion to spell caster turns while allowing them to cast every turn.
The Magus synthesis and Summoner Tandem feats are the exact abilities I had in mind when I was hoping for action enhancers for casters.
I’m fairly certain they heard us on that, and are planning to deliver. I know “wait for Secrets of Magic” is something of a meme, but there should be act least a couple small offerings.
I’m also pleased by the feats going in the other direction on the Gunslinger. Those 2 and 3 action activities for varied effects needed some tuning but were conceptually great, and the unstable Inventor feats were basically focus spells with a new limiting mechanic. I can’t wait to see what the final version ends up with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I wonder how much 1e content is simply not going to work with the 2e power balance?This is admittedly something I'm a little bit worried about. There were a lot of specifically really cool things in PF1e that Paizo's direction in PF2 might not even allow.
I have a friend who was really attached to the PF1 Magus and he doesn't even want to look at PF2 anymore after seeing the playtest version of the class, because he thinks it compromises so much of what made the Magus interesting in PF1. The final release version of the class might be better, but it won't be close to the PF1 magus either.
For the record, I don't think anything will ruin 2e for me. There's enough now for me to keep liking it for the foreseeable future. But the thing I'm waiting for the most is kineticist, and I do doubt that it'll be as dependable as it was in 1e. 2e seems to shy away from a lot of things that were very long duration or at will in first edition, and that's most of what kineticist is. At will area damage is also something that is basically non existent in 2e, with some small exceptions in things like whirlwind strike.
But again it's all speculation. Just thought it might be a cool conversation to have with people who had a lot of experience with first edition, trying to pick apart what sort of things just won't fit in this new game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. The way scrolls work in PF2 makes being a MC caster a lot easier and more interesting than anything I ever tried to do in PF1 with multi-classing into a caster to do more than grab a single entry level ability.
As an aside, I realized that a scroll trickster “caster” that could create a limited pool of free scrolls every day is the one kind of spell caster that the playtest wave casting actually makes a lot of sense. Of course you only get 4 spells total per day, and those spells are your highest spell level. It’s not that you forgot them, you never knew them in the first place.
I’m using that idea for homebrewing, but I hope it independently occurred to the devs. I’d love to see a subclass or class archetype that cast entirely with scrolls from every tradition, taking the basic archetype and dialing it up
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, things got sour. I'm gonna post anyway as I have something relevant!
I was playing the Slithering with an Infernal sorcerer who mixed healing and the granted fire magic. As the game went on, I decided to give a Swashbuckler dedication a try and I can tell you that it was a great choice.
I chose the wit Swashbuckler and used bon not to give myself panache while also giving myself in edge in mental spells. Mixed with tumbling and flaming sphere, I had a lot of interesting choices that I didn't have beforehand.
I guess I recommend Swashbuckler for casters. Or at least bon mot.
One for All is an excellent feat for any caster with good Diplomacy and a free reaction. If you do it with Panache and have the Wit style you get a +1 to the Aid check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But again it's all speculation. Just thought it might be a cool conversation to have with people who had a lot of experience with first edition, trying to pick apart what sort of things just won't fit in this new game.
I'm cautiously optimistic because PF1 itself grew more adventurous as it aged too, but I am a little worried to some extent after looking at the Witch and the playtest magus that there's going to be some stuff Paizo just either is unwilling or unable to leverage into the system and that's a little bit of a shame.
I don't think it'll necessarily harm the system in the long run though, most of the people I've run games for that are new to Pathfinder have been very enthusiastic about the system and even a lot of the things I've criticized myself are (mostly) fine if you judge them completely on their own mechanical merits. Most of the consternation I've seen has been over people transitioning from PF1 and feeling like they're in this constant state of give and take where for every cool thing PF2 does there's another cool thing that's gotten 'taken away' as it were.