| 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.
One of the things I really love in 2e is that you can make multiclass combinations that no one would ever bother with in 1e honestly very effective.
Like a monk/bard is a potent combination in 2e since monks usually have a third action to play with, and a 1 action composition cantrip is amazing here (go get yourself "inspire [anything]".) Monk/Bard is also a combination no one in their right mind would bother with in 1e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does a martial do? Tell me what specific martial feats you are touting and what they can do with their actions that is more special than using a spell?I’m happy to do this, but I want you to do else something first: click on my profile, read it and some of my recent comments, and think about the answer to your question earlier.
Have you actually played the game?...it seems you don't have a basic knowledge of the various actions for casters that are commonly used. I would like to know if you have played the game.Do this, guess how much I’ve played Pathfinder 2E, and if you’re in the right ballpark, I’ll answer both your questions. If you don’t feel like it, that’s fine too.
BTW, it sounds like you're doing Haste wrong.
How am I doing haste wrong? You are quickened. It gives an extra action you can use for a stride or an attack. That provides flexibility to a caster to move, to fly, or use a weapon, while also having 3 actions to cast, sustain, or cast a shield or use a skill.
There seems to be this idea that casters don't use weapons. They can. It's very easy to build up Dex or Strength to use a weapon. It's very easy to build up a weapon. Ancestry feats make it easy to get a decent weapon proficiency for damage. At the highest level with a decent physical stat, you can use a weapon quite well against most creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its hilarious that someone said PF1 martials had poor action economy. PF1 martials got the most feats and features affecting the action economy. Action economy was not the problem PF1 martials had, it was all about general utility and how often people just repeated the same build.
Shield Fighters were one of the top in action economy with a simple: Bull Rush, into an AoO, followed by a trip, then a stomp, then a full round of attack with +4 from prone, a 5-ft to reposition, and the swift action for some other feat or item you might have.
(Btw I was in the camp that martials needed some help in utility. But that casters should not be nerfed to make martials look better. Clearly my side lost.)
********************
Also some people seem to think that I dislike the 3 action system. Well let me tell you straight from my mouth. You are wrong. I think the 3 action economy is a great idea with a lot of potential and possible interactions.
However, my like for the idea of the 3 action system does not mean I cannot see the glaring flaw with how Paizo has balanced it. The glaring flawing being 2 fold:
1) Some classes are getting a lot of ways to enhance, increase, or overall take advantage of the 3 action system. While other classes are not being given any pf those tools, while also requiring more actions to do what the class is "supposed" to.
2) The value of a spell is usually valued at around 2 martial actions, but usually less effective than a martial because of accuracy. The exceptions being: Buffs, Debuffs, and AoE. Buffs/Debuffs directly makes martials more effective, while AoE is a multipler.
In short casters spend more finite (daily) resources and in combat actions for equal or less effect as a basic martial. While a martial is getting ways to become better than the base. Case in point: Electric Arc is seen as one of the best spells because its a cantrip that deals as much damage as 2 basic martial attacks.
Maybe higher level spells are better. But most people wont even make it...
What do you mean by this?
What does a martial have that equals a chain lightning hammering a group of 8 enemies with several fails and some critical fails? I've had chain lightnings do 300 to 400 points of damage. How long does it take a martial to do 300 to 400 points of damage using their resources?
I did this while using a bow to hit another target for 15 or so damage.
Then you have spells like fiery body. This one 7th level spell provides you with the following:
1. Flight
2. Resistance to precision damage.
3. 1 extra damage dice on fire attacks.
4. Produce flame as a 1 action cantrip.
So you can cast this spell and start dropping pain on enemies. I bought a wand of smoldering fireballs which launches a big fat fireball that does persistent fire damage if the targets fail.
What comparable attack does a martial have to this?
I can do all this as a druid while using a weapon with runes as a 1 action attack option. While healing if needed. While using magical items with spells in them, which I have many. While using a sustain spell action for free with Effortless Concentration.
When I first started this game, I thought more like you. The more I played the more I learned I was wrong and that casters aren't limited. Things like Twin Takedown and Monk Flurry seem cool at lower level. Then casters reach that higher level, start doing whacky damage and effects, and start getting improvements to action economy like Effortless Concentration, more focus points, access to magic items with additional spells, cheap scrolls, and abilities like free composition, then you stop seeing what martials get as anything special.
The ranger in my party is still using that two arrow shot ability. The rogue is still swinging his sword. The barbarian rages and occasionally gets to use Swipe or Whirlwind Attack of the enemy sets up right, but most of this is short range martial abilities.
While the druid is is obliterating enemies, turning into dragons of different types as needed and creatures, casting spells, using a weapon, and is just flat out more varied with only the number of spells as a limiting factor.
So you and the others tell me how you expect Paizo to balance the game if they make casters even more powerful than they are because martials look like they interact with the action economy better at lower level? It doesn't work.
I can tell you with absolute certainty casters are more powerful than martials at higher level. They have more action options than martials. They can do more all around. Their only limitations are the number of spells in the book. The only way you could possibly improve them would make the more powerful than they already are and they're eclipsing martials at higher level as it is.
The only positive is that it isn't as bad as PF1. It shouldn't be.
But when a bard can hit a dragon synesthesia followed by true target combined with a focus point Inspire Heroics and Inspire Courage in the same round which pretty much game overs the dragon, then whatever a martial can do other than swing and do some damage looks pretty pale by comparison.
Just like when the druid unleashes a high level chain lightning or fireball while flying and sustaining a storm of vengeance, you don't see the martial swinging his greatsword as all that special.
So this argument kind of dies on the vine. If they make casters any better, who would want to play a martial. I stopped loving martials a while back. They don't do much at higher level. Their damage is not comparable. Once you see a group of lower level creature critically fail against a chain lightning or phantasmal calamity, you just don't think of Twin Takedown or Intimidating strike at all that interesting.
DF: try this link: https://2e.aonprd.com/Search.aspx?Query=sustained&Filter=00000000000000 %201&AllTerms=True
I might have said more, or quoted something, but this site is just way too annoying. :-(
| 1 person 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.
This is the best summary of the issues I’ve seen brought up in this thread over the past few days. And I agree, it would be cool if spell casters got some of these types of feats. The most we get are things designed to cast multiple spells in the same turn.
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...
They do get these types of feats, but at higher level likely because their abilities are more powerful.
DF: try this link: https://2e.aonprd.com/Search.aspx?Query=sustained&Filter=00000000000000 %201&AllTerms=True
I might have said more, or quoted something, but this site is just way too annoying. :-(
Thanks. That's an awful lot of 1 action options for casters. As far as I know you can sustain a spell while in a battle form. So you can enter melee as a druid with a sustained spell going. Though there are so many pesky little rules here and there in PF2, I could be wrong about that.
...Its hilarious that someone said PF1 martials had poor action economy. PF1 martials got the most feats and features affecting the action economy. Action economy was not the problem PF1 martials had, it was all about general utility and how often people just repeated the same build.
Shield Fighters were one of the top in action economy with a simple: Bull Rush, into an AoO, followed by a trip, then a stomp, then a full round of attack with +4 from prone, a 5-ft to reposition, and the swift action for some other feat or item you might have.
(Btw I was in the camp that martials needed some help in utility. But that casters should not be nerfed to make martials look better. Clearly my side lost.)
********************
Also some people seem to think that I dislike the 3 action system. Well let me tell you straight from my mouth. You are wrong. I think the 3 action economy is a great idea with a lot of potential and possible interactions.
However, my like for the idea of the 3 action system does not mean I cannot see the glaring flaw with how Paizo has balanced it. The glaring flawing being 2 fold:
1) Some classes are getting a lot of ways to enhance, increase, or overall take advantage of the 3 action system. While other classes are not being given any pf those tools, while also requiring more actions to do what the class is "supposed" to.
2) The value of a spell is usually valued at around 2 martial actions, but usually less effective than a martial because of accuracy. The exceptions being: Buffs, Debuffs, and AoE. Buffs/Debuffs directly makes martials more effective, while AoE is a multipler.
In short casters spend more finite (daily) resources and in combat actions for equal or less effect as a basic martial. While a martial is getting ways to become better than the base. Case in point: Electric Arc is seen as one of the best spells because its a cantrip that deals as much damage as 2 basic martial attacks.
Maybe
So here is the question: Do you pay a price at lower level to become more powerful at higher level? That's the way it worked in PF1, though the power level at high level for casters was ridiculous. Now it's not as ridiculous, but it is higher. It seems pretty good right now to the point where martials don't seem vastly overshadowed, while casters still get to feel some big boss rounds when they start drop the big boy spells.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have been down this road before. If you think that “casting a spell” is a singular activity on par with “making a strike,” you will alway undervalue how casting a spell is one of potentially 20 or more different activities that can range from attacking 10 different creatures, to bringing someone back to life, to completely warping reality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't wait until my sorcerer (dedicated into wizard for even more spells) is capable of doing some of those things. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have been down this road before. If you think that “casting a spell” is a singular activity on par with “making a strike,” you will alway undervalue how casting a spell is one of potentially 20 or more different activities that can range from attacking 10 different creatures, to bringing someone back to life, to completely warping reality.
In fairness, that's relevant if the complaint is "I just cast a spell every turn" since it reduces spellcasting to one thing when it isn't, but not particularly relevant if the complaint is "my main gimmick being a two action activity makes it harder to interact with the game's action economy"
I mean, when does a martial get to attack 10 foes at once with even 2 actions? Doing more than 1 actions worth of things in a turn usually takes at least 2 actions, with maybe a few examples of martials having 2 actions for 1.
Casters do get some of that as well, but if you tie it to feats that manipulate spells you have to be incredibly careful to consider how different it is to be able to manipulate 9th or even 10 th level spells, than it is to get an extra free attack every round as a martial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have been down this road before. If you think that “casting a spell” is a singular activity on par with “making a strike,” you will alway undervalue how casting a spell is one of potentially 20 or more different activities that can range from attacking 10 different creatures, to bringing someone back to life, to completely warping reality.In fairness, that's relevant if the complaint is "I just cast a spell every turn" since it reduces spellcasting to one thing when it isn't, but not particularly relevant if the complaint is "my main gimmick being a two action activity makes it harder to interact with the game's action economy"
A lot of good martial gimmicks are also two action activities. If you limit yourself to your two-action activities, you are going to feel limited, yeah. That's true on any character.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, when does a martial get to attack 10 foes at once with even 2 actions?
They don't. But, again, that's not the thing they were complaining about.
A lot of good martial gimmicks are also two action activities.
Well, the big difference is that a lot of those good martial gimmicks are things you situationally opt into. The Swashbuckler and Investigator are pretty heavily guided into specific 2+ action routines, but most other martials aren't and people have complained about swashbuckler and investigator combat routines too.
If you limit yourself to your two-action activities, you are going to feel limited, yeah. That's true on any character.
That seems kind of glib. A wizard who doesn't use a two action activity is, for the most part, a wizard who's not using any of their class features. That's whole reason you have people here talking about wanting more action variability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The complain about number of actions has nothing to do with power. But how much the class interacts with the action economy. Although more action economy can mean more power, it depends a lot on what the actual ability says.
I even specifically said that AoE is good because its a multiplier. Non AoE is much rougher.
When I do non-AoE damage, I use a sustain spell or a pet, a weapon, and work in a cantrip here or there like electric arc or produce flame. I don't do as much damage as a martial, but should I?
If I do all these things martials can't, should I do as much single target damage?
How would you feel if the guy blasting whole groups for hundreds of damaging, teleporting, flying, walling off groups, and changing into dragons is also doing amazing single target damage? I don't know. I'd start feeling kind of useless.
Hell, there are times when I drop a tempest surge with a lucky critical fail and my single target is amazing. But at least it cost me a focus point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe that's ultimately the problem to pick up on in an analysis of PF2. Paizo didn't go far enough with martials and other characters just feel limited and awkward in order to keep that martial design space carved out.
You can sort of see it with the playtest magus and how much Paizo struggled to find a way to balance martial proficiencies and some meaningful amount of spellcasting with how tight and skeletal a PF2 chassis is.
Maybe that's ultimately the problem to pick up on in an analysis of PF2. Paizo didn't go far enough with martials and other characters just feel limited and awkward in order to keep that martial design space carved out.
You can sort of see it with the playtest magus and how much Paizo struggled to find a way to balance martial proficiencies and some meaningful amount of spellcasting with how tight and skeletal a PF2 chassis is.
Same with the summoner. It's like neither class does anything well and they're far more martial than caster. You could have almost made spellstrike a feat and let wizard's or multiclass fighters take it or have it as a fighter archetype.
Summoner is all over the place. I think it will end up only being attractive to those that like weird characters for the sake of playing a weird character. It won't feel powerful or particularly useful compared to a core class. It feels to me when playing like a summoned creature with a summoner tacked on.
But the one play-style I did like was the summoned creature with the summoner and his eidolon. That was fun. But only viable if they do something to boost the summoned creatures attack rolls. Without that, it's a bad option for tough fights. A summoner who can't hit is pretty weak.
What does a martial have that equals a chain lightning hammering a group of 8 enemies with several fails and some critical fails? I've had chain lightnings do 300 to 400 points of damage. How long does it take a martial to do 300 to 400 points of damage using their resources?I did this while using a bow to hit another target for 15 or so damage.
The ranger in my party is still using that two arrow shot ability. The rogue is still swinging his sword. The barbarian rages and occasionally gets to use Swipe or Whirlwind Attack of the enemy sets up right, but most of this is short range martial abilities.
I fully accept that casters get much stronger than martials at higher level.
However you are seriously down playing what martial characters can do, and are talking up optimal results for a caster. I've seen a critical success on the very first save against Chain Lightning - that makes it a zero.
For starters that Whirlwind Strike you are talking about, at say level 16 the Giant Barbarian is going to be doing 40+ points per hit. With a reach at a minimum of 15ft , but 25ft is also achievable. The positioning cost is less than you might think as a Mature Animal Companion Mount can do it for free from level 4, via a multiclass into Beastmaster. If not surely the Barbarian can get haste from somewhere, like a cheap elixir if he doesn't have a friendly caster.
The Draconic Barbarian has a breath weapon so he can play the same game as the casters, not too far behind.
Yes an archer can look at bit staid if all you do is take your shots flat each round. But 15 points is a straw man. Is that 15 x 5? I had a Fighter/Eldritch Archer/Sorcerer and he was regularily doing hits for 40 damage once per round and regularily criticalling for 100+ points and that was under level 10.
Martials really should be working their reactions with Attack of Oppourtunity, or Riposte, or Opportune BackStab or Embrace the Pain
Just looking at the main attack routine is missing significant power in the classes. From level 10 ish they have feats for extra reactions and can often do two attack outside their turn as well.
Your martial concepts are just not trying. If you are doing nothing but accepting your initial low level abilities, you are missing the potential of the classes.
Don't ignore the bonus from a few simple consumable items can add.
Martials have more hitpoints, betters saves, better initiative. They aren't as strong at high level. But they are still good.
One question that I am asking myself in this regards is: "Is any spellcaster in PF2 expected to cast a non-cantrip spell every turn of combat (minus mopping-up turns of course) by game design?
The reason why I am asking myself this question is that in older editions casters (at least in my groups) mostly let the martials do all the heavy lifting and only used spells when things potentially got out of hand or where not mangeable by the martials prowess alone (flying, invisible opponents etc). The most prominent reason for this usually was spell conservation.
However when playing AoA I felt the need for top-down casting in almost every single encounter, but maybe this is also because the early AP encounters seem a little overtuned. However the question still remains, has there been a shift in game design (especially as pre-buffing isn't a thing anymore) and how does this affect the freedom to spend actions as casters?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With only the least bit of investment in spell casting items, most wizards and sorcerers will be able to cast at least 3 or 4 spells from spell slots per encounter. Now, electric arc is such a good cantrip, that there will be times were the wizard/sorcerer won't feel like they have a need to do more than follow up with an electric arc and either a ranged weapon attack or a move to safety in rounds 3 or 4 of an encounter, but they definitely have the ability to use spells from slots pretty much all day by level 5. At level 6, even the druid and the cleric in the parties I GM for cast at least 2 spells from spell slots per encounter, neither one of which has spent a single coin of their wealth on picking up additional spell casting items.
I also agree that martials have really cool feats and abilities, especially by high levels, and that they play an essential roll in a well functioning party. Mostly, it has been rogues criting with bows against solo bosses that have caused the jaws to drop in the parties I play with. Like when the 7th level Rogue/Edritch Archer crit against a solo 8th level dragon with a Eldritch tanglefoot, pinning it (crit specialization), entangling it to immobilized, and doing 75 points (half the creatures HP) in the first turn of combat. It was pretty much an encounter over before it began situation, but the Martial only did 1 activity that turn, AND it relied on casting a spell to make it more than just a lot of damage.
Melee Martials in particular are super dependent on feats that build movement into their other actions or else they end up lucky to spend 1 action a round attacking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen a critical success on the very first save against Chain Lightning - that makes it a zero.
Fair enough, but... what are the odds of a critical success in this situation?
I've seen a critical success on the very first save against Chain Lightning - that makes it a zero.Fair enough, but... what are the odds of a critical success in this situation?
Enough that it can happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing worth planning around though.
That was my point.
What does a martial have that equals a chain lightning hammering a group of 8 enemies with several fails and some critical fails? I've had chain lightnings do 300 to 400 points of damage. How long does it take a martial to do 300 to 400 points of damage using their resources?I did this while using a bow to hit another target for 15 or so damage.
The ranger in my party is still using that two arrow shot ability. The rogue is still swinging his sword. The barbarian rages and occasionally gets to use Swipe or Whirlwind Attack of the enemy sets up right, but most of this is short range martial abilities.
I fully accept that casters get much stronger than martials at higher level.
However you are seriously down playing what martial characters can do, and are talking up optimal results for a caster. I've seen a critical success on the very first save against Chain Lightning - that makes it a zero.
For starters that Whirlwind Strike you are talking about, at say level 16 the Giant Barbarian is going to be doing 40+ points per hit. With a reach at a minimum of 15ft , but 25ft is also achievable. The positioning cost is less than you might think as a Mature Animal Companion Mount can do it for free from level 4, via a multiclass into Beastmaster. If not surely the Barbarian can get haste from somewhere, like a cheap elixir if he doesn't have a friendly caster.
The Draconic Barbarian has a breath weapon so he can play the same game as the casters, not too far behind.
Yes an archer can look at bit staid if all you do is take your shots flat each round. But 15 points is a straw man. Is that 15 x 5? I had a Fighter/Eldritch Archer/Sorcerer and he was regularily doing hits for 40 damage once per round and regularily criticalling for 100+ points and that was under level 10.
Martials really should be working their reactions with Attack of Oppourtunity, or Riposte, or Opportune BackStab or Embrace the Pain
Just looking at...
I never really said martials aren't good. I said they're doing the same things they were doing at low level, while my caster options are far more varied and interesting.
For one campaign, I play a Giant Barbarian and a Storm Druid. Both are lvl 16.
Barbarian Round:
1. Rage and sudden charge at the same time. Grow to Titan Stature if room. Start smashing things. If the enemies set up for a Swipe or Whirlwind attack, use it. Maybe toss in an intimidate on occasion.
These are my rounds.
I can fly on my own with ancestry feats from Tiefling. So I do that on occasion too.
2. Druid rounds. Check the battlefield. Do I fireball, chain lightning, or Tempest surge? Should I change into fiery body or is this fight can I turn into a dragon and just use the breath weapon. Will that be sufficient.
Anyone need healing? How about a wall of thorns? Should I put fly on the melee? Does the group or someone need a haste?
Use an electric arc cantrip for clean up with a bow shot.
Change into a dragon and flank with a flying creature to make it easier for the melees.
Druid rounds are wide open and flexible because they have so many more options.
And the druid is the main character with Medicine because Wisdom is the medicine stat.
Even a recent encounter in a module shows the difference in a martial and a druid. A group of enemies were flying in on flying mounts. They were spread across the sky. Druid nuked them out of they sky from 200 feet away with a fireball and had them mostly dead before they even reached the party. Then shapechanged into a dragon and flew up hammering the remaining group with breath weapon and physical attacks. Martials got to clean up a few remaining. Took the druid four rounds to do this practically solo. Martials don't have rounds like this where they destroy a group of enemies before the fight even starts. Casters I've seen have many rounds like this as they level up.
Phantasmal Calamity critical fails are a nightmare for lower level enemies. Practically ends the fight right there and the martials are just hitting practice dummies.
That being said it isn't as bad as PF1. Martials are still fun. Just kind of simple like they were before. They hit things. They get feats that let them hit things in different ways. Tanks can get some battlefield control feats, but usually for melee range. Whereas casters have wide open and varied options for damage, battlefield control, buffs and debuffs, and the like. Once you hit those higher levels, it becomes kind of rote to play a martial while you get to think about your rounds as a caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem is that this comparison only looks at a fight. PF is a combat focused game, everyone can fight.
Which is where I sort of think some martials' downfall is. Barbarians and Fighters are undeniably really good at hitting things, but that's also pretty much the totality of their chassis... and if we're being honest, that was pretty much how things were in PF1 too.
That's not to say martials are bad and PF2 doesn't have much better balance, but it's also just a simple statement of fact that there's virtually nothing inside the core fighter's kit that makes them better at the parts of the game that aren't fighting.
Granted that's not strictly martial vs caster, because some martials (rogues, investigators, rangers to a certain degree) get skill enhancers too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While true to an extent, ive been very happy with the amount, in absolute terms, of stuff even the fighter and barbarian get for out of combat. The system really benefits from the skill feats being siloed, so even if the class chassis is very combat oriented, that doesnt mean the character will have issues succeeding outside of combat. Archetypes and Ancestry feats help a lot too.
My hobgoblin katana Fighter build has high intelligence (behind strength though, and constitution is up there as well), boosts society and uses it in tandem with streetwise and courtly graces, can craft magic items, and can make the party move overland faster and such too. Its not super related to me being a fighter, I use those feats for combat. This is all before my free archetype (thinking cavalier?) comes into play.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a real problem that people keep trying to use "This one time multiple enemies managed to crit fail and it was awesome" as a balance point for spells when it's absurdly rare, it's not uncommon for enemies to succeed a save on an 11, meaning they only crit fail on a 1.
And it gets worse in the big climactic boss battles you'd really want to break out big spells for, but 2e is setup so that most boss fights are about hoping the boss only succeeds rather than critically succeeds his save so you can at least have some contribution to the fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also interferes with a lot of the fantasy. Like.. I'm getting lightning reflexes as a... wizard? Okay...
I also dislike increasing 4 stats by +2 every 5 levels. It makes all the characters 'feel' the same. Especially at 20 when everyone is likely +18 in most of their stats.
Yep
"With everyone super, no one will be"
It would be nice if the base stats actually meant something. The idea of the 3d6 stats was that there was a distibution around a normal value. But what does normal mean when everyone gets this huge automatic progression?
Mechanically it all works fine and its good. But the flavour? The sameness?
They did intend at first to go with just modifiers, so instead of Str 18, you'd have Str+4. Their testing indicated that would be unpopular.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't really agree with the notion of sameness. I've even had some players complain that four boosts barely felt like enough to keep up since depending on your class you might need that many boosts anyways just to keep progressing your saves and your main stat.
Likewise, I think level 1 stat lines end up really spiky a lot of the time too, particularly for classes that neat two attributes to run their mechanics. 18/16/12/12/10/10 is a starting stat line I see a lot and it doesn't leave a lot of room for flexing outside your main gimmick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a real problem that people keep trying to use "This one time multiple enemies managed to crit fail and it was awesome" as a balance point for spells when it's absurdly rare, it's not uncommon for enemies to succeed a save on an 11, meaning they only crit fail on a 1.
And it gets worse in the big climactic boss battles you'd really want to break out big spells for, but 2e is setup so that most boss fights are about hoping the boss only succeeds rather than critically succeeds his save so you can at least have some contribution to the fight.
It isn't absurdly rare. It's very common at higher levels against lower level enemies.
It's only absurdly rare against boss level enemies. Crits period are absurdly rare against boss level enemies.
No, boss battles become quite easy at higher level sadly. With clerics able to erase damage, debuff spells, buff spells, direct damage, multiple attacks, magic weapons, feats, and the like, boss battles end a lot quicker with minimal danger unless you critically fail a nasty save.
The hardest fights are in the low to kind of mid levels. At high level you have too many things you can do for bosses to cause you a lot of trouble. You are often able to easily take advantage of weaknesses even when you lack preparation. Players start choosing optimal rune combinations.
Past 15th level became pretty easy against almost everything. Not PF1 easy, but you weren't threatened really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a real problem that people keep trying to use "This one time multiple enemies managed to crit fail and it was awesome" as a balance point for spells.
I think it is just as much a problem that people keep trying to use ‘that one time the enemy crit succeeded” as a defining point when discussing balance of spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I suppose I get that, my point is though that classes that need a variety of stats can already feel stretched thin and getting fewer boosts would make it even harder for characters to branch out as they develop.
It should be easier to build diverse stat spreads, not harder.
Part of that is definitely the math though. In PF1 I'd sometimes see people roll with a 16 in their mainstat and be perfectly serviceable because they could find other ways to pad out their attacks and other numbers, plus progressive point buy meant dropping 2 or 4 points from your main stat could give you significantly more to play around with your other stats. In PF2 every +1 is so much more important and dropping 2 points off your main stat only gives you those same two points back in a secondary stat, so you rarely see someone starting with a 16 unless they have to and never a 14.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1 players bought stat-enhancing items for every key stat. I much prefer more stat boosts as that gives the feeling of being personally heroic rather than relying on a magic item.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree there. Shame they went the other way with weapons and made magic weapons more important than ever.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fewer mandatory magic items but the mandatory magic items that are there are more important was kinda the compromise between people like us who are happy using ABP and people who get a rush from their fancy new +1 sword. Both groups proved large enough to be worth appealing to I guess.
I think it's a real problem that people keep trying to use "This one time multiple enemies managed to crit fail and it was awesome" as a balance point for spells.I think it is just as much a problem that people keep trying to use ‘that one time the enemy crit succeeded” as a defining point when discussing balance of spells.
That spells are, like everything else, balanced around fighting an equal level enemy gets lost easily when you see people bugging out about some big numbers that one time against a group of mooks or complaining about how their spell did nothing vs the solo boss's best save.
Generally speaking though, landing big crits against a bunch of trivial mooks isn't really the highlight of most people's game night. What people usually care more about is being effective against the big climax solo boss or the grusome twosome. And the game math means that you just cannot reliably land the stronger effects of spells (or any incap spells) on any enemy that might be threatening by themselves or in a pair. Fortunately, picking spells based solely on what they do on a success or that don't interact with the enemy at all is an easy way to set yourself up as a reliable caster and those spells usually have the best effects anyway (buffs, illusions, fear, slow, 50% damage blasts, etc, etc).
Now, this doesn't mean much at mid or later levels as has been mentioned. At that point, trivializing combat is simple enough. You still won't land anything better than a success against the big enemies but by that point it won't matter as you'll have enough spell slots to do so every round, and the experience to know you don't need to do better to have done your job.
If some of the more hyperbolic statements about casters are treated as true and it's worthless to play them, then you have exactly that situation where some classes are Super and some aren't. You should be pleased by that, or does this only work when your preferred classes are the ones getting to be superior?It also interferes with a lot of the fantasy. Like.. I'm getting lightning reflexes as a... wizard? Okay...
I also dislike increasing 4 stats by +2 every 5 levels. It makes all the characters 'feel' the same. Especially at 20 when everyone is likely +18 in most of their stats.Yep
"With everyone super, no one will be"
One thing I found over the years is everyone wants to be equally super in the adventuring group. One player wanting to be Superman, while everyone else is Batman doesn't work very well.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness, in every practical sense, Batman and Superman are equals-- it takes some doing but neither are sidekicks. But in the Justice League stuff where they work together, most problems see them HAVING to work together to have any chance of stopping the problem. This is the default state of a fantasy adventuring party as well, teamwork is required to solve the problem.
The issue is that this requires the writers of these comics to give Batman, who is technically much weaker than Superman, things that only he can really do, or at least things he's the only one who *does* do. Some of this is that while Batman is sold as a regular person, in reality he has abilities that are functionally superhuman, relative to Superman's level of skill in those areas. But the rest is them contriving a role for Batman in a group where Superman exists-- Superman can't be as good a detective, or a strategic planner, not because Batman I should be better at that for any meaningful reason, but to let them both have their niches.
But I think that in a game like Pathfinder/DND, which is so acutely simulationist in nature, its harder because we can't contrive spotlight in the same way the writers can contrive spotlight for Batman. At the end of the day, that's what balance is, its forcing the players to operate at a similar level of power so that the spreading of spotlight is organic rather than contrived, since contriving takes way more skill, and it rankles some players in the first person.
That was always the motivator for shutting down powergaming, that the powergamer would eat everyone else's lunch. Its why many people whose players were sufficiently mechanically oriented, had to include management of group power level as a session zero thing, and ultimately restrict access to stronger and weaker classes based on what everyone's playing. This is the premise behind the Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit bit as well, where Angel Summoners partners have no business being in a party with him.
Ultimately, in Pathfinder 2e, the game is really well balanced, no one is a sidekick-- Martials and Casters are acutely close to equal if both players are trying. The spotlight spreads fairly equally right out of the box, I'm playing a caster right now, and I kick ass. Our Martially oriented characters aren't outclassing me at all. The characters themselves have specific roles (although we all deal damage and such) and the classes naturally contribute to what role in the party we play (I am knowledge focused, for instance.)
The thing about "if everyone's super" was the villain for a reason, an investment in just being better than everyone else as a grounds for wanting to be super is unhealthy. The Incredibles, in the movie are a team, in the family everyone is super, and it doesn't make any of them lesser.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I very much enjoy the "4 ability boosts" system. Not really seeing the "sameness" that people are talking about. Sure, if you go all in on your class's main thing then pump up the save stats, things can look kind of similar. Although even then, you have 12+ stat differences characters' stats (str vs int on a fighter and wizard, for instance)
But the second you start looking for cool stuff you stat array can start looking very different. Multiclassing, using skill feats like Bon Mot, not maximizing your main stat... you can end up with a lot of differences and everyone feeling like they could use more boosts.
And you definitely *can* leaves stats at 10 if you so choose, or slack of on some of your save stats because a couple points here or there aren't going to break you.