I miss having more player-driven flashy moments

[dmerceless]

Unicore wrote:

Try having your cleric cast level 4 silence on you, and then grab the wizard and see how epic it feels when he has to, at the very least, spend 1 action to escape, and a second to move.

Teamwork is what makes those magic moments really stand out in PF2. Alone you might have one cool extra ability, but if you combine it with that cool ability your ally has, suddenly you have flipped the script on the battlefield.

Fire oracles with flame focused friends can be another example of this, anyone demoralizing and making flat footed the enemy right before the barbarian goes, these options really do exist from level 1 to level 20.

If this is the way your group has fun and feels excited about the game, more fun to you. Our group wants to be a party where every member is a hero doing their own cool stuff in their own unique ways, not Fantasy Squad Alpha Nine where only the collective matters. It's not about being selfish or wanting to have fun over other players; we love those moments where one character does an insane feat on their own and everyone stands in applause or hype. This is what being heroes is to us.

Your preferred playstyle already has a ton of support. Can't we have some for our? I don't think that's unfeasible at all.

[TriOmegaZero]

Squiggit wrote:

You're understating the issue of preparing spells correctly, imo. It's not just a matter of guessing the correct save, but for a wizard/cleric/druid you need to prepare the correct spells in the correct quantities as well. That's far from a guarantee like a number of the comments here seem to suggest.

This is not a new argument, it has been rehashed since spontaneous casters were introduced, and while the changes to the system have adjusted the probabilities the bottom line that 'casters will generally have something that will work and often have something that will work devastatingly wel' remains true. The big change is now other characters also have options to attack different targets.

[AnimatedPaper]

Ubertron_X wrote:

I agree that this is what a lot of players want for many different reasons, however this is not what I had in mind. And keep in mind that at least from time to time I want to remove the variance of the d20 too, however for narrative reasons and less for any powergaming effects.

I apologize if I come across like I'm accusing you or your group of wanting to powergame; although that might not be an inaccurate reading of my assumptions. But being able to powergame is its own narrative construct; the idea that you can be so good at something that you have total control (in a limited fashion) over the outcome of that action. As long as the game is built to accommodate it and everyone gets their own moments (so that you aren't having your moment at the expense of your fellow players, GM included), I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing to want. PF2 doesn't really accommodate that specific "I can conquer the d20" playstyle at the moment, due to the tight math, but there's other ways.

[Ruzza]

dmerceless wrote:

Your preferred playstyle already has a ton of support. Can't we have some for our? I don't think that's unfeasible at all.

It's less about "preferred playstyle" and more to do with conscious design choices. Right now, PF2's combat mechanics are built around having a toolkit of options and emphasis on in-the-moment decisions to overcome the challenge.

As many people have noted since release, there are easy ways to achieve what you're looking for, like treating the PCs a level lower for encounter design, applying the weak template, or even the variety of Hero Point alternatives people have proposed. But what seems to be the problem you're having isn't the lack of player-driven moments, but rather situations in which the PC doesn't need the rest of the party to shine. Unfortunately, I doubt that the core design of PF2 is going to change so dramatically, but as has been brought up, you can get that effect at your tables by adjusting the numbers yourself.

I, personally, would advocate for engaging with what PF2's strengths are rather than try to fit them into a box in which they don't belong. It's been said before, but sometimes a system just isn't the one for you, and that's okay.

[Squiggit]

Ruzza wrote:

As many people have noted since release, there are easy ways to achieve what you're looking for, like treating the PCs a level lower for encounter design, applying the weak template, or even the variety of Hero Point alternatives people have proposed.

Literally none of those things give the PC cool flashy ways to interact with the system or have a stand out moment. Like, not even a little bit.

[NECR0G1ANT]

dmerceless wrote:

Damn, this thread got more traction than I expected. Anyway. There's one thing that's being wildly misinterpreted about my original point, a lot of it being my fault for not explaining it as well as I could. Let me clarify now.

The point is not and never has been about having the ability to negate the impact of luck. If you look at the examples of abilities that do this well in 2e I gave, none of them have any meaningful impact on luck. Ki Strike improves your success rate by 5%. Dance of Thunder and Path of Iron have zero extra chance of success compared to other things you could be doing. The point is not luck being meaningful or not, but luck (a.k.a crits) being the only way to have an above-average cool moment. You as a player have no significant control over them.

The following example might help: Let's say I'm a Fighter, and there's this BBEG Wizard that has been making my life hell for the whole campaign, and always manages to escape and get away with it. I finally track him down and combat starts. After a grueling battle, I manage to run past the remaining enemy lines and get to the Wizard before he teleports away. I'm finally face-to-face with my nemesis, and I... Strike. The same way I've been striking enemies for the last 16 levels. Maybe with a metastrike to also knock him prone if I hit, supposing I have the actions for that. Not anything different from what I always do either.

If I want this thematically special moment to also be mechanically special, my options are:

1 - Roll really high and crit

That's... it.

If I was a Monk with Ki Strike, I could be saving it for this moment. Even if I end up missing, my character did something different and more powerful, and I had the power to do that. Missing sucks, but at least something let me try and create that moment. Such abilities in PF2 are so rare that I can count them in one hand, so I'm asking if we can please have more, and on other classes too.

Do you think the Resonance Point system from the playtest would have solved the issue for you? I didn't like it because it was one more resource to track and using daily resources to activate consumables was a bad idea. But the idea could have worked if it were better implemented.

[dmerceless]

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

Do you think the Resonance Point system from the playtest would have solved the issue for you? I didn't like it because it was one more resource to track and using daily resources to activate consumables was a bad idea. But the idea could have worked if it were better implemented.

I wasn't quite the fan of Resonance, no. Maybe it could have been a good idea with a different implementation, but I'm not sure. Anyway, I think that's overcomplicating the issue a little bit, to be honest. I don't think there need to be any new subsystems or even change any deeply ingrained thing in the system. The Focus mechanic exists. Abilities with /minute or /10 minute cooldowns exist. They're just a bit underexplored currently, and when they are explored they're usually designed a bit... too conservatively (see Quicken Spell).

[Exocist]

Ruzza wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

Your preferred playstyle already has a ton of support. Can't we have some for our? I don't think that's unfeasible at all.

It's less about "preferred playstyle" and more to do with conscious design choices. Right now, PF2's combat mechanics are built around having a toolkit of options and emphasis on in-the-moment decisions to overcome the challenge.

As many people have noted since release, there are easy ways to achieve what you're looking for, like treating the PCs a level lower for encounter design, applying the weak template, or even the variety of Hero Point alternatives people have proposed. But what seems to be the problem you're having isn't the lack of player-driven moments, but rather situations in which the PC doesn't need the rest of the party to shine. Unfortunately, I doubt that the core design of PF2 is going to change so dramatically, but as has been brought up, you can get that effect at your tables by adjusting the numbers yourself.

I, personally, would advocate for engaging with what PF2's strengths are rather than try to fit them into a box in which they don't belong. It's been said before, but sometimes a system just isn't the one for you, and that's okay.

Ruzza, it’s not about the relative power level. It doesn’t matter if it’s a level+4 or level-4 boss. It’s about what the fighter is doing in that moment.

Which is a Strike or a slightly enhanced Strike, then rolling the dice to see what happens. The same thing they’ve been doing against every enemy previously. There’s no ability to use “my super strike that i can only use once per 10 minutes or once per day because i really want this guy dead”.

That’s all we’re asking for really. Some feats that let you do something more powerful, but with a use limitation, on martials. Similar to Ki Strike for monks. Maybe focus spells, maybe not if that doesn’t fit with the fantasy of fighter. Heck it already has a feat like that in Determination.

[voideternal]

PF1 was definitely more player driven than PF2. Both martials and casters had more narrative power, and even characters without narrative power could get it via magic items, which also tended to have more narrative power in PF1.

PF1 casters' narrative power like legend lore or teleport or antimagic field and such are either very difficult rituals or gated behind uncommon / rare tags in PF2. Spell effects in PF1 also tended to be much more godlike and world-changing compared to PF2.

PF1 martials tended to have more narrative power from raw numbers. The core chassis of a PF1 fighter isn't too different from PF2, but the math in PF1 was so broken that a properly optimized and pre-buffed fighter could one-shot most enemies, even higher-level enemies, with a full-attack. Both in PF1 and PF2, the fighter would attack, but the difference is that optimized PF1 fighters could kill pretty much any challenge in 1 round. The "My fighter doesn't have an alpha-strike against the BBEG wizard" issue isn't a problem in PF1 because EVERY full-attack is an unstoppable, unpreventable alpha-strike.

And in case there isn't enough narrative power for a PF1 character, there were so many items that did broken things. I don't recall the full list because PF1 was broken in general, but off the top of my head, any character could use a portable hole and a bag of holding to destroy anything. It might cost their character's own life, but that's narrative power right there with no save.

PF1 games were fun, but from a GM's point of view, they were also unpredictable. Not necessarily a bad thing. But especially in higher levels of play, players generally had so many alpha solutions to every problem that making a challenging campaign was really hard. If you prepared encounters by the recommended CR system, the optimized martial would rip through them so fast that preparing the monster's stat block felt like a waste of time. And that's assuming the monster needed to be fought in the first place when the caster could circumvent the whole campaign a hundred different ways to the point that the caster's narrative power rivaled that of the GM... well, maybe a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point.

To prepare a remotely challenging campaign for a somewhat optimized PF1 party, the GM had to be extremely familiar with the rules and play using some very annoying tactics, ignore the CR system and throw a bunch more and higher level monsters, or "fix" the PF1 math by skewing the save, AC, and hp values of monsters with buffs or homebrew rules. In other words, the GM had to initiate an arms race. In contrast, the PF2 system for preparing an encounter generally works. There's some outliers like grikkitogs, but preparing a game in PF2 is very, very, very easy compared to PF1 - you just prepare the level-appropriate monster. The end.

The two games play very differently in regards to player vs GM narrative balance. Is the scale tilted too heavily in favor of the GM? Maybe. It depends on the feelings of the people at the table. But as a GM, I have an opinion regarding this power balance - it's a lot easier to give power to the players than to remove power.

Imagine that you're playing PF1, and you want to dial back the narrative power of the players. You have to ban metamagic dazing, spell perfection, a number of combat-ending save-or-suck spells, and place a lot of rules on how high you can stack buffs on the martials. If you tell this to the player, they might feel cheated. They might object. They might feel like they're being deprived of power they rightfully should have by rules as written. Who knows. But if you're playing PF2, and you want to give more narrative power to the players, you can homebrew some reasonably over-powered house rules and tell the players they can, 1/day, automatically critical hit or ignore incapacitation tag or increase their spell DC by whatever-or-so-number, and in general, the players will probably be happy. As a GM, it's a lot less stressful to tell the players, "Hey, in addition to the rules, at my home-brew table, you can do so-or-so cool thing" than to say, "Hey, PF1 is kind of broken, so could you pretty please not pick Leadership?"

In my opinion, rules as written, the narrative balance between player and GM is tilted too much favoring the GM, but I don't mind because it doesn't feel bad to give more power to players. And that's why I personally prefer PF2.

[Ruzza]

Exocist wrote:

That’s all we’re asking for really. Some feats that let you do something more powerful, but with a use limitation, on martials. Similar to Ki Strike for monks. Maybe focus spells, maybe not if that doesn’t fit with the fantasy of fighter. Heck it already has a feat like that in Determination.

So I'm not a designer and everything and anything that follows is just from the point of view of someone who has been playing a lot of PF2.

I fully believe we'll see more "once a combat"/10 minute/1 hour abilities. Absolutely we'll see more once a day abilities. And there's plenty of design space for martials of all shapes to get focus abilities, for sure.

I think that the viewpoint of "powerful" and "limitation" is something that should be adjusted. For instance, a fighter focus power that allowed them to add a weapon die to their damage with a single action, like... this. Now this is just an example, and we could play with levers like "What level you access this," or "Putting it behind a dedication," possibly even turning it into a once a day ability. However, at it's core something like this directly competes with a Strike. You don't want to Strike when you have the Bigger Strike, even if the Bigger Strike has the limitation of Focus or any other limitation.

From what I have seen - and again, I could be wrong, not a designer - PF2's design seems to be about giving players the tools to make strong decisions in combat. Each ability on the whole can be compared to each other in a vacuum, but shine situationally. Determination is a great example in that a fighter can do something that no one else can do, and is incredibly powerful for the cost of a single action. Comparing it directly across to many other actions puts it miles ahead, it's a martial self-only dispel action! So it gets the limitation.

But there's another limitation in place. If I look at it and Strike. Or it and Stride. Or it and Take Cover. I don't want to be using Determination in place of any of those actions. It's not more powerful, it's simply powerful. There's a baseline of expected damage that PF2 delivers for GMs, players, and importantly, scenario writers. Bursts of exceptional power outside those parameters seems to be something we're not going to see.

HOWEVER, I don't think that what you're asking for is something unusual. I think it's unlikely that we'll see "directly more powerful, but limited because of that power," but that's on account of the structure of PF2's design. That said, PF2 has made such a modular system that it's very easy to put in what you as a GM would like and take out what you don't. For instance, working off of Hero Points:

Heroic Strike

Heroic Defense

But if you want something more in the At-Will, Encounter, Daily vein of things...

Pummel

Sever

Make a few feats along these lines and give players an extra feat as they level to let them choose their options so that they aren't stuck with just a handful of single use powers. This might work for you.

Personally, this doesn't work for me, as I played my fair share of D&D4e. I enjoyed it enough, but the system wasn't something that meshed with my playstyle. And again, I mean no malice by this, but if you want more powerful, bigger attacks that are limited, you may want to check out another system. I don't know that PF1 did it, but I know for sure D&D4e did. Someone brought up Lancer, which is a game I've been looking forward to try as well. And of course, you can always homebrew. I threw those together in a few minutes and had fun doing it.

[Deriven Firelion]

YuriP wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

This is mainly missing for casters, not martials. You don't get those caster nova moments you got in PF1 and other D20 system. Martials still have their big crits like PF1. Casters can have their moments with damage spells against lower level enemies.

But those caster moments when a caster pulls out the big guns against a boss encounter are gone pumping up a huge metamagic hit with a double save boosting their DC to higher levels is all gone. Casters against boss mobs pretty much are relegated to shifting probabilities to set up martial crits. But those moments when they end fights are gone.

But casters can even easily crit in this game. They are the only that can be Legendary in attacks besides the Fighter and this also affects their Magic DC.

An experienced caster can Recall Knowledge (or ask for a party member to Recall Knowledge if the enemy creature is from a different nature than caster most dominated skill and you don't have Unified Theory skill feat), than after knowing the most weakness save or AC of the enemy. If the enemy AC is the most weak point they can focus on it with True Strike or using a Hero Point to try a crit. Metamagic is a shadow of what it was.

I played a life oracle healer in PF1. The build was ridiculous and super difficult to kill. Life Oracle in PF2 is not even in the same ballpark as the life oracle in PF1. Life oracle PF1 nova was a healing machine. Life oracle in PF2 is a mess hoping no one decides to actually attack them.

Ex.: A lvl 19 wizard can roll their knowledge against a Terotricus to know that their Weakness is against cold attacks and their most weak save is reflex to use a Heightened Cone of Cold to damage it.

Terotricus Refl save = +28 (29 if you don't have Spell Penetration)
A lvl 19 Wizard with an 22 Int (2 from Ability boosts 2 from a Apex item) : 10 + 19 (lvl) + 6(int) + 8(legendary) = 43 Magic DC

So the monster has to roll a d20 + 28 against 43. If it roll a 5 or less is a magic crit!

Why do you use corner cases at lvl 19? Casters spend the vast majority of their time at lower than 19th level which only a handful of players reach manipulating probabilities for martials or killing little guys. That's life as a caster in PF2. You no longer build for yourself as a caster in a PF2, you build for the group if you want maximum success.

There is just no real comparison between PF1 and 3rd edition casters and PF2 casters. PF1 and 3E casters were gods among martials. Now they're on more equal footing. This thread was comparing editions and casters aren't as flashy as they were in PF1 and 3E. Spells have the same names, but power level is way different.

[Temperans]

As others have stated its not a matter of wanting an I win button or making the d20 meaningless. But having those abilities that can turn the tides.

The problem with PF1 is that it gives too much power to players, while making the base difficulty average. So yeah many GM complained about having to create more difficult encounters, or being difficult to balance. But the players got that kick of "Yeah that was awesome!". PF2 lacks that extra oomph having removed almost all abilities that might give players an edge. While making those that remain hard to use, absolutely needed (True Strike), limited uses, or all of the above.

Then when there are easy use abilities (ex: some dedications) people say that those feats should be banned or restricted.

***********************

In the end the problem is that there are ~4 different camps when it comes to playing:

The people who want difficult combat unless everyone plays tactically and uses teamwork. (PF2)

The people who like teamwork, but don't want combat to be difficult without it. (PF1/3.5e)

The people who want combat to be fun, but not difficult. (5e)

The people who are just in it for the story and dont care about combat. (Many d6 systems)

Notice how d6 systems give the players many ways to change their chances. While often giving players game changing abilities.

***********************

* P.S. The problem with the Resonance system as tried in the playtest is that they were trying to make it do too many different things, while also making it very restricted. They had many attempts to try and make it work. But by the third attempt they were trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Resonance was not the "have players do cool things" resource. It was the "This is how many magic items you can have, also it works like hero points, also you need them to use potions, also alchemist need it to make alchemical items, also some classes might use for stuff." It was a worse version of Starfinder Resolve.

[Ruzza]

Temperans, you seem to speak with authority about a game you have never played.

[Temperans]

Ruzza just because I have not found a table I want to play it in does not mean I dislike the game. Or that I cannot read and look at things objectively. Or that I cannot see how things interact. Or that I cannot talk about things that have been a debate for literal decades.

You continue to try and attack me and my credentials intead of addressing my points. Most of which boil down to "there are a lot of table and personal preferences and circumstances, dont asume based on the best possible condition." Or, "don't expect everything to go your way."

[Ruzza]

I don't think you have any ground to stand on to state anything objectively.

Quote:

In the end the problem is that there are ~4 different camps when it comes to playing:

The people who want difficult combat unless everyone plays tactically and uses teamwork. (PF2)
The people who like teamwork, but don't want combat to be difficult without it. (PF1/3.5e)
The people who want combat to be fun, but not difficult. (5e)
The people who are just in it for the story and dont care about combat. (Many d6 systems)
Notice how d6 systems give the players many ways to change their chances. While often giving players game changing abilities.

This is absolutely an opinion you can hold, but it's dishonest to claim it as fact. As a matter of fact, I completely refute it. As someone who has played each of these games, I can say that you're writing a false narrative based on... reading things other people have written. Which like reviewing a book by reading the review. Regurgitating points that aren't even your own. That you do so and present it as though this is obvious to even a casual observer is repugnant.

I don't have any players who sat down and said, "I'd really enjoy some difficult combat today, so we can really work together in PF2." No, my players enjoy PF2 with or without teamwork and generally the idea that the game is somehow an impossible slog without it has become such a ridiculous talking point. I'd love it if you actually sat down to play a session so that you could at least know what you're talking about.

At this point, I'm questioning if you've ever played PF1 after your wild claims during the Summoner playtest and the idea that PF1 harbored much in the way of teamwork beyond teamwork feats.

[dmerceless]

Ruzza wrote:

Generally the idea that the game is somehow an impossible slog without it has become such a ridiculous talking point. I'd love it if you actually sat down to play a session so that you could at least know what you're talking about.

I mean, I've been playing and running PF2 very frequently since day 1 of the Playtest to today, and... my experience is that yes, the game does become kind of an impossible slog without highly coordinated teamwork, unless the GM is purposefully taking it very easy on the players. "Impossible" is a strong word, but it becomes difficult to a point where a long-running campaign is unsustainable. Or at least that's what happened in every game I've been in, despite different players and different GMs.

Either players asked for a lower difficulty, forced themselves to play like a tactics simulator, or died like flies. This barely has anything to do with the topic, but no, it's not an artificial issue fabricated by people who didn't play the game.

[Ruzza]

dmerceless wrote:

Ruzza wrote:

Generally the idea that the game is somehow an impossible slog without it has become such a ridiculous talking point. I'd love it if you actually sat down to play a session so that you could at least know what you're talking about.

I mean, I've been playing and running PF2 very frequently since day 1 of the Playtest to today, and... my experience is that yes, the game does become kind of an impossible slog without highly coordinated teamwork, unless the GM is purposefully taking it very easy on the players. "Impossible" is a strong word, but it becomes difficult to a point where a long-running campaign is unsustainable. Or at least that's what happened in every game I've been in, despite different players and different GMs.

Either players asked for a lower difficulty, forced themselves to play like a tactics simulator, or died like flies. This barely has anything to do with the topic, but no, it's not an artificial issue fabricated by people who didn't play the game.

If you and I have opposite experiences, can either of us make a factual claim? The big thing here that makes this a different conversation is that neither of us have stated our experiences as fact. The small difference here is that we both actually play the game.

[YuriP]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Why do you use corner cases at lvl 19? Casters spend the vast majority of their time at lower than 19th level which only a handful of players reach manipulating probabilities for martials or killing little guys. That's life as a caster in PF2. You no longer build for yourself as a caster in a PF2, you build for the group if you want maximum success.

Was just to exemplify that the casters aren't that useless unbalanced chars as some people think. I select a lvl 19 caster as example that all casters (except the warpriest) that reach such lvl are legendary in their attacks and DCs. Something that's is rare for most combatants, and in combination with True Strike can make then one of the most efective and essential members of a party.

Was just to help to refute the idea that casters are weaker and to say that they just have different playstyle and advantages and disadvantages over other classes.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

There is just no real comparison between PF1 and 3rd edition casters and PF2 casters. PF1 and 3E casters were gods among martials. Now they're on more equal footing. This thread was comparing editions and casters aren't as flashy as they were in PF1 and 3E. Spells have the same names, but power level is way different.

I totally agree. That's my point since the beginning.

Those who came from PF1/3.5 may have the impression that the caster is weaker just because they are overpower in old games, when in fact they are now more equated with other classes than ever.

Temperans wrote:

***********************

In the end the problem is that there are ~4 different camps when it comes to playing:

The people who want difficult combat unless everyone plays tactically and uses teamwork. (PF2)
The people who like teamwork, but don't want combat to be difficult without it. (PF1/3.5e)
The people who want combat to be fun, but not difficult. (5e)
The people who are just in it for the story and dont care about combat. (Many d6 systems)
Notice how d6 systems give the players many ways to change their chances. While often giving players game changing abilities.

***********************

I can only agree with the 2 first camps. But even with observations:

- As any other game if the combat if too difficult or to easier is the work of the GM to adjust the things. IMO is also a good practice for the GM to talk to the players at the end of each game sessions and analyze with them what was make right or wrong. The players could make different strategy choices? They could exploit some foe or scenario to make the things easier? The GM maybe not selected the incorrect monster and exploited too much the players weakness? Or the players maybe not see their own weakness before and now can try to compensate them with different feats or retrain? and so on...
- The PF1/3.5 is still very teamwork oriented. Just try to play without a healer, or a low level (1-4) game without a combatant or a high level games (LvL > 13) without a caster. The main diference here is that in old versions, except from heal, the players are more autonomous in combat, once they are buffed they basically can forget about in combat team work and just attack.

I disagree with the last 2 camps:
- The 5e is not exactly easier, this also depends from how the GM will make the things. As any game it can adjust the difficult easier, but different from PF2 is far more difficult to the players to compensate their weak points because they have much less options to change their chars.
- There are many, really many non-d20 systems with incredibly complex combat systems and focus, a good example is GURPS. But even a storyteller/storytelling game has a good part of the system oriented to combat. The main diference that these game has more out-of-combat mechanics what make some non-combat encounters to work little more "intense" than just roll a DC check.

dmerceless wrote:

Either players asked for a lower difficulty, forced themselves to play like a tactics simulator, or died like flies. This barely has anything to do with the topic, but no, it's not an artificial issue fabricated by people who didn't play the game.

Agree. If someone don't like an intense tactical gameplay, the PF2 is not recommended for this player. For other side is a fantastic system for those who want that a combat encounter be more than "walk and strike" moves.

[Temperans]

YuriP wrote:

Temperans wrote:

***********************

In the end the problem is that there are ~4 different camps when it comes to playing:

The people who want difficult combat unless everyone plays tactically and uses teamwork. (PF2)
The people who like teamwork, but don't want combat to be difficult without it. (PF1/3.5e)
The people who want combat to be fun, but not difficult. (5e)
The people who are just in it for the story and dont care about combat. (Many d6 systems)

...

I think maybe you misunderstood what I meant?

With the last group I am talking about people who are in it more for the story than what the dice actually say. I used d6 games as a common example not because they lack combat rules, but because the rules are focused on "Person can do X so he gets Y dice". As opposed to d20 games that have a lot more cross referencing in stats.

Similarly, 5e is not easy to GM. But from a player perspective all you have to do is RP and roll dice. Everything else is practically written for you.

As for PF1 yeah teamwork makes everything much easier, but its not absolutely required. Similarly its not that you require a healer, combatant, or caster, but the game becomes much easier with a good spread. PF2 however makes it a lot more mandatory by comparison.

In any case, agreed that it always depends on the GM. Unless its a game with no GM they have almost full control of what players encounter. (Players can always do something weird).

[AnimatedPaper]

Temperans wrote:

As others have stated its not a matter of wanting an I win button or making the d20 meaningless. But having those abilities that can turn the tides.

I think you're getting caught up in word usage. When I say "I-win" button, I am talking exactly about "abilities that can turn the tides." Something that you save for big moments.

Mind, I also think there are already quite a few available to all characters via archetypes and MC. Not to mention simply achieving a combination of factors via teamwork.

As an example, OP mentions "Path of Iron"

Aside from the "Once per minute" restriction, I'm failing to see how it is substantially different than Avalanche Strike. Or, really, Whirlwind Strike or even Desperate Finisher.

Or how ANY of these, Ki Strike included, offers substantially different gameplay than making

Exocist wrote:

a Strike or a slightly enhanced Strike, then rolling the dice to see what happens.

Again, aside from simply having the 1/10 minute cooldown.

[GM OfAnything]

Don’t talismans offer a lot of 1/combat opportunities for martials? Jumping fifty feet straight up to the sniper’s nest is a pretty flashy moment.

[Allisar the Giantess]

Sounds to me like players in general just need to toughen up. Adventure without danger is no adventure at all.

Maybe if they had played a classic SNES game once in a while when growing up instead of that pay-to-win save-whenever-you-want garbage they'd have a different mindset.

/fully tongue-in-cheek

[dmerceless]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Aside from the "Once per minute" restriction, I'm failing to see how it is substantially different than Avalanche Strike. Or, really, Whirlwind Strike or even Desperate Finisher.

Or how ANY of these, Ki Strike included, offers substantially different gameplay than making

Exocist wrote:

a Strike or a slightly enhanced Strike, then rolling the dice to see what happens.

Again, aside from simply having the 1/10 minute cooldown.

Having a cooldown allows for a higher power budget, compensated for by the limited use. Path of Iron gives you a reaction-avoiding Stride for free and is considerably easier to use at max efficiency when compared to a 3-action AoE melee attack like Whirlwind. Dance of Thunder has some clunkyness that stops it from being good, but it can give you upwards of nine actions in a turn. Ki Strike boosts your damage by a significant amount with a zero action cost, something not seen anywhere else.

Part of it is simply the feeling of saving your special ability for a special moment, yes, but having a cooldown also allows for more action efficiency, damage, or other advantages that are not normally available. Power can be paid for in many different ways. Actions is one of them. Resources and cooldowns can be another. I think they can perfectly coexist and even interact with one another in interesting ways.

[Arakasius]

But once again you have too many of those and they become the norm and relied upon. You get 5 minute adventuring days and such. I don’t think many players want to go back to that. It is also not like 1e had that many of those type of abilities for martials. All you pretty much ever did was try not to move and full attack all the time. There is a point that yes high level martials could kill an enemy on their own more effectively then they can now, but I don’t think that is what the OP had in mind there. Anyway if it’s about having cool actions to use there are plenty of those available, both in class and from archetyping. If it’s a power level question then if you are playing out of the box then you’ll not be as effective. You can absolutely change PF2 to feel like PF1, it’s just not the default.

[Rushniyamat]

Temperans wrote:

The people who are just in it for the story and dont care about combat. (Many d6 systems)

Notice how d6 systems give the players many ways to change their chances. While often giving players game changing abilities.

This isn't fully true. As YuriP, there are many d6 that have complex combat system and intersting outside combat mechanics. Additionaly, it is true that a great number of d6 systems are centered around the story. However, it doesn't mean this systems players are not intrested in combat - they just tell it diffrently (at least in systems that doesn't really seperate combat from the rest of the game). Hell, sometimes, even usually, a combat of an in-narrative system is funnier than most stategy focused combat systems because it tells a story and flows (Yes, I am part of the "d6 group", but I like good combats - this why I like systems like Lancer).

Also, narrative focused d6 systems doesn't necessary reduce the power of the dices. In fact, they usually reduce the power of the GM. Furthermore, they are many systems that doesn't use d6 pools, like Powered by the Apocalypce (I understand you just gave an example. I don't even know why I do it).

[Unicore]

GM OfAnything wrote:

Don’t talismans offer a lot of 1/combat opportunities for martials? Jumping fifty feet straight up to the sniper’s nest is a pretty flashy moment.

This is a good point. A lot of the limited use special powers have been moved away from feats, where time restrictions are often a little forced and don't make much sense, and onto magical items. This was a huge topic of conversation during the playtest and players were pretty strongly in favor of reducing the number of limited use abilities per day. This was a big part of the shift towards focus powers: instead of an arbitrary limit, you had a pool you could refill with exploration time. I don't think anyone is disagreeing that more focus powers will be cool for the game, and maybe eventually there will be in world justifications for fighters, rogues, and other martials who don't get them now to get them. But they exist across enough of the game and MC is so easy, that its not like you can't go and get a cool ability for your fighter or rogue that uses focus points.

So if you are missing specific abilities like ki strike, consider going out and MCing into Monk and picking them up with feats, with monastic weapons, you can even use them on some weapons as a fighter. Or talk to your GM about homebrewing something special that fits really well in the game world that they are building around your party and they will likely be happy to oblige.

[FlySkyHigh]

So briefly addressing the original point of this post, my biggest issue with these "flashy moment" abilities is that in a lot of other systems that have similar abilities, players often love them, but hate having them used against them. I'm a large proponent of "perfectly balanced" gameplay, and in the few instances where I've had to house-rule certain spells or abilities, I've made it clear to my players that when they get a buff, so do any relevant enemies. Now I don't go out of my way to punish players for that, but it has come up now and then.

As such, let's take the proverbial "I win" button type ability into account, and let's assume for the sake of argument that you play at a table where 5MWD is not allowed for thematic/gameplay reasons. Your group has just gotten through a semi-large dungeon, most of them have used their win buttons for the day, and they are now fighting the BBEG. BBEG's turn comes up, uses THEIR win button, and a PC just dies.

It's not a great feeling.

If you start slotting this style of ability into the game, and do so "equitably" by giving similar abilities to monsters/npcs, it means that they can/will/should be used against your PCs. As a previous poster has mentioned, this would rapidly push the game towards even more drastic rocket-tag style gameplay, and would further reinforce the 5MWD mindset of players wanting to go to single encounter days so they can constantly have their big guns ready at all time, because it would become a quick-draw scenario of who could get off their win button first.

Ex: In 3.5 I ran a table where the Book of Nine Swords was used. I had a player who had was using a series of feats and maneuvers to essentially one hit kill any enemy they encountered that wasn't straight up immune to weapon damage in a single turn. After discussing with them that I'd like for them to dial it back, and they insisted their ability was fine, I asked my players for a test-run session and threw an NPC at the party who had a nearly identical build with only minor variations, and because the NPC won initiative, I killed 3 people in the party in the first round of combat. The NPC's power was drastically reduced after using their big once-per-day combo, but with over half the party already dead, including the original "problem" pc, the rest of the encounter was fairly one-sided.

[HammerJack]

So, why does everything keep being about "I win button" abilities in a thread about expanding limited use/cooldown-having abilities that don't have to be that?

[Angel Hunter D]

GM OfAnything wrote:

Don’t talismans offer a lot of 1/combat opportunities for martials? Jumping fifty feet straight up to the sniper’s nest is a pretty flashy moment.

But those are items, typically overpriced ones too, not class abilities. It's the difference between "I'm a hero because I worked at it" and "I'm a hero because I spent a lot of money on it" coupled with the, generally, simultaneous disdain and envy of the Rich that people have as a social aspect and the consumables economy and systems in PF2.

[AnimatedPaper]

dmerceless wrote:

Having a cooldown allows for a higher power budget, compensated for by the limited use. Path of Iron gives you a reaction-avoiding Stride for free and is considerably easier to use at max efficiency when compared to a 3-action AoE melee attack like Whirlwind. Dance of Thunder has some clunkyness that stops it from being good, but it can give you upwards of nine actions in a turn. Ki Strike boosts your damage by a significant amount with a zero action cost, something not seen anywhere else.

I don't disagree (particularly regarding Dance of Thunder), but where I'm confused is that Ki Strike can accurately be described as a slightly enhanced Strike, which at least one poster said didn't feel good to him. You yourself pointed out that it is not huge increase in hit chance.

Actually, there is one part I do disagree with. Abilities that offer a boost to damage without costing actions is one of the more common designs for Martial feats/abilities. Most cost accuracy instead, but a few are limited by circumstances, such as Sneak Attack and Crossbow Ace. I personally would count Stance feats as damage enhancers, but I can see why you might not.

So, where is the line being drawn? Is it just the time limitation? I'm not unsympathetic, but my struggle is trying to imagine what a psuedo-focus power might offer you that isn't already in the game by other means like talismans (ug).

HammerJack wrote:

So, why does everything keep being about "I win button" abilities in a thread about expanding limited use/cooldown-having abilities that don't have to be that?

As I stated in one of my posts, I use that term to mean any cooldown ability, not just ones that literally win the combat for you. I would in fact use that term to describe each of the abilities mentioned in the OP.

If that term means something different to you, would you be able to describe something closer to what you do mean, so that we're all on the same page?

Edit: In case I come off as adversarial, please know that I literally mean I don't know quite what would feel good for you and others. So I guess a better rephrase would be, what abilities do you want to see that isn't already in? Easy enough to just look at equivalent level spells and go from there, but is there anything else? What makes Ki Strike feel good that other abilities with similar design does not? What attracts you to Path of Iron but not Whirlwind Strike? What about the design interests you in Dance of Thunder but not Impossible Flurry?

[Ruzza]

I've said it up thread, but I think you need to rethink tying "time limitation" to "power." Path of Iron is a very good example of a powerful attack with a number of limitations, some not so obvious.

Obviously it has the one minute "cooldown." Essentially, once a combat. It also is three actions, an entire turn for our martial artist, not something that's always the best move. It also shines versus three enemies who are all within one Stride action of you. Path of Iron is also gated behind a very particular dedication and is costed at a level 14 feat. It's good, very good even, but it doesn't make it more powerful than other options available. The same can be said for other abilities like Quicken Spell or even talismans.

There's assuredly going to be more limited use abilities along these lines, but I wouldn't expect them to offer a substantial increase in power or (something that we haven't touched on) be available through feats at lower levels. I could be wrong, but I feel like designers are avoiding feats that have limited function when you already have the least amount of options.

However, as I wrote that, I think there's room for feats with a "weak" passive effect that also grants a limited ability. Something like a level 2 fighter feat that treats you as always having the Defend exploration activity active and giving you a "shield bash" with a slow or stun rider on a Focus Power or encounter limitation.

EDIT: Even then, this feat seems so specialized that it feels more at home, to me, in a dedication.

[FlySkyHigh]

HammerJack wrote:

So, why does everything keep being about "I win button" abilities in a thread about expanding limited use/cooldown-having abilities that don't have to be that?

Perhaps due to the assumed nature of the original post.

The original post itself was about "player-driven flashy moments". In most scenarios when a player thinks of "flashy" it tends to translate to "powerful".

I'm all for expanding limited use/cooldown-having abilities that aren't necessarily super powerful. I'd love to see more weapon talismans and similar type items/abilities where you get limited use but fairly niche abilities.

[AnimatedPaper]

Ruzza wrote:

I've said it up thread, but I think you need to rethink tying "time limitation" to "power." Path of Iron is a very good example of a powerful attack with a number of limitations, some not so obvious.

Just to clarify, but is this reply to me? If so, I'm not really advocating the view that cooldown equals power. At most, I'm not arguing against it.

[Ruzza]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Ruzza wrote:

I've said it up thread, but I think you need to rethink tying "time limitation" to "power." Path of Iron is a very good example of a powerful attack with a number of limitations, some not so obvious.

Just to clarify, but is this reply to me? If so, I'm not really advocating the view that cooldown equals power. At most, I'm not arguing against it.

Sorry, not directed at you. I should make a habit of quoting when using "you." This was aimed towards OP and generally the idea of using time as a lever to get increased power.

[Wysteriah]

(note I rarely post so don't know how to do the quote stuff)

So I'd like to add my two cents from a forever player point of view. I have played numerous low to high level campaigns beginning with the playtest and since (almost always martials), so this is from personal experience. Mine, yes, but still from actual play.

I subscribe to the OP view of enjoying those heroic moments, but still enjoy the team tactics. I have found there are plenty of opportunities for player driven heroic narrative. But it really depends on a couple of things:

1) DM - if the DM is only giving encounters with +2 and +3 level bosses, then not so much cuz even the fighter's high to hit fails a bunch and almost never crits. (talk to your DM about varying the encounters)

2) DM - if all encounters are played in 2D vs 3D it limits a number of cool feats and abilities that allow a creative player to create a wow moments. (talk to your DM about terrain and 3D)

3) Player - your character needs to be built for it. You can build boring but optimally effective (please don't read into this - ONLY being optimal is not fun for ME). Or you can build effective AND for heroic moments. NOT EVERYTHING has to be MOST optimal. I build all my characters to be good for the team, but selfishly for enjoyment I want to have the ability to do the heroic strike or wow moment (I build for 3 or 4 different ones and then 3-4 xday there's something cool to pull out).

I'll expand on #3 cuz that's in my control. I found two things really help with that.
1) Items - there a a bunch of cool 1x day items that help. My favorite is level 5 Warriors Training Ring - a +4 to an attack once per day - super strike here I come. I chose to invest in this before something boring but helpful like a rune.
2) Feats - there are some neat class and ancestry feats the can help create the heroic moment (much easier with free archtype - i use those to get things to create wow). Power Attack is fun for this. Yes, mathematically people have shown that over the course of a round there are better ways to go - and I take those. But I also take Power Attack - combo that with my +4 warrior Ring and boom - super strike. Yeah, could still miss, but so what (also smart to use it when flanking/frightened). It's fun for that one attack. And no one can argue that doing a bazillion damage on one strike isn't cool (well someone could, and probably would on this forum, but I find it cool - and so has our table). I also like Fly once per day as a Tiefling with Felling Strike and send that bad boy plummeting to the earth).

The above aren't the only things, just examples. So there are ways to bring the cinematic cool heroic things, just gotta build and play for it. Anyways, like I said I don't usually post so maybe this was helpful or maybe just gibberish. Just my two cents worth. For what that's worth.

[dmerceless]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

What makes Ki Strike feel good that other abilities with similar design does not? What attracts you to Path of Iron but not Whirlwind Strike? What about the design interests you in Dance of Thunder but not Impossible Flurry?

I mean, it's... not anything more than what I already said before, really.

Having a cooldown makes it more special, something you save for an interesting moment. And "interesting" in this case could mean different things for different people. For some people it could be "the moment where it's most optimal". To me it's more about the moment that's more fitting to the character and to the general scene I want to create of my character interacting with that combat.

In turn, having a cooldown, as an inherent limitation, also increases the power budget a little. A little. Just like any other limitation does. Yes, Ki Strike is not a huge "I'm activating my Nuke" thing, but it's still actionless extra damage (and a bit of accuracy) on a class that normally does not have damage boosters because it's defensively-focused. That's enough to make me happy.

As for examples of what I'd like to see that doesn't exist? I'm a terrible homebrewer, so that's a hard ask. I dunno, even something as simple as a dual wielding Fighter "Focus Maneuver" that lets you combine the benefits of Twin Takedown and Double Slice (so, two attacks in a single action and with no MAP) that you can use once per fight would be cool. Or increase your reach by a bunch, like an Omega-Lunge, for a single attack, as you move in, slash someone and move back to place in the blink of an eye. We are in the same world where Halfling Monks can throw Giants and Rogues can walk on air without magic, after all, and I think "increase your melee reach by 30 feet for a single attack" is a perfect example of something that is absolutely fine if you can do it once per encounter but completely busted if you can do it at will, even at high level.

[Gaulin]

Fighter is one of the few classes that don't have cool down type abilities, and I think it would be a really cool way to expand the class with future feats. But to those who want more of a nova playstyle, I think stuff like monk or barbarian would be a better fit for martials.

It's funny I was trying to think of what the next few books coming out would be. The magic themed ones are easy, stuff like occult adventures (fingers crossed for this being the next announced book) and ultimate wilderness, but something like advanced combat could be really cool. Fill it with the types of abilities some of the posters in this thread have been asking for (within the boundaries of 2e's design) to have those wow moments on cooldowns, and more combat archetypes and such.

I definitely feel like there is design space for martials to be able to do big flashy things a few times a day, if they lay feats for it. It's really not much different than what casters already do. Similarly, I would love for their to be options for casters to be less dependant on their spells and have more consistent dpr from things like cantrips (maybe at the cost of spells/day).

[Cyouni]

While I do think it's an interesting design space, pushing it too far might draw comparisons to the homogeneity of a certain other critically panned game with "encounter powers" and "daily powers".

[Ruzza]

Cyouni wrote:

While I do think it's an interesting design space, pushing it too far might draw comparisons to the homogeneity of a certain other critically panned game with "encounter powers" and "daily powers".

Right, especially with it being a stated design direction to keep classes as distinct as possible (which we should probably expect to blur a little as the system ages). While it was definitely something that people enjoyed (and still do!), I didn't stay with 4e and assume many did not. For me, the dynamic of "use encounter attacks" then "use at-will attacks" unless it's the big fight, then "use daily attacks" didn't feel good after a few sessions.

Ironically, I think that the system looks amazing on paper and feels great for several sessions. Stretched over a campaign, however, became quite tedious for me. That said, along those lines, I might be one of the few who advocate for Gamma World 7th edition which was built on the 4e ruleset. By giving players single use daily powers that are mutations or high tech items, it was a more dynamic approach to the at-will/encounter/daily system. Though I would honestly still he hard-pressed to make that into a campaign.

All said, yes, we're incredibly likely to get more limited abilities. But limited abilities that are given that limitation because they're more powerful feels like it wouldn't mesh with PF2's design while alienating players who specifically were trying to avoid that.

[Djinn71]

Wysteriah wrote:

My favorite is level 5 Warriors Training Ring - a +4 to an attack once per day - super strike here I come. I chose to invest in this before something boring but helpful like a rune.

This is the kind of theme people are interested in, a non-consumable once a day/battle nova, but unfortunately it doesn't work how you think it does. The Warrior's Training Ring only applies to weapons you're untrained in, which means using its once a day ability puts you at most on par with an attack with a weapon you're trained in.

Warrior's Training Ring for reference. Note the trigger is "You make an attack with a weapon in which you’re untrained."

[Squiggit]

Ruzza wrote:

But limited abilities that are given that limitation because they're more powerful feels like it wouldn't mesh with PF2's design

I don't really get this sentiment. Graded tiers of power and usability is the baseline PF2's spellcasters are built on for one, so I don't see how we can argue it doesn't mesh with PF2's design, it is PF2's design.

Likewise a specific design feature of PF2 over PF1 is giving martials more ways to interact with the battlefield. A lot of them boil down to different ways to strike, but it still seems like a fundamental design feature of PF2 to present those situational options to players (contrast with PF1 where full attacking was your all purpose problem solver).

[GM OfAnything]

FlySkyHigh wrote:

I'm all for expanding limited use/cooldown-having abilities that aren't necessarily super powerful. I'd love to see more weapon talismans and similar type items/abilities where you get limited use but fairly niche abilities.

I think talismans are fun to get in loot and use. If you aren't a fan of consumables, you can turn them into 1/day items or abilities.

[Ruzza]

Squiggit wrote:

Ruzza wrote:

But limited abilities that are given that limitation because they're more powerful feels like it wouldn't mesh with PF2's design

I don't really get this sentiment. Graded tiers of power and usability is the baseline PF2's spellcasters are built on for one, so I don't see how we can argue it doesn't mesh with PF2's design, it is PF2's design.

Likewise a specific design feature of PF2 over PF1 is giving martials more ways to interact with the battlefield. A lot of them boil down to different ways to strike, but it still seems like a fundamental design feature of PF2 to present those situational options to players (contrast with PF1 where full attacking was your all purpose problem solver).

To explain, we generally know how much damage a spell or Strike will do at any given level. There are small tweaks, like Dangerous Sorcery, but nothing that puts the power level out of those boundaries. There's a cap on power.

This seems, to me, to be for the benefit of writers and designers. It allows for the set of guidelines for development to work across the board. Path of Iron still deals a single Strikes worth of damage to three targets. Sneak Attack doesn't get applied to weapons with higher damage dice (or a limitation like heavy crossbows' reload). Ki Strike is used on lower damage unarmed attacks until higher levels. They're within parameters.

Where I say, "Yes, more limited use, but don't expect more power," this is what I mean. The trade of limited time isn't going to exceed these parameters, but open options that a character didn't have before. That's how I feel it would work.

[dmerceless]

Ruzza wrote:

Ki Strike is used on lower damage unarmed attacks until higher levels. They're within parameters.

The Dragon Stance Ki Strike Monk I'm currently playing would like to have a word about that. Lol.

Ruzza wrote:

Where I say, "Yes, more limited use, but don't expect more power," this is what I mean. The trade of limited time isn't going to exceed these parameters, but open options that a character didn't have before. That's how I feel it would work.

That aside, I agree with you here. At least within the definition of power you are using (which isn't the same that I was, that might have generated a lot of the confusion). Ki Strike works on Monk because Monk does not have a damage booster in its chassis, e.g. Sneak Attack, Rage, Edge, Legendary proficiency, etc. It might work alright on something like a Champion, but "do X extra damage" as a Focus Maneuver for any offensive class would be busted and a must-take, absolutely.

That's why my two examples were an action-compressed Double Slice and an Omega-Lunge. Playing with MAP, action economy, riders, and other attributes of attacks is power, or at least it is to my definition. Power =/= "moar damage".

For the people saying this might make the game too much like 4e if overused, I think that's being afraid of an impossibility, honestly. Paizo's would never suddenly start only printing this kind of feat, and the game has a ton of options that do not work like that.

If the fear is that, in an eventual 10 year future, enough of these feats would exist that you could pick all of them up and spam cooldowns, that's a valid concern, and why I think "Focus Maneuvers" are a way better take on this than just adding /minute cooldowns on stuff.

[Ruzza]

I think we've hit on common ground!

What's our next big book going to be? I feel like if we're going to see fighters getting access to Focus Point-like abilities, we would see them in Secrets of Magic. I personally don't enjoy the idea of "thing I can normally do, but better," but rather something with a twist. Jumping on the "Omega Lunge" just giving a martial class the ability to attack with a melee weapon at range is and interesting idea for a limited use ability. Whether that's in the form of an energy attack or a "teleports behind you 'heh nothin personnel kid'" sort of thing.

Honestly, with that in mind, there's plenty of ground to cover. We could speculate for awhile/pitch ideas into the vast void that is the Paizo forums eternally.

[Unicore]

I think you will really end up liking the Magus if you are looking for a martial with a large range of limited and recharging abilities.

I think there is a plan to have more of this, it is just going to be tied to classes that have more magical connections than the fighter.

[dmerceless]

Unicore wrote:

I think you will really end up liking the Magus if you are looking for a martial with a large range of limited and recharging abilities.

Maaaybe. Probably not. Even with all the clunkyness aside, I really didn't like the general focus on Spell Strike as the class's main mechanic and I don't think that's likely to change.

Unicore wrote:

I think there is a plan to have more of this, it is just going to be tied to classes that have more magical connections than the fighter.

I don't see why one thing would invalidate the other. "A honed technique of the blade" and "Magic flaming slash go brrr" are two different flavors entirely, both interesting in their own ways. Variety is always a positive point in my book, especially if the hypothetical Focus Maneuvers are opt-in (they certainly should be).

[Temperans]

I still remember when Fighter used to get magical abilities just because they were that good. That Advance Weapon training was great.

Too bad that type of ability is gone, maybe Magus will get it back. But looking at the playtest doubt it will ever happen.

[Gaulin]

I know there's a few people that aren't super into magic, and that's a big draw of fighter for them. So (in my mind at least) in keeping with the themes fighter already has I could see feats that do things like; hit a doe so hard their weapon gets the broken condition (a consequence based approach), saving actions for the next turn (spending actions to give the player more actions on the next turn, lowering dpr over two turns but giving more burst to that second turn), riskier or safer attacks (something like giving a huge bonus to hit but taking away the ability to crit, or the opposite, giving a larger crit window but lowering attack), or, as has been stated here, one a day type abilities that do similar damage to the highest single target damage a caster can do.

Edit - another one I was thinking about is a rune master type archetype. All about temporary runes, switching runes, or even overcharging runes for a short time.