|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There would be more overpowered stuff if quick slapdashing was their whole production process. It's almost like they're making a concerted effort to avoid power creep by generally aiming for slightly below the Core Rulebook in power. But no way a system like this would do something like that. ;oUhh, no. You can easily have slapdash and weak, just read the recent 4 books. Amd sure, there's effort to avoid power creep, but it isn't really that fun or interesting when there's 1 or 2 usable things in a whole book.
Considering there to be '1 or 2 usable things' in each of the last four books really says something about the power level you're expecting. New pieces of content don't need to be an outright better choice than older pieces, they simply need to enable interesting gameplay and not be so different in balance that it causes issues with their use (whether powerful or weak). Have you considered that what you're seeing as 'slapdash and weak' might instead be 'intentionally aiming slightly under the power level of the CRB so that high-power options don't cause power creep, and almost all options are still useable and fun in their niche'? The dev team have certainly stated that they'd much rather aim for slightly lower power levels than the CRB than risk power creep before.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There would be more overpowered stuff if quick slapdashing was their whole production process. It's almost like they're making a concerted effort to avoid power creep by generally aiming for slightly below the Core Rulebook in power. But no way a system like this would do something like that. ;oUhh, no. You can easily have slapdash and weak, just read the recent 4 books. Amd sure, there's effort to avoid power creep, but it isn't really that fun or interesting when there's 1 or 2 usable things in a whole book.
Sorry, which books are you referring to?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that it seems more calculated than slapdash and that most of the content is pretty usable.
But at the same time I sort of get the perspective. It feels like, generally speaking, post CRB options tend to have caveats to them and I've seen something of a pattern of players getting really excited for a new book only to have that enthusiasm slowly erode as they try to deal with a string of 'but' and 'not exactly' when trying to put their character together.
In the end it's not a huge deal and we manage just fine, but I do sometimes wish there was a little more 'amazing' and a little less 'temper your expectations' sometimes.
|
|
TBH the PF2 playtest was a huge effort to create a balanced basis for the new edition. I do not expect that they will put the same kind of effort in later products until it's PF3 time.
So, to be sure new items do not accidentally crush the initial balance and waste all the efforts, it is better to aim a little below the CRB power level. So that if something works better than anticipated, the power level is still manageable.
Think Gauss curve for risk management.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you aim at the CRB level, you can expect the same sort of variance that exists within the CRB. The Fighter already exists and kinda slaughters all other martials.
And if they aim at the CRB level, ESPECIALLY if they aim at arguably the strongest CRB options, then power creep is absolutely guaranteed to occur as they fail to precisely meet their target (NOT in any way an insult to Paizo developers. Unless claiming that they are NOT super humanly perfect is taken as an insult)
I much prefer aiming slightly lower so that their slight misses will STILL not be power creep. And I'm seeing a whole lot of interesting and viable options coming out post CRB.
Judging by what I've seen in PFS, so have a great many other people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say the items coming out in the expansion books have certainly pushed the power available by optimizing itemization by quite a bit.
New class power level has been a bit little lower than I'd prefer, but I certainly prefer that to something like power creep for these more advanced concept classes.
Power creep is inevitable; designers get comfortable in their creative space and see ideas that weren't present when they initially made the system. Freelancers also see things from a different perspective that other designers didn't notice.**
The only thing you can really limit the the level in jumps between power creeps, or having options so good that it effectively retires earlier options. For example, eventually making a greatsword with the Backswing, Forceful, and Parry traits.
Pertaining to the daikyu, when I first saw the entry, I thought it was weak, unless there's some inherent penalty associated with firing from horseback that I hadn't noticed. The description also seemed to favor a certain handedness. :-P
It seemed like the balance was less power and range in favor of a no Volley trait. That didn't seem bad to me, but I'm coming from 5e where combat rarely takes place in anything larger than a 60x60 grid. Personally, I think I'd rather have a longbow over a daikyu, unless my class or ancestry only gave me access to a daikyu.
**: And there's also just those weird siruations like the Khopesh, where the description mentions disarming, but the it doesn't have the Disarm trait.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seemed like the balance was less power and range in favor of a no Volley trait. That didn't seem bad to me, but I'm coming from 5e where combat rarely takes place in anything larger than a 60x60 grid. Personally, I think I'd rather have a longbow over a daikyu, unless my class or ancestry only gave me access to a daikyu.
I mean it's not a bad trade on its own, but the problem is the daikyu is an advanced weapon. Something supposed to be a step up from martial weapons you have to invest feats into obtaining. In that context the daikyu is a little questionable... but so is the repeating crossbow, the spiral rapier and a bunch of other weapons too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It loses the volley trait and can be used mounted in exchange for losing deadly and 20ft of range. The difference between 80 and 100ft is pretty minimal as far as a loss. Deadly is good, but for a mounted weapon, you are really comparing the daikyu to the shortbow, not the long bow.
I think people are still waiting for an infantry advance bow and projecting that on the daikyu when that isn't really the advantage of the weapon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It loses the volley trait and can be used mounted in exchange for losing deadly and 20ft of range. The difference between 80 and 100ft is pretty minimal as far as a loss. Deadly is good, but for a mounted weapon, you are really comparing the daikyu to the shortbow, not the long bow.
I think people are still waiting for an infantry advance bow and projecting that on the daikyu when that isn't really the advantage of the weapon.
I mean, it's not like the daikyu compares particularly more favorably to the shortbow either. Trading deadly for a die size isn't a significant upgrade (looking at other weapons, paizo usually treats this as a 1:1 trade). As a mounted weapon, you're also picking up bizarre facing based rules you have to deal with too and losing propulsive for 20 feet of range.
That's a questionable sidegrade and certainly not a weapon a tier better than the shortbow.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pls remember that Angel Hunter never mentioned wanting "outright better options" or "power creep". They only lamented how things seem to be full of restrictions and weird penalties the more your read into them, specially in later books.
There is a difference fine line between: "Designing for balance and undershooting just to make sure" and "Designing for balance and actively making new options not fit". A lot of the new options straight up don't fit right.
Oh hey, someone who actually read what I said. Don't see a lot of that anymore.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh hey, someone who actually read what I said. Don't see a lot of that anymore.Pls remember that Angel Hunter never mentioned wanting "outright better options" or "power creep". They only lamented how things seem to be full of restrictions and weird penalties the more your read into them, specially in later books.
There is a difference fine line between: "Designing for balance and undershooting just to make sure" and "Designing for balance and actively making new options not fit". A lot of the new options straight up don't fit right.
Honestly, I don't know what other interpretation to take from your post. You stated that each recent book only has one or two options that are usable - that's so directly at odds with the experience of myself and almost everyone I've talked to PF2 about that I took the implication as 'if it's not pushing close to the limit of the CRB power level, it's unusable'. If that wasn't the intent, I truly don't understand - the amount of content that fits the bar for 'unusable' is vanishingly small, in my experience.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't know what other interpretation to take from your post. You stated that each recent book only has one or two options that are usable - that's so directly at odds with the experience of myself and almost everyone I've talked to PF2 about that I took the implication as 'if it's not pushing close to the limit of the CRB power level, it's unusable'. If that wasn't the intent, I truly don't understand - the amount of content that fits the bar for 'unusable' is vanishingly small, in my experience.Oh hey, someone who actually read what I said. Don't see a lot of that anymore.Pls remember that Angel Hunter never mentioned wanting "outright better options" or "power creep". They only lamented how things seem to be full of restrictions and weird penalties the more your read into them, specially in later books.
There is a difference fine line between: "Designing for balance and undershooting just to make sure" and "Designing for balance and actively making new options not fit". A lot of the new options straight up don't fit right.
Them saying unusable is not the same as them saying they want over powered options. Reading it that way would be you putting words on their mouth.
You might not agree on the use ability, which is highly subjective. But saying they want something they never mentioned is just making a bad faith argument.
At some point, one needs to read between the lines - if I were to say that 'anything that isn't a giant barbarian dual classed with fighter is unusable', I wouldn't technically be stating I want overpowered options. It would, however, be reasonable to conclude that I wanted overpowered options - I certainly wouldn't consider it bad faith to point out that my definition of unusable is forcing power creep, even if that wasn't my intention.
Obviously the hyperbole doesn't exactly match Angel Hunter's point - but I'm saying that I legitimately don't understand what they're asking for if it's not functionally power creep. There are clearly more than one or two usable options in the last few books by any reasonable definition of usable.
Is it so much to ask that, with rare exception, all new items, classes, spells, feats, etc. fall within the range of what is printed within the CRB. That doesn't just mean the Wizard to Alchemist range either; I want to see new classes as good as Fighters and Bards. If you print weak items people that want to optimize, even if only within a fluffy concept, simply won't use them in favor of the more useful items within the same role.
Right now we keep getting Alchemist and Wizard level classes with bizarre restrictions, advanced weapons that don't out-compete short bows (and come with reloading reules that make zero sense), among other things that will see very little use by players looking to pick a better option over a worse one.
I honestly feel this would require a level of investment on part with the PF2 original playtest itself. Hence why I believe we will not see it until it's PF3 playtest time.
And it is not Paizo disrespecting its customers.
If this is the case then Paizo's dev team should have thought of this when they knew they were going to be making a very tightly balanced system. They should have made the item formula that some of us have wanted weapons to follow. They need to hire on a decently staffed playtesting team rather than releasing betas that only the hardcore fans will say and then making minor tweaks based on that feedback.
I'm not a huge fan of the tight balance to begin with but if we got new options that played well and had a cool concept I'd be far happier. What we've been getting makes me sad that they wasted time and ink on something that is literally subpar.
There seem to be many people that do not find it subpar, nor that it is wasted time and ink.
To each their own I guess.
Only Paizo knows the truth of sales.
It isn't just down to sales. After all, one can buy a book if only one thing in it is high quality even while having no intention to use the rest of the printed material. For these people, Paizo is creating a lot of waste by filling pages with objectively underpowered classes and items.
I'd like books filled with items that are close to the middle of the range, not books filled with items falling to the bottom of the range.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There seem to be many people that do not find it subpar, nor that it is wasted time and ink.
To each their own I guess.
Only Paizo knows the truth of sales.
It isn't just down to sales. After all, one can buy a book if only one thing in it is high quality even while having no intention to use the rest of the printed material. For these people, Paizo is creating a lot of waste by filling pages with objectively underpowered classes and items.
I'd like books filled with items that are close to the middle of the range, not books filled with items falling to the bottom of the range.
If there's a consistent range that new content is falling in, and that most CRB content falls in, it seems likely that the high-power CRB options are considered too powerful. I can't imagine the fundamental parts of bard/fighter would be errata'd to change that, but that doesn't mean they're going to continue to aim for it. You can say that not publishing content at that power level makings it objectively underpowered, but you can't say it's waste. Your comment about optimisers ignoring it really doesn't strike true to my experience - with my time in PF1 (including a good deal of it being an optimiser myself), I saw plenty of people taking relatively weak base options and optimising them to get use out of them in different and interesting ways.
I can't speak for the preferences of the entire PF2 player base of course, but I think it's pretty clear that PF2 is designed differently to how you're coming at it. You pick the new options because they give you interesting and different ways to approach the game - an investigator is fun because it lets you take a methodical and careful approach to combat, a swashbuckler is fun because it encourages you to be risky and use skills in combat, and a magus is fun because it lets you combine spellcasting and martial combat in ways previously impossible. So long as these classes are at a level of effectiveness where they can easily contribute (and they are), players will choose them for the gameplay they enable - and then optimisers will try to optimise. That's been my experience with the game, including GMing people that previously optimised heavily in PF1, and I think it's how the game is designed to work. Magus isn't a 'waste' because the theoretical DPR isn't equal to a fighter's, it's a fun use of page space because it enables new and interesting gameplay.
If there's a consistent range that new content is falling in, and that most CRB content falls in, it seems likely that the high-power CRB options are considered too powerful.
So what, Paizo screwed the pooch out of the gate, and because of that we get watered down content full of unintuitive hoops to jump through and abilities that literally don't function as written?
Your comment about optimisers ignoring it really doesn't strike true to my experience - with my time in PF1 (including a good deal of it being an optimiser myself), I saw plenty of people taking relatively weak base options and optimising them to get use out of them in different and interesting ways.
PF1 had ways to elevate that weak content well beyond where it could have ended up if played straight. The same simply isn't true for PF2 content.
[A]n investigator is fun because it lets you take a methodical and careful approach to combat
An investigator has a horrible action economy and spends combat at range unless they wish to be a vastly suboptimal melee threat outclassed by the Rogue, Ranger, and even the Bard who can all be built to be investigative types.
[A] swashbuckler is fun because it encourages you to be risky and use skills in combat
A swashbuckler gets locked into a tight and easily disrupted action loop and has its damage gated behind a skill check that makes their one unique thing best used for fighting mooks rather than getting into an epic duel with the six-fingered man.
[A] magus is fun because it lets you combine spellcasting and martial combat in ways previously impossible.
A magus, in addition to having a stance that literally doesn't work as written, also has a horrific action economy. They have poor sustained damage, next to no defenses, and next to zero utility unless they give up their potential burst damage from dumping a top spell slot into a spellstrike.
Any of these three classes would be more playable if Paizo had left off their obvious handicaps and just let them exist as if they were a CRB class. At this point, I'm not convinced that Paizo can write a class that doesn't launch with at least one non-functional class feature and/or a restrictive playstyle that demands tight 3-action loops to keep up with CRB classes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can say that all you want, but the reality I've experienced is that people who have enjoyed optimising in PF1 have come over to PF2 and enjoyed the classes you're saying are unplayable/incredibly restrictive. They've enjoyed the investigator for their good out-of-combat abilities, flexible utility items (alchemical methodology), their ability to increase consistency in their Strikes with what is essentially a reroll, and the ability to use their skills in combat to good effect. The swashbuckler enjoyed the entire panache subsystem, the rewards they received for pulling of risky and daring tricks in-combat, the way the class encouraged them to avoid simply Striking, and the ability to punish enemies who overextended themselves via their Riposte reaction. I've not yet run/played a magus, so can't speak from experience there. But certainly for swashbuckler and investigator, more fun was had than if they'd just played a fighter/rogue themed in those ways because the unique mechanics enabled gameplay that they wanted to play with.
I'm aware that I can't speak for everyone who plays the game - clearly you and I have different perspectives on the content. That being said, I think the ongoing success of PF2 after the CRB demonstrates that there's a sizeable chunk of people who enjoy how the new content is being created. I've got issues with some choices made - I'm sure almost everyone does. But by calling the content 'watered down content full of unintuitive hoops to jump through', you're the one making the statement like it's objective fact. I don't know how your games have been run, but I can ensure you that at my table, the new content has been powerful enough to contribute and enable fun without feeling like you're trapped in one restrictive loop or the like. You're making statements like your experiences are universal, but they're not.
Also:
So what, Paizo screwed the pooch out of the gate, and because of that we get watered down content full of unintuitive hoops to jump through and abilities that literally don't function as written?
No, I'm saying that there's content in the CRB that seems above the power level of the other content, both in the CRB and post-CRB, and if your expectation is that the baseline for being usable is matching that content you're going to be disappointed. My experience isn't that something like Bard is so powerful that it'll affect most people's experiences negatively, but it's certainly not a power level that's required for the games I've played, so if new classes don't reach that same power level, it's probably for the best.
You can say that all you want, but the reality I've experienced is that people who have enjoyed optimising in PF1 have come over to PF2 and enjoyed the classes you're saying are unplayable/incredibly restrictive.
Good for them. If they like the theming and don't care that they're playing an objectively less useful character by picking those classes good for them.
They've enjoyed the investigator for their good out-of-combat abilities, flexible utility items (alchemical methodology), their ability to increase consistency in their Strikes with what is essentially a reroll, and the ability to use their skills in combat to good effect.
Where is the difference between that and a Rogue who picked Alchemist as their Archetype? Also, how are they getting around the fact that alchemical items have a horrid action economy; to the point that many people wouldn't use something like a mutagen if it had no drawbacks simply because it's inefficient?
The swashbuckler enjoyed the entire panache subsystem, the rewards they received for pulling of risky and daring tricks in-combat, the way the class encouraged them to avoid simply Striking, and the ability to punish enemies who overextended themselves via their Riposte reaction.
I guess they didn't face any flying enemies, or enemies that can grapple or trip, or enemies that punish their panache method. Or you/your GM just treated them with kid gloves so they got to feel useful.
But by calling the content 'watered down content full of unintuitive hoops to jump through', you're the one making the statement like it's objective fact.
Spellstrike requires a separate action to recharge, how is this primary class feature not watered down with a hoop to jump through?
I don't know how your games have been run, but I can ensure you that at my table, the new content has been powerful enough to contribute and enable fun without feeling like you're trapped in one restrictive loop or the like. You're making statements like your experiences are universal, but they're not.
If you run an Investigator, Swashbuckler, or Magus without using their unique abilities they are decidedly subpar in terms of offensive output. If you try to use their abilities to maximum effect you end up below the best CRB classes in terms of pure math and end up in a tight loop of actions because every non-CRB class eith has an action tax stapled to their one unique thing or is a gutted version of a CRB class that does something with cantrips and somehow still ends up behind Electric Arc or Scatter Scree.
No, I'm saying that there's content in the CRB that seems above the power level of the other content, both in the CRB and post-CRB, and if your expectation is that the baseline for being usable is matching that content you're going to be disappointed. My experience isn't that something like Bard is so powerful that it'll affect most people's experiences negatively, but it's certainly not a power level that's required for the games I've played, so if new classes don't reach that same power level, it's probably for the best.
I'm asking for content that hits the mid-point with some of it ending up at those levels and other bits landing down near the low range. Thus far we've been topping out at the middle with most content being below average or terrible.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
yea using bard and fighter as your base line minimum for "acceptably powered" content is going to be a recipe for willing bitter disappointment. I wouldn't bother to jump on that hate train. It would be a self fulfilling procephy and exercise in futility..... unless you get your kicks out of complaining.
yea using bard and fighter as your base line minimum for "acceptably powered" content is going to be a recipe for willing bitter disappointment. I wouldn't bother to jump on that hate train. It would be a self fulfilling procephy and exercise in futility..... unless you get your kicks out of complaining.
They haven't been my only baselines. Investigator and Swashbuckler are both bested by Rogues and Rangers.
Magus is bested by basically any martial class with a caster Archetype.
Psychic is looking to come out worse than the Witch and the Witch is already worse than the CRB casters.
I'm asking for these classes to simply not be worse than CRB classes in the same role.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
yea using bard and fighter as your base line minimum for "acceptably powered" content is going to be a recipe for willing bitter disappointment. I wouldn't bother to jump on that hate train. It would be a self fulfilling procephy and exercise in futility..... unless you get your kicks out of complaining.They haven't been my only baselines. Investigator and Swashbuckler are both bested by Rogues and Rangers.
Magus is bested by basically any martial class with a caster Archetype.
Psychic is looking to come out worse than the Witch and the Witch is already worse than the CRB casters.
I'm asking for these classes to simply not be worse than CRB classes in the same role.
I think after the 8th released class or so the standard for post crb power level is kinda set by now. This might not be the game for you. I don't think it's gonna give you what you want.
I think after the 8th released class or so the standard for post crb power level is kinda set by now. This might not be the game for you. I don't think it's gonna give you what you want.
If this site had working [img] tags I'd have hit you with [img]https://c.tenor.com/V1nzNc4rZE8AAAAC/you-dont-say-nic-cage.gif[/img], instead I'll invite you to follow the link yourself.
I've been rather vocal about my dislike for Paizo's hamfisted attempts at balance and how it kills the cool parts of the game by ensuring that everything bubble wrapped for the precious GM's protection. I've also stated my reasons for being on this forum which you can find by checking out my posting history.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure they themselves have stated this isn't the game for them, and that they only frequent these boards because they're bored at work? It sort of beggers the question what they expect to get out of these discussions, or why people keep responding to them.I think after the 8th released class or so the standard for post crb power level is kinda set by now. This might not be the game for you. I don't think it's gonna give you what you want.yea using bard and fighter as your base line minimum for "acceptably powered" content is going to be a recipe for willing bitter disappointment. I wouldn't bother to jump on that hate train. It would be a self fulfilling procephy and exercise in futility..... unless you get your kicks out of complaining.They haven't been my only baselines. Investigator and Swashbuckler are both bested by Rogues and Rangers.
Magus is bested by basically any martial class with a caster Archetype.
Psychic is looking to come out worse than the Witch and the Witch is already worse than the CRB casters.
I'm asking for these classes to simply not be worse than CRB classes in the same role.
I remember his reasons. The point and circumstance of his friendly contributions begs repetition though for the sake of the uninitiated.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Verdyn is hitting it on the nose, and some of you have trouble separating something being good from something you enjoy - you can enjoy something that sucks, I have a good time watching bad movies all the time and I know other people that eat dry instant noodles. It's ok to like something that's bad, but be straight up about it.
If the stuff after the CRB is the level of design and power they're going for, they've wasted the potential of the system and I don't know if I can watch anymore. Investigator doesn't do combat, which tends to take more than half my playtime because of how long a good fight is. The witch just...doesn't look like a pathfinder witch, it's something else and anywhere they could have done something innovative and interesting (more engaging and defined patrons, hexes as focus cantrips, etc) they just didn't. They made a prepared sorcerer with a familiar instead of a bloodline - and bloodline was the only interesting thing about the sorcerer as the flexible tradition is over-valued for design budget. and the magus, well, it has a huge thread with it's issues but more than even the Swashbuckler it fights against the action economy of the system, instead of with it like every core martial does. Guns do the same thing, Reload sucks and making a class to fix it doesn't help any because we're back where we were in 1e where only gunslingers (or the right archetype) use guns. Honestly it's looking to me like Paizo doesn't even like the 3 action system anymore because the new classes tend to only do 1 or 2 things in a turn and don't get to play with the action economy over band-aids like the reload feats the gunslinger gets.
Maybe PF2 isn't the system for me either, too bad Paizo has the best organized play environment and I don't really have a choice if I want to be a player.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we all at least agree that the Daikyu is STILL in desperate need of Errata given that it is literally unusable with the reload typo and the fact that the only niche it has even if the reload is fixed is for when you need to fire a bow while also commanding a mount? (A situation I'm not sure that anyone has EVER built a character for)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Investigator doesn't do combat, which tends to take more than half my playtime because of how long a good fight is.
If this is something you actually believe, this explains a lot and really I'm not sure there's any point in responding to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there's a consistent range that new content is falling in, and that most CRB content falls in, it seems likely that the high-power CRB options are considered too powerful.[A] swashbuckler is fun because it encourages you to be risky and use skills in combatA swashbuckler gets locked into a tight and easily disrupted action loop and has its damage gated behind a skill check that makes their one unique thing best used for fighting mooks rather than getting into an epic duel with the six-fingered man.
Swashbuckler doesn't need to make a check against an NPC to get Panache. Not to mention they're going to max Acrobatics and the skill for their style so they can succeed fine on non-mooks. Plus the style and tumble are frequently things they'd want to do in combat anyway - reposition, demoralize, feint, grapple, shove, trip, bon mot, or inflict fascinate. Point being, the way they get Panache is by doing things they would be doing anyway it's not that restrictive.
Swashbuckler doesn't need to make a check against an NPC to get Panache. Not to mention they're going to max Acrobatics and the skill for their style so they can succeed fine on non-mooks.
Tumble Through, Feint, and Create a Diversion are all checks made against the saves or perception of your foe. They work less often against a skilled opponent so unless the boss has mooks placed around the room for the swashbuckler to bamboozle before he lunges at the big boss then the Swashbuckler isn't using his finishers all that often.
Adding insult to injury, the Swashbuckler fantasy often involves one-on-one duels with peer, or even greater than peer, level opponents overcoming them with guile and skill. The PF2 Swashbuckler is more likely than not to lose a duel against just such a foe. How does being worse against your archetypical foe fulfill anybody's fantasy?
By working as a team ?
Ah yes, I recall clearly the times Inigo Montoya or even Jack Sparrow worked diligently alongside 3 to 6 others to harry a more skilled opponent. Wait... I don't think that tends to happen in the fiction people tend to think of when they picture a Swashbuckler in action. Even the Musketeers mostly fought individual duels or group actions against greater numbers of minor foes.
By fighting someone lower level?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
By working as a team ?Ah yes, I recall clearly the times Inigo Montoya or even Jack Sparrow worked diligently alongside 3 to 6 others to harry a more skilled opponent. Wait... I don't think that tends to happen in the fiction people tend to think of when they picture a Swashbuckler in action. Even the Musketeers mostly fought individual duels or group actions against greater numbers of minor foes.
TTRPGs are team games.
By fighting someone lower level?
That's not the fantasy either. Robin Hood versus the Sherrif of Nottingham for example is perilous to both men and in some tellings ends with both men dead. What it doesn't feature is Robin getting run through with a skewering strike while attempting a Tumble Through action.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Investigators are mathematically better than Rogues out of combat. Pursing a Lead gives a consistently applicable bonus and they have various meta abilities that rogues don't. In combat, they can roll free action knowledge checks for days, aren't locked to a bespoke weapon list, and get free action Devise a Strategem against a lead. Devise a Strategem also just confounds DPR calculations. Sure, the rogue is going to do more damage if they lands three sneak attacks. But if that first strike misses the next two aren't incredibly likely to land. Meanwhile, the investigator knows his first shot will be a miss and can reroll it against a different target, use a save cantrip, or do something else to prevent the turn from being wasted. And there is real value at knowing whether your attack will land before you roll it, especially when an enemy's HP is low enough to potentially drop them.
Oracles are the most durable casters in the game and have some of the best focus spells. They can also cherry pick spells with incredible flexibility. Curses are double edged swords and all, but generally as long as you play to their strengths it easily outweighs the downsides.
Swashbucklers have more skill feats than most martials and likely better equipped to fill the party face role.
Gunslingers get the vaunted accuracy of the fighter. People complain about reload but Crossbow Ace Rangers were already competitive with archers in the CRB (composite bows do edge them out, but only if you sink a bunch of points into strength) and slingers have plenty of ways to improve their action economy. They will be fine.
Inventors can hit as hard as a barbarian and get a bunch of options for additional utility. The construct companions also creates an interesting opportunity for minions to be used in the most tactical manner possible without harming a beloved animal, which many people feel squeamish about.
Magus gets more cantrip and higher level spell options than multiclassing can ever achieve. Having all those tools means they can capitalize in a variety of situations beyond white room DPR.
The summoner has more tools for scouting, mobility, and environmental exploration out the gate than any martial, plus, you know, spells.
None of these classes seem objectively under-powered to me. All of them have unique advantages and disadvantages. The closest thing I can agree on is witch, and even they have unique contributions with their hex cantrips, and their familiars can potentially be very useful indeed depending on how bogged down you get in the rules for minions and exploration.
You don't need to publish a class which fights just as well as the fighter and then does nothing else interesting. You've already got the fighter there for that. You need to publish classes that make contributions in new and interesting ways the fighter can't while still pulling their weight in a fight.
Investigators are mathematically better than Rogues out of combat.
Strengths. Being good in the phase of the game that can be most easily mitigated by RP and often involves fewer dice rolls in a session than a single round of combat...
Devise a Strategem also just confounds DPR calculations.
It doesn't have to. Give me two representative builds representing the classes and a few scenarios and we can just simulate things 1000+ times.
And there is real value at knowing whether your attack will land before you roll it, especially when an enemy's HP is low enough to potentially drop them.
This is true. Being able to completely waste fewer turns in a game where even good accuracy may only hit 60% of the time is of value.
Oracles are the most durable casters in the game and have some of the best focus spells. They can also cherry pick spells with incredible flexibility. Curses are double edged swords and all, but generally as long as you play to their strengths it easily outweighs the downsides.
I'd still prefer a Cleric or Bard in the healing/support slot in most parties from a sheer optimization standpoint. The Cleric being so focused on pushing out heals and the Bard having the best buffs and debuffs in the game are very hard to ignore.
Swashbucklers have more skill feats than most martials and likely better equipped to fill the party face role.
I feel like the Rogue and Ranger both step on this class's toes and play better. They don't need to do an arcane 3-action dance to do what they're supposed to do in a fight.
Gunslingers get the vaunted accuracy of the fighter. People complain about reload but Crossbow Ace Rangers were already competitive with archers in the CRB (composite bows do edge them out, but only if you sink a bunch of points into strength) and slingers have plenty of ways to improve their action economy. They will be fine.
This is probably the class that does the best mainly because a flat +2 to hit is a massive buff. That said, they're also clunky and often actions you think should pair together just don't work. THis class needs the fewest tweaks to match the power and playability of a CRB class.
Inventors can hit as hard as a barbarian and get a bunch of options for additional utility. The construct companions also creates an interesting opportunity for minions to be used in the most tactical manner possible without harming a beloved animal, which many people feel squeamish about.
I actually haven't checked that deeply into this one, so I'll hold off any comments until I've done that.
Magus gets more cantrip and higher level spell options than multiclassing can ever achieve. Having all those tools means they can capitalize in a variety of situations beyond white room DPR.
A Magus can, starting at level 7, have six spells and a brace of mostly damage-dealing cantrips. This isn't enough to make them an actual utility class and not using their 4 'real' slots on damage makes it tough for them to contribute enough to justify taking them over a Fighter who's picked up some archetyped spells.
The summoner has more tools for scouting, mobility, and environmental exploration out the gate than any martial, plus, you know, spells.
Summoner goes up there with Gunslinger as being the next closest to CRB class. Even still, it has some real awkwardness stemming from the shared HP pool and was released without a way to get a climb speed on their eidolon.
Almost all post-CRB classes end up with odd restrictions that make what should be a smooth table experience into one that is often full of, "Sorry, but..." and, "No, actually..." that can kill the feel of a class.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it so much to ask that, with rare exception, all new items, classes, spells, feats, etc. fall within the range of what is printed within the CRB. That doesn't just mean the Wizard to Alchemist range either; I want to see new classes as good as Fighters and Bards.
Yes it is. If Paizo aims for that target then power creep is absolutely inevitable.
1) Paizo will absolutely miss that target from time to time and shoot high. Its inevitable, especially when the combination of options grows and grows
2) That would ultimately completely invalidate the other classes in the Core Rulebook. Why play a <Not Fighter> when <as good as fighter from splat book> fits the same niche as <Not Fighter> but just does it better.
Look at PF1. Or DND 5th. Or 3.5. Or .....
That is proof positive that such an approach is guaranteed to lead to Power Creep and, ultimately, Power Gallop (as the Fighter is replaced by The Skirmisher as best martial and so The Skirmisher becomes the new baseline, to be replaced in turn by the Kick Ass Warrior, etc)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By fighting someone lower level?That's not the fantasy either. Robin Hood versus the Sherrif of Nottingham for example is perilous to both men and in some tellings ends with both men dead. What it doesn't feature is Robin getting run through with a skewering strike while attempting a Tumble Through action.
I think the duel in Princess Bride is one of the best cinematic swashbuckler duels in existance.
And you know something? Inigo Montoya loses because he is WORSE than the Man In Black. He is lower level, he loses. Oh, it looks like he had a chance for a lucky blow so he is close (he is clearly superior when fighting with the correct hand vs the MIB's off hand). So he is only a little lower level. But Inigo is lower level.
If your fantasy is to regularly beat people better than you then you need a game with way less tight math than PF2 so luck has a greater place in the fight.
I think the duel in Princess Bride is one of the best cinematic swashbuckler duels in existance.
And you know something? Inigo Montoya loses because he is WORSE than the Man In Black. He is lower level, he loses. Oh, it looks like he had a chance for a lucky blow so he is close (he is clearly superior when fighting with the correct hand vs the MIB's off hand). So he is only a little lower level. But Inigo is lower level.
If your fantasy is to regularly beat people better than you then you need a game with way less tight math than PF2 so luck has a greater place in the fight.
I never mentioned his duel with Westley, but I will point out that such a duel is unlikely to ever happen in PF2 as due to the tight math neither man would ever feel so unchallenged as to regularly fight using their off hands. PF2 also doesn't support the slow start and the fight increasing in pace as it nears its climax, if anything it supports evenly paced battles or attempted alpha strikes. I also dare you to watch the scene and show me where each character aims to recharge their panache every 6 seconds and to count how many 'finishers' they attempt.
PF2 does this sort of cinematic fight very poorly and as a tactical game the new classes feel clunky.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that if you pick a movie, it doesn't obey the rules of a TTRPG.
Random fact: Gandalf never spends exactly six seconds casting a spell either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbuckler doesn't need to make a check against an NPC to get Panache. Not to mention they're going to max Acrobatics and the skill for their style so they can succeed fine on non-mooks.Tumble Through, Feint, and Create a Diversion are all checks made against the saves or perception of your foe. They work less often against a skilled opponent so unless the boss has mooks placed around the room for the swashbuckler to bamboozle before he lunges at the big boss then the Swashbuckler isn't using his finishers all that often.
Adding insult to injury, the Swashbuckler fantasy often involves one-on-one duels with peer, or even greater than peer, level opponents overcoming them with guile and skill. The PF2 Swashbuckler is more likely than not to lose a duel against just such a foe. How does being worse against your archetypical foe fulfill anybody's fantasy?
You don't have to do any of those things to get Panache. You also have those skills maxed out so they work just fine against a boss. I've played a Swashbuckler and I'm GM'ing for one right now. You're way off the mark on their functionality.
Thank you for pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that if you pick a movie, it doesn't obey the rules of a TTRPG.
They fit rules-light and narrative-focused games pretty well. They can also fit even crunchier games like The Riddle of Steel where you may very well spend a few rounds making reserved probing attacks to assess the enemy's skill level. PF2 is neither fish nor fowl here.