| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Us armchair developers like to try to isolate components of the game system for trying to homebrew and for anticipating what could be possible and what couldn't be in the future, but the big problem with trying to isolate a mechanic like "proficiency bonus to attack" is that it is a mechanic that, by itself is actually completely meaningless.
We could design a fighter class that started with a legendary proficiency in a specific spell casting tradition, but if they never get spells to cast in that tradition, and were barred from being able to do so, then having that proficiency is meaningless. The system is elegant and mostly very modular, but some components are more independent than others.
Spells are mostly pretty independent by design. They do what they say they do and the metamagic feats that are in the game do not radically change the biggest elements of balance, such as accuracy and damage like they could in PF1.
Weapons are a fairly independent system as well which is no easy task when you are balancing things as different as a D4 and D12. Feats and items and abilities that add damage dice are incredibly limited and most damage bonuses come in the form of static modifiers or specific additional dice (sneak attack, property runes, etc.)
Because of the general independence, it is easy to overestimate how flexible the system is, even for professional developers (hence why 6th pillar is being Errata'd so quickly), but some ideas which seem simple (lets have the aesthetic symmetry of matching proficiencies) don't work the way people think they can because their are a large number of deliberate asymmetries built into the game as well, to prevent classes from feeling too similar.
While a +2 proficiency bonus is a big number difference in many ways, I think that people would end up complaining a lot more if a sorcerer who cast blasts and an archer ranger were attacking with the exact same numbers, doing the same numbers for damage, and doing it the same number of times. Systems like that do exist, and can be pretty fun, but people rarely feel like the character building in those systems is robust and meaningful.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
While a +2 proficiency bonus is a big number difference in many ways, I think that people would end up complaining a lot more if a sorcerer who cast blasts and an archer ranger were attacking with the exact same numbers, doing the same numbers for damage, and doing it the same number of times.
Well, for one, the sorcerer here can't be an archer, the feat is for unarmed attacks.
For another, it's not "the exact same numbers for damage" either. Not even close.
A hypothetical wizard or sorcerer who gets a +2 to hit at level 16 is doing something closer to half the damage of a similarly equipped fighter or ranger, and that's ignoring any potential feat investment on the latter's part to push those numbers higher. Again, at the cost of a level 16 feat... so you're giving up effortless concentration or greater evolution or something similar in exchange for doing vastly less damage than an appropriately equipped martial.
This isn't even in the ballpark of strong. This is a bad feat that does nothing except throw a small bone to the couple of people still trying to make Glutton's Jaws or Eldritch Nails work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding (formerly known as Tenser's) Transformation in particular, I think Righteous Might is a more appropriate model than most of the arcane/primal polymorph spells. Just polish off some of that god-stink, and inter-/extrapolate 7th, 9th, and 10th level versions of it.I disagree, just fix all the transformation spells to grant a to hit bonus*, that scales all the way up to level 10 spells, and keeps them close but definitely behind a non-fighter martial of the same level.
*And probably some other statistics too
So...animal form attack bonus actually meets a non-fighter at every odd level until you out level the spell, with the exception of level 3 if the martial has a rune. At a glance this is true for most of the forms spells.
What's the actual complaint here?
Actually re-reading the OP they want a spell that gives casters legendary proficiency in weapons? The hell?
The OP is crazy in terms of expectations.
I am talking about what I view as a legitimate problem. The problem is that you can out level animal form spell, but for RP reasons might want to maintain being an animal. It would be nice if your to hit bonus, damage, AC, temp HP, and athletic bonus continued to scale if you continued to heighten the spell.
The other problem is there are some spells that are transformation spells, that don't even grant you a to hit bonus in the first place. Take for example the Dragon Claws spell, which grants you an attack but doesn't give you an specific attack bonus and doesn't scale.
Now, that specific example is not a polymorph battle form spell. I suspect that's why it's treated differently, because it doesn't prevent casting. Personally I don't think that's enough reason, and it still needs to provide some amount of bonus to hit, else it's not actually a useful spell/focus spell/ability for casters to have.
As Squiggit above me notes, there's some people who would like to make spells like Dragon Claws, Eldritch Nails, and Glutton Jaw work and be meaningful parts of their character. Except they definitely aren't with the way they work now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell casters need to stay in their lane. The days of PF1 god-wizards are over.
Define what their lane is, first. Casting spells? They're well in that, and always have been.
Just remove the spells that give them Martial things and you won't have to whine about it ever again.
Oh, and remove the Magus class, too. Can't have someone be good at both spellcasting and martial things at the same time, it'd be too OP and we'd be back to PF1 levels of chicanery again.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s true enough. The God Wizard, as taken from the Treeentmonk guide, was about being a supreme battlefield controller and generating hyper efficiency, it was not another name for the CoDzilla. The Cleric or Druid-Zilla actually was very much about being an OP powerhouse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The God Wizard's best friend was usually something like an Inquisitor, actually. Martials other than the Paladin and very specific types of Barbarian couldn't keep up with that sort of efficiency.
While a +2 proficiency bonus is a big number difference in many ways, I think that people would end up complaining a lot more if a sorcerer who cast blasts and an archer ranger were attacking with the exact same numbers, doing the same numbers for damage, and doing it the same number of times. Systems like that do...I think the asymmetrical differences is a big thing, that I personally think has been problematic when applied to accuracy, especially when it come to casters. Having limited resources be ineffective due to a miss is really not fun same with having to jump through even more hops to be do less damage, I totally understand the idea that martials should be the best at dealing consistent damage/action, but having a bunch of spells that hit this limitation makes an entire trope feel bad.
For me balancing based on damage would feel better than on accuracy.
I totally understand why people are frustrated by asymmetries, but they are very obviously intentional in the design of PF2. No Character does the same 3 actions over and over again from level 1 to level 20. You are supposed to move on to better options as you level up and what that means varies from class to class, by design.
I think the most someone who really wants more symmetry is going to get is if they decide eventually to do a “developers kit” book as an eventual stand alone product. But interest in that in-house seems minimal as the whole point of designing the system the way it is designed is to tell the stories of Golarion that the folks at paizo want to tell.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because it’s intentional doesn’t mean it’s right or fair. A deliberate and intentional but punitive asymmetry is never going to feel okay unless we understand it.
Clearly we all have different understandings and expectations of what certain things should “cost” a class. And while we can all grope at rationales for one theory or another, it will never be settled until we can point to the source and say “this is why”.
As the saying goes: if you can’t build it, you don’t understand it. Right now, as a community, we can’t build a paizo approved class because we don’t understand the internal math. Without that understanding however, any form of punitive asymmetry is just going to feel bad. We can debate and rationalise, and more than likely fight, but we won’t know.
#ReleaseTheDevKit
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just do not see or experience casters underperforming once their players get a good 10 sessions under their belt. I even see the form spells working pretty well in my games. All of this symmetry stuff feels much more arm chair to me than practical experience in play. Having the right spell against a vulnerable enemy is consistently devastating. And “the right” spell is often just one that targets a specific save or does the right damage type, or rebuffs the enemy strength. Not just one spell that is the only one.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just do not see or experience casters underperforming once their players get a good 10 sessions under their belt. I even see the form spells working pretty well in my games. All of this symmetry stuff feels much more arm chair to me than practical experience in play.
You say this sort of thing a lot and I take real offence to it. It’s a way to invalidate my options and experience because it does mesh with your own. Like somehow the fact that I’ve been running games since the beta, played a wizard from 1-20 over the course of 2 years, plus a ton of other stuff, just somehow doesn’t count.
You can not agree with my opinions on things, that’s fine and healthy. But never assume you have the right to dismiss me out of hand.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just do not see or experience casters underperforming once their players get a good 10 sessions under their belt.
What kind of casters are you talking about here?
Feats like 6th pillar aren't going to help blasters and debuffers and are barely going to do anything for shapeshifters. They're fine and both don't need and won't bother with cruddy feats like that.
But the eldritch nails witch? The sorcerer desperately trying to use his demonic bloodline's focus spell? Do you really have a whole bunch of players building around those and succeeding with the rules as they are? Because from my experience players trying to do that tend to only stop underperforming when they give up on that playstyle.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When someone says "I haven't seen the same result with the game as you have" they are not always trying to say that what you've seen isn't valid. Rather they can be trying to point to the things which are different between the two experiences (i.e. not the rules and game contents themselves) as being what is responsible for the
Calling it “arm chair” is derogatory however. Its deliberately invalidating language.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because it’s intentional doesn’t mean it’s right or fair. A deliberate and intentional but punitive asymmetry is never going to feel okay unless we understand it.
Clearly we all have different understandings and expectations of what certain things should “cost” a class. And while we can all grope at rationales for one theory or another, it will never be settled until we can point to the source and say “this is why”.
As the saying goes: if you can’t build it, you don’t understand it. Right now, as a community, we can’t build a paizo approved class because we don’t understand the internal math. Without that understanding however, any form of punitive asymmetry is just going to feel bad. We can debate and rationalise, and more than likely fight, but we won’t know.
#ReleaseTheDevKit
I don't know what set of math you expect to find to try and dodge past the clearly stated line of "people with full legendary-proficiency casting do not get master weapon proficiency". Or whatever the magus gets, which among other things looks to involve less spells and only master spell proficiency.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what set of math you expect to find to try and dodge past the clearly stated line of "people with full legendary-proficiency casting do not get master weapon proficiency". Or whatever the magus gets, which among other things looks to involve less spells and only master spell proficiency.Just because it’s intentional doesn’t mean it’s right or fair. A deliberate and intentional but punitive asymmetry is never going to feel okay unless we understand it.
Clearly we all have different understandings and expectations of what certain things should “cost” a class. And while we can all grope at rationales for one theory or another, it will never be settled until we can point to the source and say “this is why”.
As the saying goes: if you can’t build it, you don’t understand it. Right now, as a community, we can’t build a paizo approved class because we don’t understand the internal math. Without that understanding however, any form of punitive asymmetry is just going to feel bad. We can debate and rationalise, and more than likely fight, but we won’t know.
#ReleaseTheDevKit
Yeah I think it's a slippery slope that devs are careful not to cross. It might not seem like much now, but I think it could balloon if paizo doesn't stick to its guns regarding balance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell slot allowance is a really big deal in PF2. It may seem like even full casters don't get that many spells per day, but by being a spell level ahead on their progression, it is usually at least a +5 top two level spell slots over the multi-class caster. Multiclassing into casting means getting 1 or 2 big spell moments a day (+ a few more if you spend a lot on consumable spell options) and a lot more lower level utility casting.MCing into a martial class is pretty much getting you a second map martial attack that you can use indefinitely. On paper, the once or twice a day big casting moment looks a lot more impressive, but in practice the caster MC'd into a martial is going to able to use spells so much more often and effectively that they do just fine. If anything, the issue is really that casters can get access to the weapon proficiencies that they might gain from multiclassing so easily, that a lot of caster/martial character builds are better off being built around specific archetypes (like what the 6th pillar was trying to accomplish) than they are multi-classing into a separate base class, while a lot of martial/caster character builds are just looking for reliable access to specific spells, not feats and class features. We are starting to see some pretty cool archetypes that work to give...
Your forgetting the casters by default have way less HP and defence against athletic type maneouvres than martials. People forget that even if a caster was effective at meleeing things they would struggle to stay alive.
Anyway, the feat is fairly easy to fit. Just make it meta magic, after casting a spell using one of your spell slots your next unarmed attack gains a +2 status bonus to hit. (or similar)
Hell that would be a great feat anyway to really expand caster's ability to melee - could be your next melee attack if you are worried about caster under damaging ranged bow attacks (compared to pretty much any martial). Make bespell weapon a pre-requisite and bam you'd satisfy a lot of people without even touching on martial melee power. Make it 6th level as due to limited spell slots it won't even begin to hurt martial melee dominance.
In my opinion they were a little too zealous in restricting casters flexibility. MC caster may only have 8 spell slots a day but a self buffing martial is the reason melee clerics were nasty and they have still enabled that through caster MC easily enough. Fighter self casting heroism is nuts. Add in staves that give extra spell slots to MC casters and they really aren't that far behind full casters if you just want utility/buffs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the post at the top of this page, I identified myself as an arm chair developer as well, arm chair, meaning that we are sitting at home trying to understand design choices, but that we are not a part of the team having the discussions and looking at the whole picture together.
I understand that there are a fair number of people who are disparaging of casters in PF2 (especially the wizard), and I am pretty used to people disagreeing with my assessment of some design choices. I am also willing to admit that I missed the obvious problem with the 6th pillar feat when I first read it and thought it sounded like a cool and interesting archetype that is built for short range blasting and debuffing, not for polymorph spells. I really appreciate Mark stepping into to explain that one very quickly before people got really attached to builds incorporating it.
There is actually several casting/combat archetypes in the Fists of the Ruby Phoenix AP and some feats for classes specifically, including an archetype for making a witch's hair into a serious melee weapon. I have said it before, but it bears repeating: Discussing what ideas and builds you want to see in future material is very useful for developers, as is asking for clarification on things that seem a little confusing, but getting caught up attacking clear and intentional design choices of the system itself is not a path forward towards new content that will meet your expectations. In panel after panel it has been made clear that they have no intention of releasing material in the back of an AP or even in a lost omens book or other non-core (already out book) that is going to radically shift the math of the game.
I would feel pretty crappy as my barbarian if one of the casters in my party took this archetype and had the same to hit bonus as me, in addition to the amazing stuff they can already do.
In our Fists of the Ruby Phoenix game our party's druid has a +23 to hit while wildshaped into a dinosaur versus the +22 my barbarian has to hit while raging. So what? It's not that big a deal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would feel pretty crappy as my barbarian if one of the casters in my party took this archetype and had the same to hit bonus as me, in addition to the amazing stuff they can already do.In our Fists of the Ruby Phoenix game our party's druid has a +23 to hit while wildshaped into a dinosaur versus the +22 my barbarian has to hit while raging. So what? It's not that big a deal.
I guess form shapes don't bother me because they lock you out of being able to do things like cast spells, use items, etc. But yeah I admit that was a bad example, rage does give a big damage bonus, and besides that barbarians have a bunch of cool tools. I dont mean to say that a +2 to hit for a caster means they are now equivalent to any martial, but it does put them too close for my personal liking (again that's not counting buffs like wild shape).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a dev kit is just likely to continue to piss people off who already disagree with the design goals.
And casters get tons of flexibility in the form of spells. There's about to be a new book with 200ish of them. Just because someone decided not to use it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that the game is broken.
I second this. Releasing a dev kit sounds like it would only serve to give the people with an axe to grind something to chop at. I don't see anything constructive coming from it. And this is coming from someone critical of both casters and magic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right I think it's more that some options aren't fun or satisfying, not that there are no good options. Same applies to the replies that say, if the options you picked aren't working you picked wrong. No if the options that exist aren't fun fix them to be fun.
Agreed, we had the other attitude with PF1, I think ultimately to the detriment of the game. We simply ignored options that were under performers and just waited for the new strong option to come out.
Of course we had a dearth of options that could enable virtually any play style.
but if PF2 that's not the case. Options exist for some play styles, but they're objectively bad choices that can't be made to function. Not the class itself is non-functional, but casters trying to use Glutton Jaw, Dragon Claws, or Eldritch nails will find that it's worthless to do so. And that doesn't need to be the case if we revisit those spells and change how the function to make them closer to the battle form transformation spells in how they function.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sorcerer in one of my parties uses dragon claws about once a session, often to close out a fight, or to exploit a specific weakness.
I think there is still an expectation issue where people say things like "Dragon Claws, Glutton Jaw and Eldritch nails are worthless," when they mean, "I can not build a character that uses these abilities as a primary attack in each combat."
Which is also false. You can get these abilities as a multiclass monk or barbarian or fighter and use them to devastating effect, but not at level 1.
reimagining these spells becomes dangerous if the goal is to make it so a base class caster (who's primary attack should be a spell) can use them anywhere near martial efficacy. As a nonprofessional designer, it might feel like this would be an easy thing to do for your table, and the character that is specifically wanting a little more oompf from a spell like this without investing character options to do so, but it is a bad approach for the game as a whole that becomes easily exploitable. This was clearly the issue with 6th pillar, which has no issue within the concept space of the archetype itself, but will get really messy when paired with a wild shaping druid who is already playing like a martial when they are wildshaped, without that proficiency boost.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My dragon sorcerer was once swooped up in the jaws of a jungle drake, and was being flown away from the party, so I cast dragon claws and gouged its eyes out.
It was a wonderful roleplaying experience that could never have happened if certain optimizers had their way with the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, people want to double dip and be full spellcasters and full martials. That's obviously not going to happen. Mildly surprised the form spells actually match up with martials, didn't think they did.
Depends on one's interpretation of the rules. There's been some debate as to what bonuses apply and which don't, and under which circumstances.
I think it's probably safe to say that druids get pretty close to matching up to martials, but other classes fall behind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Form spells, especially of the highest levels, should match up with martials, at least statistically. They give up spells while in that form, and also don't get the array of class feats/abilities that martials get. They're good at adding to versatility, though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sorcerer in one of my parties uses dragon claws about once a session, often to close out a fight, or to exploit a specific weakness.
I think there is still an expectation issue where people say things like "Dragon Claws, Glutton Jaw and Eldritch nails are worthless," when they mean, "I can not build a character that uses these abilities as a primary attack in each combat."
Which is also false. You can get these abilities as a multiclass monk or barbarian or fighter and use them to devastating effect, but not at level 1.
reimagining these spells becomes dangerous if the goal is to make it so a base class caster (who's primary attack should be a spell) can use them anywhere near martial efficacy. As a nonprofessional designer, it might feel like this would be an easy thing to do for your table, and the character that is specifically wanting a little more oompf from a spell like this without investing character options to do so, but it is a bad approach for the game as a whole that becomes easily exploitable. This was clearly the issue with 6th pillar, which has no issue within the concept space of the archetype itself, but will get really messy when paired with a wild shaping druid who is already playing like a martial when they are wildshaped, without that proficiency boost.
What I mean is that as a sorcerer (base) that dragon claws is not useful. Which is a shame IMO.
The fact that a barbarian can multiclass into sorcerer and use it effectively doesn't make things any better IMO. It illustrates why the current design is bad for the sorcerer.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the "this is useless" declaration comes down to an unfair expectation that any option which seems cool enough to use must also be in direct competition for some kind of "best choice of action ever" award.
I don't think there's anything unfair about someone making a character expecting one of their core focus spells to be something functional and effective.
Honestly the notion that such an assumption is "unfair" seems pretty absurd to me too. It should be one of the most basic conceits of the game, because we're not talking about someone stitching together some highly esoteric build or combining options in ways that probably weren't intended, we're talking about someone using an option Paizo handed to them as a basic feature and falling flat on their face.
In PF1 we called those trap options and a big part of PF2 was supposed to be doing away with that idea... so seeing such egregious ones is just kind of a bummer.
Dragon claws are functional for a sorcerer. They won’t keep up with your highest level spell slots, and become secondary attack options relatively quickly. But they still work and are useful for sorcerers in the mid game at least. Sorcerer focus powers and witch abilities don’t need to be every combat, every action activities to be functional.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martial | Animal: Level 3 | +10 | +9
Martial | Animal: Level 4 | +11 | +9
Martial | Animal: Level 5 | +14 | +14
Martial | Animal: Level 6 | +15 | +14
Martial | Animal: Level 7 | +16 | +16
Martial | Animal: Level 8 | +17 | +16
Martial | Animal | Elemental: Level 9 | +18 | +18 | +18
Martial | Animal | Elemental: Level 10 | +21 | +18 | +18
Martial | Elemental | Dragon: Level 11 | +22 | +23 | +22
Martial | Elemental | Dragon: Level 12 | +23 | +23 | +22
Martial | Elemental | Dragon: Level 13 | +26 | +25 | +22
Martial | Elemental | Dragon: Level 14 | +27 | +25 | +22
Martial | Dragon | Monstrocity: Level 15 | +28 | +28 | +28
Martial | Dragon | Monstrocity: Level 16 | +30 | +28 | +28
Martial | Monstrocity: Level 17 | +32 | +31
Martial | Monstrocity: Level 18 | +33 | +31
Martial | Incarnate: Level 19 | +34 | +34
Martial | Incarnate: Level 20 | +36 | +34
Jesus christ, what more do people want?! I'm not being sarcastic at all. This seems completely reasonable from a game design stand point. That the a caster can, ever in any way, get even remotely close to a dedicated martial in terms of "I smack it" should be plenty.