Can we start getting some more support for existing classes?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the people that the Paizo devs are going to be most likely to cater to in future books are "people who like the current books."


I feel like "it's a class based system" is one of those sacrosanct things they're just not going to be willing to let go of lest the game simply become unrecognizable.

They've admitted that this sort of thing is a consideration, for example why ability scores for PCs are numbers from 8 to 24 rather than just ability score modifiers like monsters have. "I have 18 strength" just means something to people that "I have +4 strength" doesn't, and similiarly "I am an 8th level Dwarf Fighter" means something to people that "I am an 8th level Dwarf who took chiefly fighting abilities."


Considering that most PF1 players just used the core and featured races. A good chunk of which have been converted to heritages...

What ancestries in PF2 lack is more options for interesting items and feats. Maybe add back in a traits system for stuff you can only get at level 1 but is worth less than a feat. Its surprising how much just adding a few traits can add to character diversity. Also adding in more of the missing PF1 races

But really, non of that has to do with have more support for existing classes. Like why aren't we getting cool new items to make existing classes better? How about getting new focus spell options? New flavorful feats to go along side the book? So much potential literally untapped.


Temperans wrote:
But really, non of that has to do with have more support for existing classes. Like why aren't we getting cool new items to make existing classes better? How about getting new focus spell options? New flavorful feats to go along side the book? So much potential literally untapped.

Yeah I’m fairly disappointed with that too. I don’t expect the slew of class options PF1 added, but the decisions to not tie in existing classes with the new mechanical options in G&G is a bit mind boggling. SoM was more what I expected; not necessarily new stuff for all classes, but where it made sense.

Hopefully future releases ill be more like that.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Temperans wrote:
But really, non of that has to do with have more support for existing classes. Like why aren't we getting cool new items to make existing classes better? How about getting new focus spell options? New flavorful feats to go along side the book? So much potential literally untapped.

Yeah I’m fairly disappointed with that too. I don’t expect the slew of class options PF1 added, but the decisions to not tie in existing classes with the new mechanical options in G&G is a bit mind boggling. SoM was more what I expected; not necessarily new stuff for all classes, but where it made sense.

Hopefully future releases ill be more like that.

I think SoM could had used a lot more stuff for current classes.

Not only are caster feats still incredibly meh. But it is still a fact that most of the archetypes are for martials, to help martials, or are better done by martials who have the better action economy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

More stuff or different stuff? Because I almost put in my post "I wouldn't have necessarily even had all the stuff that was in SoM", but that may be because I too felt it was slanted towards Martial/Gish work and less on pure casters.

But perhaps the devs felt, with a high amount of justification, that the new spells were the "options" for pure casters and the feats had to fill the gap for other characters, which would explain the slant. I probably would have preferred more emphasis on casters anyways, starting with a pure caster for one of the new classes instead of the 2 gishes, but that's just my own taste and not necessarily the best possible direction.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I mean, both books had a bunch for current classes, even class feats came in the form of the new archetypes.

One of the West Marches characters I'm working on right now is Flexible Preperation Witch (who uses the Life Boost Hex to help me make up for the missing spell slot.) That's an APG class being used with SoM material, and she's Baba Yaga patron, so throw LO: Legends in there as well.

Another is a gun toting investigator who uses a Dueling Pistol normally, and has a Arquebus/Tripod they carry around for scenarios where they have the time to perform setup, they're taking Archaelogist dedication so that's CRB Elf, APG Investigator and Archaelogist, and G&G Archaelogist

Objectively, something like a Sterling Dynamo, or unexpected Sharpshooter, or Cathartic Mage, or Wellspring Mage (and the others too) are all potential sources of new class feats for existing classes. Then there's items like the Grimoires and Shadow Signet which existing classes appreciate just fine, and the improved crossbows in G&G.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
I mean, both books had a bunch for current classes, even class feats came in the form of the new archetypes.

Right, but I specifically mean new class options that aren't archetype feats, but instead are either new class paths (like the Druid orders we got in SoM), new non-archetype class feats, or new class archetypes.

I would find acceptable if some of the feats written for the new classes also had tags for other classes where that made sense. Like, say, Blast Lock being offered for the Rogue class in addition to the Gunslinger class, or Alchemical Shot being given to Alchemists. That would be pretty low impact space wise while still offering new options to existing classes.

Doesn't even have to be a lot. Maybe 5 or 6 offered to 1-2 existing classes each, and I'd have been satisfied.

Edit: Well, mostly satisfied. The complete lack of an alchemical research field for Guns just makes no sense to me. It's one thing in a book like SoM, where there's no particular emphasis on alchemical items, but G&G has an entire section on new alchemical items and expanding the lore on this new use of alchemy. I'll buy that they want to be extremely judicious on where they add class paths and options, but not adding one there is a head scratcher. If you're not going to add an alchemist research field in a book where alchemical items are one its two major emphasis, where will you?

Edit Edit: I DO highly appreciate that my ask for a alchemical reagents for the gunslinger class made it to the final game. So I do have options to lean really hard into the alchemical feats that are there, but then that's "using a new class instead of adding thematically appropriate options to an existing one". It can work, but can still be disappointing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
I mean, both books had a bunch for current classes, even class feats came in the form of the new archetypes.

Right, but I specifically mean new class options that aren't archetype feats, but instead are either new class paths (like the Druid orders we got in SoM), new non-archetype class feats, or new class archetypes.

I would find acceptable if some of the feats written for the new classes also had tags for other classes where that made sense. Like, say, Blast Lock being offered for the Rogue class in addition to the Gunslinger class, or Alchemical Shot being given to Alchemists. That would be pretty low impact space wise while still offering new options to existing classes.

Doesn't even have to be a lot. Maybe 5 or 6 offered to 1-2 existing classes each, and I'd have been satisfied.

I suppose my question should be, when regarding the class support, is why I should accept the prohibition toward archetypes-as-class-support in the first place? It seems to be more of a personal obstacle to accepting the immense diversity of class supporting options, than a worthwhile distinction. What is the value in "meaning new class options that aren't archetype feats?"

I haven't been sold on this particular hill as a concept, more class paths and such would be lovely, but I don't think it qualifies as an absence of support for existing classes.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The-Magic-Sword wrote:


I suppose my question should be, when regarding the class support, is why I should accept the prohibition toward archetypes-as-class-support in the first place?

Archetype options can't expand upon existing class features or interact directly with the class' material.

They're also restricted in how often you can take them. You get one archetype, probably until level 8 or higher (unless you get the rare archetype with a skill feat). If you find an archetype you like, every subsequent archetype published can only, at best, come at the expense of that other one until you're pretty deep in a campaign.

Archetypes also tend to be kind of build expensive, because you have to buy into a dedication before you can buy into the archetype feat that might interest you the most... then you need another archetype feat if you ever want to take another dedication.
So that can be a three feat commitment when, worst case scenario, you might only be interested in one of them. Archetypes tend to be pretty thin so there aren't always a lot of good options for slipping back out of them.

So it's not that archteypes are bad, but they have some significant limitations that class feats wouldn't.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I suppose my question should be, when regarding the class support, is why I should accept the prohibition toward archetypes-as-class-support in the first place? It seems to be more of a personal obstacle to accepting the immense diversity of class supporting options, than a worthwhile distinction. What is the value in "meaning new class options that aren't archetype feats?"

I haven't been sold on this particular hill as a concept, more class paths and such would be lovely, but I don't think it qualifies as an absence of support for existing classes.

The value is in knowing "when Animatedpaper says certain words, this is what he means". I'm not trying to convert you to my point of view, or telling you to "accept the prohibition"; I'm just clarifying what my point of view is. That I got something else instead is interesting but does not meet what I, personally, wanted.

I'm also just not terribly fond of the dedication mechanic, due to the reasons Squiggit mentioned, and would prefer other options also exist.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Archetype options can't expand upon existing class features or interact directly with the class' material.

They're also restricted in how often you can take them. You get one archetype, probably until level 8 or higher (unless you get the rare archetype with a skill feat). If you find an archetype you like, every subsequent archetype published can only, at best, come at the expense of that other one until you're pretty deep in a campaign.

Archetypes also tend to be kind of build expensive, because you have to buy into a dedication before you can buy into the archetype feat that might interest you the most... then you need another archetype feat if you ever want to take another dedication.
So that can be a three feat commitment when, worst case scenario, you might only be interested in one of them. Archetypes tend to be pretty thin so there aren't always a lot of good options for slipping back out of them.

So it's not that archteypes are bad, but they have some significant limitations that class feats wouldn't.

I was going to try and explain why archetypes aren't the same as new class content, but this pretty much sums it up perfectly.


Squiggit wrote:
Archetype options can't expand upon existing class features or interact directly with the class' material.

What about Bullet Dancer? That interacts directly with FoB.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, bullet dancer is interesting. Especially since it's almost tailor made to be a monk thing while not technically being one (I have some gripes with the archetype but they're outside the scope of this thread). As far as I can tell though it's the only one that really does that. So the problem still largely exists. If Paizo starts printing more archetypes that do, that'd be one way of addressing that part of the problem, but who knows if they will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lightning Raven wrote:
Verdyn wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Verdyn wrote:
I rarely played anything as conventional as a Wizard when I got the chance to be a player. In 3.x I enjoyed such nonsense as a Beholder that was growing a body one limb adding template at a time, a completely bonkers DMM cheese Cleric that abused knowledge devotion and two castings of Ice Axe, a gestalt classed hydra-wizard with multispell so each head could cast a spell every round, and other horrors. The Cleric aside, none of that was especially optimal or broken, but it's something PF2 will NEVER let me try.
These are pretty outlandish concepts for PCs. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it is too early to get this in PF2, at least from Paizo. 3PPs might do this though.
Too early, by this point into 3rd edition D&D there were 19 books in with Savage species a few months away. Even PF1 had released more books at this stage.

There are already some unusual ancestries in the game, it may not be those that you want, but there are definitely the kind of stuff you used to pick before.

Poppets, Beastkin, Anadi, Pixies, Leshys, Gnolls, Fleshwarps, Conrasu, Shoony, Goloma (bipedal horse people), etc.

You can pick any of these and mix with all random assortment of classes/archetypes, if that's what means to craft a character for you. This, of course, is disregarding the assortment versatile heritages and even items that can allow for unusual characters (such as the recent addition of wheelchairs, which seem like a really cool character venue to explore).

And PF2 developers do publish unusual ancestries with 3rd parties quite frequently. The Pnoll is probably one of my favorites, but there are dragon ancestries already too.


Unicore wrote:

Champions have incredible AC with heavy armor and excellent proficiencies. For 1 level 2 feat, the champion can take divine grace and get a +2 bonus to any saves when they need it. They have other options which are different than the sentinel ability, available much earlier, and some of the other feats are the same. Champions don't really need or benefit from the Sentinel archetype.

Defending not spending 1 feat to get +4 to all reflex saves so that you don't get tripped every round by pointing to a reaction that gives +2 to magic saves on Champion of all classes is not doing your side of the argument any favors.

Not to mention that by your logic, Wizards should be getting melee feats and Fighters should be getting nothing but out of combat feats. God forbid they spend even one feat enhancing their primary skills.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

TBH a fighter taking a ton of out of combat feats isn't a bad idea. They're really strong on their own.

Wizard taking melee feats is problematic because of the way proficiency works though. You could spend every class feat you have on weapons and you still won't be very good at it, whereas the fighter taking nothing but skill boosting feats would get noticeably betterat all those things.


Squiggit wrote:

TBH a fighter taking a ton of out of combat feats isn't a bad idea. They're really strong on their own.

Wizard taking melee feats is problematic because of the way proficiency works though. You could spend every class feat you have on weapons and you still won't be very good at it, whereas the fighter taking nothing but skill boosting feats would get noticeably betterat all those things.

Also because of the buff meta going on with spells the fighter can spend all their feats on casting and be a better character than a Wizard spending every feat on combat will.

Who cares about caster proficiency when you can just cast self buffs and use your own Legendary martial proficiency.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Those are not the same characters at all.

Fighter with some casting and Wizard with some combat features have completely different abilities.

If you care mostly for a Martial role in combat, the caster chassis does not fit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

TBH a fighter taking a ton of out of combat feats isn't a bad idea. They're really strong on their own.

Wizard taking melee feats is problematic because of the way proficiency works though. You could spend every class feat you have on weapons and you still won't be very good at it, whereas the fighter taking nothing but skill boosting feats would get noticeably betterat all those things.

Also because of the buff meta going on with spells the fighter can spend all their feats on casting and be a better character than a Wizard spending every feat on combat will.

Who cares about caster proficiency when you can just cast self buffs and use your own Legendary martial proficiency.

Caster Dedication won't give you the strong buffs or way too late (level 4 for Magic Weapon, 18 for Haste 7, 16 for Heroism 6, 12 for Circle of Protection 4).

And there's a debuff meta, not a buff one.


If we are talking about effectiveness, then getting access to self buffs, even if delayed > being bad at using weapons.

You could replace a caster with an martial and see little difference.


Temperans wrote:


Who cares about caster proficiency when you can just cast self buffs and use your own Legendary martial proficiency.

That's something they indeed managed in a poor way.

I am fine with offensive spells being very underpowered compared to a pure spellcaster ( max slot level, number of slots, way slower progression and low DC/Spellattack ), but it's ridiculous that they didn't consider supportive stuff too.

I haven't seen a single character going for offensive spells with a dedication ( apart from a spellstriker character, ofcourse ), while it's full of those who decided to get supportive stuff, like haste, heroism, fly, longstrider, true strike, etc...

SuperBidi wrote:

Caster Dedication won't give you the strong buffs or way too late (level 4 for Magic Weapon, 18 for Haste 7, 16 for Heroism 6, 12 for Circle of Protection 4).
And there's a debuff meta, not a buff one.

There's either Buff and debuff.

And since they do stack ( heroism + synesthesia, for example ), they are allways worth it. In addition to this, having an additional character to cast on the first round would make things easier.

For example, rather than

R1
Cleric: Cast heroism
Wizard: Cast haste

R2
Cleric: Cast Heroism
Wizard: Cast Stoneskin

we could have

R1
Cleric: Cast Heroism
Fighter: Cast Heroism
Rogue: Cast Haste
Wizard: Cast Stoneskin

R2:
Cleric: Cast Heal
Wizard Cast Fireball

Pretty good.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The design philosophy of PF2 is that casters who MC into something Martial, are still going to be casters first, but have better 3rd action attack options than other casters. Martials that MC into casting are still going to be much better martials, just with a little more utility.

An MC martial caster is level 8 by the time they have as many spells to cast as a level 2 wizard. One martial and one caster each focused on their own thing are probably going to be much better than two martial characters MCing into casting classes to buff themselves. They will be casting those buffs once a day for most of the game.

An MC caster Martial is probably using a decent martial attack in almost every round of combat, but two Caster/Martials are not going to have the tankiness to replace a front line martial for sure.

Neither option make you a perfect split of martial power and casting power. That takes a class choice like magus or summoner, which both also have their limits.

The PF2 design philosophy and embracing of class niche is designed around making sure that you, and the game knows what your character is going to be better at than other characters. It helps GMs plan encounters, it helps players build competent characters, it helps adventure writers have a better grasp of what the floor and ceiling of expected character power levels are. I am very appreciative of why the designers made these choices, even if I also hold out hope that some of the less exciting options get better support.

But a lot of the options that get trashed on the boards have been a lot more fun to play than I anticipated. I have built two conjurer wizards now (one in a campaign and one for PFS) and the right summon (with save targeting attacks or resistances) has been more useful than a lot of blasting type spells or even a lot of the debuff options in many encounters. Yes summoning spells are 3 actions, but you get two back in the first round for doing it and if the enemy attacks and kills your summon on their first action, you have just slowed them one and potentially gotten a flank buddy for an ally for a turn, even if the creature doesn't get an attack off that does any damage or debuffs. If the enemy ignores your summon, there is a good chance your focus power will make them annoying enough the next round that they will have to think twice about ignoring it for the rest of the combat.

Almost all of the "bad options" that I see people talk about here, I have seen used in play in ways that have made significant contributions to an encounter, just like I have seen many of the "must have" options been attempted to forced into an encounter in a way that just didn't help because there were more tactical options that would have helped the whole party.

I want to keep seeing more options that give new things to do, in interesting and fun ways. Some of the printed options have really underwhelmed. That can be frustrating when it is something that sounded like it could have been cool (form retention, I am looking at you) but 10 bad options out of 200 don't ruin a game. 3 overpowered options out of 200 do. It is important to stick to power level limits and not make supplemental ways of bypassing them. This was the #1 lesson learned from the whole 3.x system.


Temperans wrote:

If we are talking about effectiveness, then getting access to self buffs, even if delayed > being bad at using weapons.

You could replace a caster with an martial and see little difference.

If you're only looking for buffs, yes, but at that point the real correct choice is bard MC because you sacrifice far lower level feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
Temperans wrote:


Who cares about caster proficiency when you can just cast self buffs and use your own Legendary martial proficiency.

That's something they indeed managed in a poor way.

I am fine with offensive spells being very underpowered compared to a pure spellcaster ( max slot level, number of slots, way slower progression and low DC/Spellattack ), but it's ridiculous that they didn't consider supportive stuff too.

I haven't seen a single character going for offensive spells with a dedication ( apart from a spellstriker character, ofcourse ), while it's full of those who decided to get supportive stuff, like haste, heroism, fly, longstrider, true strike, etc...

SuperBidi wrote:

Caster Dedication won't give you the strong buffs or way too late (level 4 for Magic Weapon, 18 for Haste 7, 16 for Heroism 6, 12 for Circle of Protection 4).
And there's a debuff meta, not a buff one.

There's either Buff and debuff.

And since they do stack ( heroism + synesthesia, for example ), they are allways worth it. In addition to this, having an additional character to cast on the first round would make things easier.

For example, rather than

R1
Cleric: Cast heroism
Wizard: Cast haste

R2
Cleric: Cast Heroism
Wizard: Cast Stoneskin

we could have

R1
Cleric: Cast Heroism
Fighter: Cast Heroism
Rogue: Cast Haste
Wizard: Cast Stoneskin

R2:
Cleric: Cast Heal
Wizard Cast Fireball

Pretty good.

You're working on a lot of assumptions to get to your conclusion. I disagree with a lot of them.

Debuff is the meta, but not buff. The only buffs that are meta are the Bard's compositions.
Also, if you ask Deriven, martial archetypes are a no brainer on casters for him.

And high level casters don't support martials much considering the amount of destruction they can unleash. Between a Heroism 6 and a Chain Lightning, the choice is quickly made (personally, I don't even consider taking Heroism on my Divine Sorcerer, but definitely Chain Lightning).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I am making assumption and you call out for a Divine sorcerer who took chain lightning?

So it's either a specific class which has access to chain lightning through a specific feat or, eventually, a cleric with a specific deity, granting him the lightning spell.

Hmm... ( though more than an assumption, it's a "deep meta" scenario talking about a specific class sacrificing everything to get a specific offensive spell that class doesn't have. the difference between saying "that class is strong" and "that class with that specific deity/feat/build" is strong. ).

Also, as pointed out, it's not necessarily the spellcaster ( the one with HIGH DC ) the one who's casting heroism/haste, but the martial himself.

It's a lower version indeed, but:

- Stacking with any debuff a "pure spellcaster" could deliver
- Saving 1 round to a spellcaster ( 2 actions out of 3 for a spellcaster is a whole round ). But with a lower version of the spell ofc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:

The design philosophy of PF2 is that casters who MC into something Martial, are still going to be casters first, but have better 3rd action attack options than other casters. Martials that MC into casting are still going to be much better martials, just with a little more utility.

An MC martial caster is level 8 by the time they have as many spells to cast as a level 2 wizard. One martial and one caster each focused on their own thing are probably going to be much better than two martial characters MCing into casting classes to buff themselves. They will be casting those buffs once a day for most of the game.

An MC caster Martial is probably using a decent martial attack in almost every round of combat, but two Caster/Martials are not going to have the tankiness to replace a front line martial for sure.

Neither option make you a perfect split of martial power and casting power. That takes a class choice like magus or summoner, which both also have their limits.

The PF2 design philosophy and embracing of class niche is designed around making sure that you, and the game knows what your character is going to be better at than other characters. It helps GMs plan encounters, it helps players build competent characters, it helps adventure writers have a better grasp of what the floor and ceiling of expected character power levels are. I am very appreciative of why the designers made these choices, even if I also hold out hope that some of the less exciting options get better support.

But a lot of the options that get trashed on the boards have been a lot more fun to play than I anticipated. I have built two conjurer wizards now (one in a campaign and one for PFS) and the right summon (with save targeting attacks or resistances) has been more useful than a lot of blasting type spells or even a lot of the debuff options in many encounters. Yes summoning spells are 3 actions, but you get two back in the first round for doing it and if the enemy attacks and kills your summon on their first action, you...

This has been my experience as well, and there's also things like the Warpriest Cleric Doctrine which mainly seems to have a branding issue where people expect it to play like a martial-- in reality it wants to do healing and buffs on the frontline while taking third action swings with its weapon.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
So, I am making assumption and you call out for a Divine sorcerer who took chain lightning?

Yes, there's an 8 level feat to take a spell from any tradition, and I'm willing to pay that to get the best blast in the game on my Divine Sorcerer. On the other hand, even if I've considered Heroism, I won't take it for now (I've built my spell list up to level 13).

HumbleGamer wrote:

Also, as pointed out, it's not necessarily the spellcaster ( the one with HIGH DC ) the one who's casting heroism/haste, but the martial himself.

It's a lower version indeed, but:

- Stacking with any debuff a "pure spellcaster" could deliver
- Saving 1 round to a spellcaster ( 2 actions out of 3 for a spellcaster is a whole round ). But with a lower version of the spell ofc.

If you have a round to prebuff, definitely.

Otherwise, Haste is not worth the casting if you target yourself. You need 4 rounds to gain your first action and it's a third one so you certainly need more rounds to really gain anything. Heroism isn't much better. Heroism starts to be interesting with Heroism 6 that is available to martials at level 16.


SuperBidi wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
So, I am making assumption and you call out for a Divine sorcerer who took chain lightning?

Yes, there's an 8 level feat to take a spell from any tradition, and I'm willing to pay that to get the best blast in the game on my Divine Sorcerer. On the other hand, even if I've considered Heroism, I won't take it for now (I've built my spell list up to level 13).

I meant to say that "heroism casters" are not necessarily "sorcerer with divine tradition who took the lvl 8 class feat which allowed them to take a primal/arcane spell".

SuperBidi wrote:


If you have a round to prebuff, definitely.
Otherwise, Haste is not worth the casting if you target yourself. You need 4 rounds to gain your first action and it's a third one so you certainly need more rounds to really gain anything. Heroism isn't much better. Heroism starts to be interesting with Heroism 6 that is available to martials at level 16.

No prebuff exploit, at least for me.

Haste sometimes is required ( eldritch archer, magus, Eldritch trickster, any spellcaster using metamagic feat, Flurry ranger, etc... ). What I can agree on is that at some point it would be easier to have a spellcaster to cast the lvl 7 version, targeting all the party.

Heroism is going to be definitely ok by lvl 16, I agree.

But unless I have a Bard or Marshal, I'd probably be ok with also a +1 on saves/skills/attack, which can last more than 1 fight.

But I can definitely see that if you allow precast, what I am saying is way less required/powerful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
I meant to say that "heroism casters" are not necessarily "sorcerer with divine tradition who took the lvl 8 class feat which allowed them to take a primal/arcane spell".

I misunderstood you. But Heroism casters are casters with a bunch of strong high level spells. My Sorcerer's a blaster, but there are other lines of spells that bear a lot of effects at level 6+.

Heroism 6, on the other hand, is not a high impacting effect at that level. It's better cast before combat than during combat.

HumbleGamer wrote:
But I can definitely see that if you allow precast, what I am saying is way less required/powerful.

It's funny, because I have the opposite point of view. If you can prebuff (even if it's a first round of combat where you wait for the enemies instead of running to them) you can cast them. Otherwise, they are just not worth the 2 actions lost, even if I got them for free I'd not use them on my martials.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

...
The fact that the only buffs you can all think of are: Haste and Heroism tells you enough.

What is the point of magic if it is not magical? What kind of new options are caster's being given when the only thing that you can even imagine is "haste/heroism".

Pass without a Trace, is good for all Rogues/Rangers. True Strike to guarantee your hit vs high AC enemies. People talk a lot about Sonic damage, well echoing weapon actually does a lot for a martial give they can actually hit. Fleet step makes it so a Fighter becomes as fast as a Monk. Etc.

Btw did you notice I only mentioned 1st level spells that have no save, and whose duration is a minute or more (except true strike). Did you notice that all of them make a martial be straight up better at what they already do; But on a caster they are circumstantial at best? Did you notice you only need 2 feats to get access to those spells.

********************
Back to the actual topic, martials have gotten a lot more support. Not only in the action economy, not only in the number of archetypes, but in what proficiencies they can reach, and the number of spells that benefit them more than casters. Ex: Heroism on a Wizard is wasted. Heroism on a Fighter is game changing.

Secrets of Magic was not a book about magic or helping casters. It was a book about PF2 gishes. There is no PF2 book that actually helps caster classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A MC caster gets Heroism 6 at 16th level. If it's game-changing, the caster has been changing the game for 5 levels, with triple the possible castings, and is a level away from two+ castings of Heroism 9 if they so choose.

I see you're also going to just ignore the tons of new spells in SoM.

A multiclass MC is great for versatility. As you've noted, adding on the ability to improve others skills, or true strike to help a particular attack hit, is great for a martial character's versatility. But with the exception of true strike, all of them a caster will do better. More slots (a wizard/sorc has 2 more of each low-level, and 3 of each high-level, even with a level 8 feat invested), better spells and higher slots, actually being able to use offensive spells, etc. For example, Pass Without Trace loses a lot of its MC value if someone isn't trained in Survival, or at higher levels if they haven't been keeping up with it - a trained 12 Wis person is outdone by a caster at level 7, after all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah. More spells=caster support. Casters have been getting a lot of new spells in multiple books.

I think it might be confusing to some players, but PF2 is designed around spells doing what they are supposed to do, out of the box, without modification. There are a couple of rare feats that add a little bit of damage in different ways for the sorcerer and the wizard, and a couple of small modifications to spell areas or ranges, as well as how you cast them, but the spell itself is the cool thing casters do. Casters sink a lot of power budget into access to spells and number of spells.

Sovereign Court Director of Community

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a series of posts whose criticisms of P2 design choices were personally harassing. Not liking an edition doesn't give carte blanch to break community guidelines.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
A multiclass MC is great for versatility.

Generally agree, though on the subject of proficiency and non-buff spells, I do think the way the system is set up creates an unfortunate disincentive to push MC spellcasters into certain specific archetypes that I think ultimately end up being a little unfortunate in terms of allowing a player to be expressive.

It creates that sort of awkward dichotomy the posters above have talked about and while it's an inevitable outcome of the system Paizo is created, it's not super great.

151 to 200 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Can we start getting some more support for existing classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.