Wait, can't you get both Drain Bonded Item and Hand of the Apprentice by simply taking the Wizard dedication and progressing far enough to grab the feats needed, or do you not count as a Universalist Wizard if you try and fail to grab its 1st level focus power via Arcane School Spell?As far as I can tell, each class has something unique to it that cannot be picked up through the multiclass archetype.
For Wizard that is Arcane Bond. Which would prevent using Drain Bonded Item and getting any of the class feats that require a Bonded Item.
Yeah, I looked more closely at what can actually be gained by 'becoming' a universalist wizard via an archetype and you can't get that particular feature.
I still think you could probably build something very close to Leomund's example above but will concede that no other class can do it exactly.
Wizards have their thesis and their drain bonded item features that are unique to them.
I'm currently playing both a witch and a wizard I'm different games right now and I gotta tell you that I am enjoying the wizard MUCH more.
Casting evil eye and needle of pain kinda pâles vs the sheer flexibility and additional spell slots I have as a wizard.
Yes, I await a character that uses 5-6 classes in PF2. Wait! The rules don't allow for that...
I'm pretty certain you can get 6.
ELF
1 base class
2 1st-level dedication (ancient elf)
3 6th-level dedication
4 12th-level dedication
5 18th-level dedication
HUMAN/HALF-ELF
1 base class
2 2nd-level dedication
3 8th-level dedication
4 9th-level dedication (multi-talented)
5 14th-level dedication
6 20th-level dedication
Last I checked, that's 5 or 6, depending on your ancestry and the options you take.
|
Yes, I await a character that uses 5-6 classes in PF2. Wait! The rules don't allow for that...I'm pretty certain you can get 6.
ELF
1 base class
2 1st-level dedication (ancient elf)
3 6th-level dedication
4 12th-level dedication
5 18th-level dedicationHUMAN/HALF-ELF
1 base class
2 2nd-level dedication
3 8th-level dedication
4 9th-level dedication (multi-talented)
5 14th-level dedication
6 20th-level dedicationLast I checked, that's 5 or 6, depending on your ancestry and the options you take.
More than that if you pick archetypes that have skill feats in their chassis. Starting with a rogue/investigator for maximum skill feats
No multiclass archetype has skill feats as far as I know and classes probably doesn't refer to any archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I await a character that uses 5-6 classes in PF2. Wait! The rules don't allow for that...I'm pretty certain you can get 6.
ELF
1 base class
2 1st-level dedication (ancient elf)
3 6th-level dedication
4 12th-level dedication
5 18th-level dedicationHUMAN/HALF-ELF
1 base class
2 2nd-level dedication
3 8th-level dedication
4 9th-level dedication (multi-talented)
5 14th-level dedication
6 20th-level dedicationLast I checked, that's 5 or 6, depending on your ancestry and the options you take.
By that logic a PF1 Fighter gains a new class with each feat as all PF1 feats are universal and apply to all classes.
This also very clearly doesn't make the same kind of character as a 6 class PF1 character and even less so a 6 class D&D 3.x character.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am fairly certain that no one ever complained about PF1 wizards being too powerful by MCing into another class. In fact, MCing as a wizard was almost always a downgrade in your over all power level in PF1 because, as far as I have ever seen, the complaints about God Wizards were always based entirely just what they could do with spells and feats that boosted spells.
That base line was so over the top it was game breaking probably in a way that a lot of players never even noticed. A good god wizard still has at least a cleric or a druid and a martial (probably a paladin) or two in the party, and those other characters would even be the ones doing most of the clean up work in an encounter, but the god wizard was there to recon an entire dungeon by themselves, buff everyone until the party was functionally 4 or 5 levels ahead of what the adventure was written for, and then have a couple of nearly unsave-able save or lose spells of their own for completely rendering boss fights a pathetic joke. Then the other caster summons and condition removes, while the martials clean house.
I think a lot of players had a lot of fun with this system, but GMing was a horrific slog and the only way to really challenge the party was to play enemy casters just as effectively with cat and mouse, spy vs spy style NPC play that was a very delicate balance of not completely destroying the party with a level +3 caster who would want to and be able to end the party in one surgical strike. I can't even imagine how droll trying to write adventures for PF1 became by the end of the run, because you knew that you had to write the adventure for casual gamers that were not going to have a wizard in the party (or a multi-classed wizard who was trying to cast damage spells most of the time), and APs had to be pretty much rewritten for tables that learned what dimensional door and silence can do for a party that takes silent spell on all their casters.
PF2casters suddenly can MC without essentially throwing away the source of their power and so it makes sense that a lot of people are drawn to that, but a wizards that stays in the lane of picking feats to improve spell casting in PF2 can be well prepared to do most of the things wizards could do in PF1, just without taking it to the level of making those things instant win abilities.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are the six class characters from previous editions something we'd actually want back? My recollection is that those were basically bimodal around "just stacked with frontloaded class features" and "almost totally useless."
Like the whole thesis of PF2's multiclassing is "we can frontload classes so that they work right out of the box, without having to worry about whether this ability is a problem on another class."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am fairly certain that no one ever complained about PF1 wizards being too powerful by MCing into another class. In fact, MCing as a wizard was almost always a downgrade in your over all power level in PF1 because, as far as I have ever seen, the complaints about God Wizards were always based entirely just what they could do with spells and feats that boosted spells.
Possibly not, if only because Paizo has consistently tried to remove any incentive to multiclass. PF1 was less based around multiclassing than 3.5 was and now PF2 has axed it nearly completely.
That said, Mystic Theurge still exists in PF1, so one could easily argue that a Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Theurge 10 with 4 more class levels to spend is still well above the curve and possibly more so than a single class Wizard.
<snip>
Yeah, we all know that older versions of D&D-based d20 systems were easy to play and difficult to run. This isn't a secret.
Some of us GMs and players are merely annoyed at the overcorrection taken by 4e, 5e, and PF2 and long for something less shackled without smoke classes and spells being off the curve powerful beyond level 11 or so.
PF2casters suddenly can MC without essentially throwing away the source of their power and so it makes sense that a lot of people are drawn to that, but a wizards that stays in the lane of picking feats to improve spell casting in PF2 can be well prepared to do most of the things wizards could do in PF1, just without taking it to the level of making those things instant win abilities.
Suddenly? Did people forget that 3.5 existed in a state where a Wizard was just as likely as anybody else to dip into a half-dozen other classes as anybody else?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are the six class characters from previous editions something we'd actually want back? My recollection is that those were basically bimodal around "just stacked with frontloaded class features" and "almost totally useless."
As somebody who played with these types of characters and who GMed for them, I do miss the joy of diving headlong into a fresh splatbook and seeing what fresh horror I could concoct from the contents within. This did tend to mean that my group played a lot of short one-shot style games and fewer long story-heavy campaigns, but it worked for those and encouraged a lot of creativity.
Like the whole thesis of PF2's multiclassing is "we can frontload classes so that they work right out of the box, without having to worry about whether this ability is a problem on another class."
I get that, but there has to be room to open things up without entirely breaking things. This is even testable. Would anybody here be open to running a dual-class free archetype game where the players try as hard as they can to break the game?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the main reasons the PF2 multiclass system ended up the way it is was that if a player naively just built a Fighter 6/Bard 6 that's in basically every way worse at everything than a Fighter 12 or a Bard 12. We want to avoid these kinds of "traps' for players by just ensuring that no matter what you do with your class feats, you're still going to be competent at your basic class schtick.
Like in defense of the current system, a Monk with the Bard dedication is now a pretty good character, but there's no way to really make a monk/bard work at all in PF1.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone upholding the 3.5 wizard as a standard of "balanced" is never going to be happy with anything that gets made within the mainstream RPG industry today, unless someone makes an RPG called Wizard: kneel before me or die. Other than prestige classes, what wizard is MCing in 3.5? Prestige classes very much fit within the model of PF2 MCing.
PF2 is incredibly "unshackled" for the GM. Add in free archetypes or dual classing and your players can build almost any character while you can more easily make monsters and modify encounters on the fly than you have ever been able to do in the past. Well built mid-level PF2 parties can survive 600+ XP of encounters thrown at them piled on top of each other so that the enemies arrive within 3 to 6 rounds of each other and still come out on top with careful planing, or have time to escape if they getting overwhelmed. USE LOWER LEVEL ENEMIES in spades when filling a dungeon if you have a wizard in your party. Still have some level +2 monsters running about who can be alerted by lower level guards and you will have rewarding encounters for everyone in the party. GMing PF2 is the best, most liberating GMing experience of my 26 years of GMing. Limiting the narrative power of magic was very essential in making that possible.
Wizards are still good in PF2. They can be a lot of fun to play, in many different ways. I recommend trying one out, especially at mid levels in a one shot, or lean heavily on Electric Arc for levels 1 to 4 while trying to figure out what spells you can cast that will really synergize well with your party in boss fights.
One of the main reasons the PF2 multiclass system ended up the way it is was that if a player naively just built a Fighter 6/Bard 6 that's in basically every way worse at everything than a Fighter 12 or a Bard 12.
That doesn't need to be true. You could use 5e's method of making proficiency advance the same for each class and the Fighter would lose none of their hit chance and the bard none of its skills. You would make creating a balanced spread of attributes more difficult and, depending on how you do skills, they may have fewer maximized skills than a pure bard would.
Long story short, there are systems within PF2's power envelope that could allow for a very close balance between single class and truly multi-classed characters.
Like in defense of the current system, a Monk with the Bard dedication is now a pretty good character, but there's no way to really make a monk/bard work at all in PF1.
When thinking of a concept like Monk/Bard it's important to know what you actually want from the build. I suspect that you could get a Monk that can make performance checks and work as a party face if that was what you wanted to do. This does however require more work than mashing Bard and Monk together and expecting it to work optimally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like in defense of the current system, a Monk with the Bard dedication is now a pretty good character, but there's no way to really make a monk/bard work at all in PF1.
I don't know: a Monk [Scaled Fist]/Bard [Geisha] works out pretty good in PF1. ;)
Anyone upholding the 3.5 wizard as a standard of "balanced" is never going to be happy with anything that gets made within the mainstream RPG industry today, unless someone makes an RPG called Wizard: kneel before me or die. Other than prestige classes, what wizard is MCing in 3.5? Prestige classes very much fit within the model of PF2 MCing.
Casters in 3.5 were anything but balanced, but they were very interesting to optimize.
Also, you asked for Wizard MCing, try this one:
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Almost_20_levels_Mystic_Theurge_(3.5e_Optimiz ed_Character_Build)
GMing PF2 is the best, most liberating GMing experience of my 26 years of GMing. Limiting the narrative power of magic was very essential in making that possible.
I've found that games like Hard Wired Island and Eclipse Phase have filled that niche for me with FATE picking up my fantasy needs very well. If I'm just looking to tell a story with rules so my players have dice to roll I still find that I have to fight PF2 to make it do what I want.
Wizards are still good in PF2. They can be a lot of fun to play, in many different ways. I recommend trying one out, especially at mid levels in a one shot, or lean heavily on Electric Arc for levels 1 to 4 while trying to figure out what spells you can cast that will really synergize well with your party in boss fights.
Isn't Electric Arc or Scatter Scree something you can only get on a Wizard via an Ancestry Feat? Are we really saying that a class is balanced because it can poach a spell from another tradition via means entirely unrelated to the class?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't Electric Arc or Scatter Scree something you can only get on a Wizard via an Ancestry Feat? Are we really saying that a class is balanced because it can poach a spell from another tradition via means entirely unrelated to the class?
Have... have you played this game? Or have you never so much as glanced at an arcane caster?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mystic Theurge is a trap option in PF1/3.x for the vast majority of players playing in full campaigns. Being level 8 before you get a 3rd level spell is a massive setback for the whole team, with your party having to pull your weight for a very long time. In that system, your DCs really start to suffer and you can't do anything with metamagic feats for a very long time with that build. I have seen a couple of people try it, often with oracle/sorcerer builds that don't even gain the prestige class until level 8 or 9 and it was a massive burden with only the promise of a payout that we never saw because those players gave up on those characters before they reached level 10.
There are a lot of fun theory crafting builds that can work at x level or for x levels and that can be a game in and of itself. The PF2 wizard is much better in play than it is to theory craft around because a lot of its feats shine in the choices that you make when you are playing the game.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who played with the six class monstrosities on a regular basis, I can say that I don't miss them at all.
I don't miss the many times in which the power difference between characters was glaring (as a player or GM).
If you want a more open MC feel for 2e, consider removing some of the MC feat requirements (like the 3 feat one, or even that you have to take the base dedication feat).
I positively love how 2e is constructed with the limitations. It allows for those who are okay with a less balanced game to adjust things to their preference.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
i do think PF2 loses some of the fun theorycrafting games where you tinker with rules interactions to break something by combining options. I have fond memories of my brawler who used outslug style with a reach weapon, after all.
But I think the game is better for the lack of it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
wizards are not underpowered, they are just incredibly bland, they really lack anything to point to as "the wizard thing" their feat list is mostly generic while not bad, largely flavorless. The arcane spell list is much the same, arcane has a huge pool of good spells but has the smallest number of unique spells so there is very little that feels distinct, you have a ton of good options but very little that is unique, and compared to the other classes, it is very lacking in identity or distinct mechanics
I have a player in my group playing a generalist wizard. They just hit level 11. And he has pretty much owned the battlefield up to this point. He separates enemies out, so they can fight a lot of them one at a time. He buffs, debuffs, and does damage when needed.
I don't understand anyone saying wizards are bland or underpowered. At all.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think the two big issues of Wizard are their early levels, and playstyles within the class itself not being super well balanced with one another (debuffing and control are miles above blasting, for example). If you're level 7+ and enjoy the playstyles the game "wants" you to enjoy, the class is amazing. If not, it might not be. And yes, these issues apply to almost any caster, but Wizard, being the "add more caster to your caster" class, exacerbates them.
Their feats could be better, for sure, but I think there's even some martial classes that are worse off in this regard (Champion, Investigator, Ranger). A lot of classes just need better feat support without depending on archetypes.
Isn't Electric Arc or Scatter Scree something you can only get on a Wizard via an Ancestry Feat? Are we really saying that a class is balanced because it can poach a spell from another tradition via means entirely unrelated to the class?Have... have you played this game? Or have you never so much as glanced at an arcane caster?
I tend to avoid casters in PF2 as I don't want to play a nerfed version of a class I used to enjoy. My mistake was also mainly due to thinking of the hoops Occult casters need to jump through to get good cantrips and not checking my work.
Mystic Theurge is a trap option in PF1/3.x for the vast majority of players playing in full campaigns. Being level 8 before you get a 3rd level spell is a massive setback for the whole team, with your party having to pull your weight for a very long time. In that system, your DCs really start to suffer and you can't do anything with metamagic feats for a very long time with that build. I have seen a couple of people try it, often with oracle/sorcerer builds that don't even gain the prestige class until level 8 or 9 and it was a massive burden with only the promise of a payout that we never saw because those players gave up on those characters before they reached level 10.
There are a lot of fun theory crafting builds that can work at x level or for x levels and that can be a game in and of itself. The PF2 wizard is much better in play than it is to theory craft around because a lot of its feats shine in the choices that you make when you are playing the game.
For the most optimal build they do tend to start weak, but you can mitigate this if you rush for 5th level spells and Soul Jar into something interesting before letting the rest of the build come online.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
i do think PF2 loses some of the fun theorycrafting games where you tinker with rules interactions to break something by combining options.
I miss the tinkering, though it wasn't to break thing [other than to prove something wasn't working right]. I really enjoyed taking something unexpected and off the wall and making it viable. I find myself just sitting down and making characters a lot less than I used to because it's not as much fun to play around with different builds.
But I think the game is better for the lack of it.
For myself, I can't really agree: far too much is let to DM fiat which is a serious drain on my enjoyment as I have to relearn large chunks of the game each time I sit at a new table. :P
|
|
Don't you have to take a few feats before taking another dedication?Yes, I await a character that uses 5-6 classes in PF2. Wait! The rules don't allow for that...I'm pretty certain you can get 6.
ELF
1 base class
2 1st-level dedication (ancient elf)
3 6th-level dedication
4 12th-level dedication
5 18th-level dedicationHUMAN/HALF-ELF
1 base class
2 2nd-level dedication
3 8th-level dedication
4 9th-level dedication (multi-talented)
5 14th-level dedication
6 20th-level dedicationLast I checked, that's 5 or 6, depending on your ancestry and the options you take.
Yes. That example does not abide by the base rules of 2e.
Ah He is taking every class feat as a dedication and then 2 archetype feats. AE - L2 archetype feat, L4 archetype feat, L6 Dedication, L8 archetype, L10 Archetype, L12 Dedication and so forth. SO it is possible if you never take any of your own class feats (actually if you take some archetypes with skill feats you might be able to pick up a couple of class feats). None of the archetypes actually do much but it is the remitYes. That example does not abide by the base rules of 2e.Don't you have to take a few feats before taking another dedication?Yes, I await a character that uses 5-6 classes in PF2. Wait! The rules don't allow for that...I'm pretty certain you can get 6.
ELF
1 base class
2 1st-level dedication (ancient elf)
3 6th-level dedication
4 12th-level dedication
5 18th-level dedicationHUMAN/HALF-ELF
1 base class
2 2nd-level dedication
3 8th-level dedication
4 9th-level dedication (multi-talented)
5 14th-level dedication
6 20th-level dedicationLast I checked, that's 5 or 6, depending on your ancestry and the options you take.
I don't think there is such thing as a level 2 archetype feat, is there?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't read the whole post, but Wizard is the class I got more fun playing. I felt strong and a key part of my party. I focused on ilusions and utility with Spell Substitution.
The far left column is counting the number of "classes" the character could claim to be a member of. It is not the level in which the feat is taken.
The "nth-level dedication" is the level the feat was taken at. Note that for each dedication feat, I skip two class feats, so no rules are broken in my examples.
I was not considering other archetypes, just multiclass archetypes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to reiterate that PF2 is built so things like free archetype, dual-classing, double feats, etc. are really not that much of a power increase so if your group thinks this makes the game more fun, you should consider it.
Like if you want to give everyone an extra first level feat so Wizards can take one without being human or "wasting" a 2nd level slot, this will honestly not change very much (but will help a lot of characters feel better- like the monk who starts with both a style and a ki power).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets not start that debate again. However, I will say that Graystone's comment really did resonate with me. He stated that ... " I find myself just sitting down and making characters a lot less than I used to because it's not as much fun to play around with different builds." I think that sums it up for me. When I play an rpg there three parts to the game: 1) Building the character, 2) Exploring, and 3) Encounters. PF2 has a very good system for 3) Encounters but the other two are rather meh with 1) being far and away really meh. In PF1, D&D, Shadowrun, etc. I would get excited about making different characters and making something work that wasn't particularly powerful. Unfortunately, PF2 doesn't spark so to speakI want to reiterate that PF2 is built so things like free archetype, dual-classing, double feats, etc. are really not that much of a power increase so if your group thinks this makes the game more fun, you should consider it.
Like if you want to give everyone an extra first level feat so Wizards can take one without being human or "wasting" a 2nd level slot, this will honestly not change very much (but will help a lot of characters feel better- like the monk who starts with both a style and a ki power).
See, that's your opinion. I'm a heavy PF1 optimizer, and I really spend more time thinking about character building than I did in PF1 despite actually playing less. See, when you have things that change the interaction dynamic, it's much more interesting than when half the things you need are the standard number increasers (or other default feats/abilities), and most of the interesting options are just flat-out bad.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The far left column is counting the number of "classes" the character could claim to be a member of. It is not the level in which the feat is taken.
The "nth-level dedication" is the level the feat was taken at. Note that for each dedication feat, I skip two class feats, so no rules are broken in my examples.
I was not considering other archetypes, just multiclass archetypes.
I understood how you set it up. It is that, how you constructed it either does not abide by the rules, or just doesn't work.
For the ancient elf, if you take a MCD at 1st level, you do not have an archetype feat to take until 4th level. Therefore you cannot take your second MCD until 8th level.
For the human, when you have two MCDs starting at 8th and 9th, you have to appease both MCDs before you can start another. Thus, the soonest you could start another is 16th level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone upholding the 3.5 wizard as a standard of "balanced" is never going to be happy with anything that gets made within the mainstream RPG industry today, unless someone makes an RPG called Wizard: kneel before me or die.
They did, it's called Mage: the awakening and it's actually quite fun !
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is nice. I have found that every system appeals to somebody so I am glad PF2 appeals to you. My group has gone back to PF1 and we have gotten back the spark. Personally, I still want to like PF2 but PFS2 was my only choice and it was not my cup of tea (I did manage to get a L8...See, that's your opinion. I'm a heavy PF1 optimizer, and I really spend more time thinking about character building than I did in PF1 despite actually playing less. See, when you have things that change the interaction dynamic, it's much more interesting than when half the things you need are the standard number increasers (or other default feats/abilities), and most of the interesting options are just flat-out bad.Lets not start that debate again. However, I will say that Graystone's comment really did resonate with me. He stated that ... " I find myself just sitting down and making characters a lot less than I used to because it's not as much fun to play around with different builds." I think that sums it up for me. When I play an rpg there three parts to the game: 1) Building the character, 2) Exploring, and 3) Encounters. PF2 has a very good system for 3) Encounters but the other two are rather meh with 1) being far and away really meh. In PF1, D&D, Shadowrun, etc. I would get excited about making different characters and making something work that wasn't particularly powerful. Unfortunately, PF2 doesn't spark so to speakI want to reiterate that PF2 is built so things like free archetype, dual-classing, double feats, etc. are really not that much of a power increase so if your group thinks this makes the game more fun, you should consider it.
Like if you want to give everyone an extra first level feat so Wizards can take one without being human or "wasting" a 2nd level slot, this will honestly not change very much (but will help a lot of characters feel better- like the monk who starts with both a style and a ki power).
Imo high level is where pf2e shines. High level in dnd5e, 4e, 3.5 and pf1 is a rocket tag sludge needing Excel sheets with multiple tabs to run.
Pf2e has a robust chassis that holds up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imo high level is where pf2e shines.
That might be but that would also what I see the least play time at. It's much less shiny, IMO, when you spend a lot of time in the low to mid levels.
|
|
The far left column is counting the number of "classes" the character could claim to be a member of. It is not the level in which the feat is taken.
The "nth-level dedication" is the level the feat was taken at. Note that for each dedication feat, I skip two class feats, so no rules are broken in my examples.
I was not considering other archetypes, just multiclass archetypes.
I understood how you set it up. It is that, how you constructed it either does not abide by the rules, or just doesn't work.
For the ancient elf, if you take a MCD at 1st level, you do not have an archetype feat to take until 4th level. Therefore you cannot take your second MCD until 8th level.
For the human, when you have two MCDs starting at 8th and 9th, you have to appease both MCDs before you can start another. Thus, the soonest you could start another is 16th level.
My apologies I was mistaken. It would be 18th, not 16th, when you could take another.
# (lvl) - #(number of dedication) . #(progress through dedication)
1 - 1 . 1
4 - 1 . 2
6 - 1 . 3
8 - 2 . 1
10 - 2 . 2
12 - 2 . 3
14 - 3 . 1
16 - 3 . 2
18 - 3 . 3
20 - 4 . 1
Human
2 - 1 . 1
4 - 1 . 2
6 - 1 . 3
8 - 2 . 1
9 - 3 . 1
10 - 2 . 2
12 - 2 . 3
14 - 3 . 2
16 - 3 . 3
18 - 4 . 1
20 - 4 . 2
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 had more build and customization choices, but PF2 has more valid builds and customization choices.
Building a character in PF1 was going from mechanic to roleplay. You first had to make sure that a specific character was valid (neither under nor overpowered) before choosing the roleplay to put on it.
Building a character in PF2 can be done either way. You can come up with a super fun character concept and then take all the mechanical elements to make it happen. And your character is fully functional, and the game gives you all the tools for it to work.
In PF1, if I want to play a character as simple as a fully-functional Fighter with lots of skills, it's just not possible (well, maybe it is but it asks for massive system mastery). Such kinds of limitations just make me sad (or mad).
|
I decided to pull up some of our previous threads about Wizard balancing and look at the trends.
The language has changed a bit as we have seen the game expand, but the general points all look to be roughly the same.
No other class keeps returning this amount of discussion and I think that is somewhat telling. There is no smoke without fire, as they say, and nothing has produced as much smoke as the Wizard. It's just that no one can agree what exactly is on fire.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All you need to make a skill based fighter in PF1 is take the advanced weapon/armor trick that gives you free ranks equal to your bab while letting you respec for free. Or take any of the fighter archetypes that give 4+Int skills, and let me tell you there are a lot of those. This is not even considering Just straight up spending general feats on skills.
I can show you my level 11 Bard with +25 to +35 to half of the skills in the game with only core options and no multiclassing. Next to that, your 4+Int skills Fighter with hardly a +20 to all these skills is just laughably bad. I don't think there's any way you can build a Fighter that is good at skills without siphoning all your feats and magic items and attributes into increasing skills and ending with a pretty useless Fighter with lots of skills.