| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny how I didn't mention any of those terms, nor said they were good. So, no idea why you are responding to me about those. Also, funny how you try to spin my post to "all those team games are built to work against each other" when that part of my post was in reference to PvP games where it doesn't matter how you get to the end "winning" is "winning" doesn't matter how you got there. Its why my example was Chess (one of the oldest games in the world).
*Shrug* You are the one who dragged PvP games into this. If you don't know why you did that, *I* certainly can't help you with that. My point was that roleplaying games are supposed to be cooperative, and that things that foster adversarial competitions are bad for that.
Also, for RPGs the idea is usually 'the way is the goal', so it absolutely does matter how you get to the end.
And that is why there needs to be classes of different complexity. Players wanting complex classes are catered to, but at the same time, those not wanting complexity are not left behind either.
That does require both classes to still perform roughly the same though. That's all there is to it.
People wanting easy mode and people wanting challenge could always coexist, the issue was not that they couldn't coexist. The issue has always been mismatched expectations as to what type of character is appropriate, which has nothing to do with "easy vs complex" or "low power vs high power" but bad communication and people not compromising.
... You do realise though, that 'people no compromising' was
a) a problem almost solely because of the mismatched power levels of classes in previous editions and
b) that an experienced player can 'tone it down', but an inexperienced one can not 'tone it up', or at least not without losing control of their own character.
Which is exactly why, no, they really could not coexist at the same table.
Enabling both simple and complex classes to give the exact result just makes the people playing the complex classes feel bad. Telling players "Oh, you don't play those unless you want to play a hard class" is textbook ivory tower design. The very same thing you decried at the start of your post.
That's the problem of the players expecting more power. PF2 just isn't the right game for them I'm afraid.
And yes, if the game doesn't come clean about the fact that the classes are supposed to perform roughly the same, that is not ideal. Still, PF2 is better about it then previous iterations. For example, most classes are perfectly functional just with their base features, and class feats are basically side-grades and extra options. Therefore, there are not so much 'trap' options, but rather feat combinations that work better then others. And that's why the retraining rules explicitly allow retraining them, if a player find he made ill-informed choices in the past.
Finally, the whole "experienced and inexperienced players can play together at the same table is a great achievement", is literally ignoring all other games. You are literally congratulating PF2 for doing the bare minimum of any TRPG, that's not a great an achievement it's the base standard.
I still feel like congratulating PF2 for doing it after D&D 3.x failed so spectacularly, and even PF1 could not fix what WotC had broken.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think every class should be simple, but maybe the concept of opt-in complexity could be applied more often. Instead of making complex classes and simple classes, make classes where you can choose between simple builds and complex builds. I mean, it works very well for Fighter, for example: an unga-bunga two-handed Fighter who mostly takes passive or evergreen feats is a very valid character, but so is a Wrestler Fighter that takes the likes of Combat Grab, Dazing Blow, Whirling Throw, Suplex, Piledriver, etc., and ends up with like 300 different combo options and basically plays like the TTRPG version of a fighting game character.
But you are comparing different concepts. Now, if you build 2 free-hand Fighters, you'll have very similar complexity. And I'm happy Paizo released the Swashbuckler instead of a Dex-based version of the Free Hand Fighter. I don't think the game would have been better without the Investigator, the Swashbuckler, the Witch and the Oracle but with a new Racket, Fighter path, Thesis and Bloodline.
Piling on the same classes don't extend more the concepts you can play than creating new classes. It just makes every concepts similar in gameplay.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry but there's a lot of things there that are just... flat out incorrect I think?
- Oozes are immune to critical hits. The rules for critical hit immunity state they're unaffected by any doubling of damage the crit would cause, and that includes persistent.
- The Magus is considerably behind in damage when it's just basic Striking, compared to a Fighter or Barbarian. Both of these classes have a "striker feature", let's call it that, in +2 to hit and Rage. Magus doesn't have anything that significantly improves their basic Strikes, unless you can hit a weakness with cascade (and even then, at 10+ it's very easy for martials to trigger weaknesses with elemental runes).
- Fighter and Barbarian both have Sudden Charge as a 1st level feat option. Sudden Charge gets completely around many situations where those classes would be at action economy deficits (enemies that are far, difficult terrain, etc).
- You suggested casting Disintegrate raw, without spellstrike, but the math on spell attacks is awful even for casters, let alone a class with lower casting proficiency and that can't key their casting stat.
For Persistent damage doubling, I hadn't considered it that way, always ruled it as applying since oozes are annoying. Good to know. Still Swashbucklers can apply persistent bleed to oozes and use other options. It's not the best fight for them, but they still have options (much like rogues and precision edge rangers). Vagarities of life really.
On magus: Obviously they don't strike as hard as other damage classes with their gimmicks if you remove their gimmick, that isn't my point. My point is you can get out of the ''MUST SPELLSTRIKE'' mindset and have a lot of options still. Base striking with weapon specialization and martial proficiency is still very viable, after all, it's essentially what the fighter does, they're just 10% more effective at it (which makes them crit more often on average yes, but if its just a hit because of dice well they do as much damage as a magus)
Sudden charge is tight, but so is blink charge, so is blazing dive, both classes have different options with different pros and cons.
Sub disintegrate, add chain lightning then. You're missing the point if your argument was ''well I don't like how spell attack rolls aren't as optimal'' I'm just saying you don't need to spellstrike all the time and you're still a decent enough spellcaster as a magus even if you're missing an action. You have options.
Look you can nitpick all you want, at the end of the day complex classes have more variance, they have bigger peaks but lower valleys in how they'll perform, but they end up pretty much in line with simpler classes on average. They're fun to play and a lot of players like them.
Yes Barbs hit stronger every attack, yes fighters crit more often, but when you hit that crit on a spellstrike or a finisher the whole table goes ''woot woot'' and a lot of people like that. Yes you can combat grab someone and stab them in the face multiple times with a dex based fighter, but its not the same as climbing a chandelier, making a witty pun, getting actually rewarded for said witty pun mechanically, and then dropping down on top of your target.
Its just a playstyle difference, and it balances out quite well. The complexer classes just take a bit more work to make them work as well as the baseline classes, but I don't think they should reward you by giving you more power, just... different power, like they do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then there is the fact that 80% of people straigth up ignore actual use case when talking about casters and jump straight to white room where the caster somehow has everything perfect, and even then they tend to fall behind to classes just doing 2 strikes.
Then there is the fact that 80 % of people straight up ignore actual use cases when talking about martials and jump straight to the white room where the martial somehow has everything perfect, and even then they tend to fall behind to classes just getting 10th level spell slots, 3 or 4 slot per spell level in all but 10th level instead of 2 up to 6th, and legendary casting instead of master.
... Sounds stupid when you put it like that, doesn't it?
Yeah, the classes who get master or legendary weapon proficiencies, get to max out their attack stat, class features that boost weapon damage and class feats that make them better at hitting things with other things are better at hitting things with other things then the caster classes.
And what do the casters get instead? Just the measly ability to rewrite reality. What a rip-off... /s
Yes, a 'simple' caster class that just works out of the box like a Fighter would be nice. But how, pray tell, do you figure you can handle such a complex theme as magic? How much would you (have to) dumb it down to make the class 'simple'?
What would 'opt-in complexity' even look like for a caster? Spell access? Sorcerors are simple then. They get their spells locked in, and then you just fire off your slots.
A Warlock-equivalent maybe, one that gets a 'blasting spell' roughly on par with a ranged martial and is supposed to be the 'blaster caster'? Wouldn't get any other spells though. But hey, as long as you get to blast at-will/all day long, that may be just enough?
Or how much reality-altering power would the casters need to pay in exchange for trying to compete with the martials? All of it? Because otherwise, they would still obsolete martials? Some? But then they must still be inferior to martials at martial things.
I just don't see a non-complex caster class, not in this edition or any other. Magic is complex, and if you try to make it simple, you will just end up making it mundane.
But yes, it means the caster classes are the least rookie-friendly ones.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Warlock-equivalent maybe, one that gets a 'blasting spell' roughly on par with a ranged martial and is supposed to be the 'blaster caster'? Wouldn't get any other spells though. But hey, as long as you get to blast at-will/all day long, that may be just enough?
Yes please, that would certainly be enough for me.
I'd even be willing to settle for less than martial damage in exchange for more buffs, debuffs, and some terrain effects. That to me is still enough reality warping to feel "magical" without necessarily being more powerful.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than simple or complex, I do think classes (or class paths) with more points of failure should outperform more reliable classes when played correctly or when the party successfully mitigates those points of failure. When a player playing such a class underperforms, by poor play, bad luck or by disruption, the entire rest of the party needs to pick up their slack which I see as a disservice to the rest of the party, particularly in situations that don't really give you the leeway for too many missteps. Even when they're on-point, they are at best equal to a more reliable class. As a player, it's nothing more than a high-risk-no-reward proposition which is a strong disincentive.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than simple or complex, I do think classes (or class paths) with more points of failure should outperform more reliable classes when played correctly or when the party successfully mitigates those points of failure. When a player playing such a class underperforms, by poor play, bad luck or by disruption, the entire rest of the party needs to pick up their slack which I see as a disservice to the rest of the party, particularly in situations that don't really give you the leeway for too many missteps. Even when they're on-point, they are at best equal to a more reliable class. As a player, it's nothing more than a high-risk-no-reward proposition which is a strong disincentive.
Otoh, doesn't that run the risk of someone becoming the main character? If one of you reliably outperforms the rest of the table, it creates pressure for everyone else to be your support, spending actions to enable your big maneuver instead of everyone working to lift up everyone.
That was basically the description of the God-Wizard, right? Hugely complex class, but the power available was equally deep and everyone was best off helping you do your thing instead of trying to be heroes in their own right.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On magus: Obviously they don't strike as hard as other damage classes with their gimmicks if you remove their gimmick, that isn't my point. My point is you can get out of the ''MUST SPELLSTRIKE'' mindset and have a lot of options still. Base striking with weapon specialization and martial proficiency is still very viable, after all, it's essentially what the fighter does, they're just 10% more effective at it (which makes them crit more often on average yes, but if its just a hit because of dice well they do as much damage as a magus)
Between un-maxed int and bad proficiency progression, magus shouldn't ever cast anything with a DC.
Regarding the never ending struggle between martials and casters, the caster's ability to "rewrite reality" isn't considered truly worthwhile until level 7+. Bard and cleric get a pass because of their innate features but that's the limit. Even at 7+ optimized parties don't really want more than one spellcaster with, again, bard+cleric being excepted. The once vaunted out of combat utility casting used to bring is no longer considered a valid use-case by optimizers in this edition as skills are now much more useful and most utility and "plot" spells have been kneecapped or locked behind rarity tags and assumed unavailable.
You just described the PF2 Fighter. Everyone is spending all their actions to make the PF2 Fighter do their their thing, while their own thing takes a secondary to that.Otoh, doesn't that run the risk of someone becoming the main character? If one of you reliably outperforms the rest of the table, it creates pressure for everyone else to be your support, spending actions to enable your big maneuver instead of everyone working to lift up everyone.
That was basically the description of the God-Wizard, right? Hugely complex class, but the power available was equally deep and everyone was best off helping you do your thing instead of trying to be heroes in their own right.
PF2 fighter might not be the end-all-be-all campaign killer that wizard or CoDzilla could be, but he's still the single strongest thing in this edition, outperforming all other martials and turning himself into better versions of them innately or through archetyping. Parties that focus on pushing the fighters' numbers to the moon are the ones with the most consistent success vs extreme encounters. My personal favorite is the tri-fighter+bard configuration.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is something that, to me, while it makes sense on a surface level, starts falling apart a bit when you consided the role of classes in the game. A class isn't just a fun little kit of abilities, it also sells a concept. A theme, flavor, etc. When it happens that someone really enjoys a concept, but the gameplay is either too complex or too simple for their tastes, you have a frustrated player. It doesn't matter that there are 19 other classes in the game if the fantasy they want to fulfill the most isn't being satisfied.
I sort of see what you mean, but I also think it goes back to an earlier post on this subject. Gameplay loops help sell the concept.
An inventor wielding an experimental prototype or a flamboyant swashbuckler should feel more complex to execute than a Fighter or a Barbarian. That's part of selling that theme and flavor you talked about.
You can play those classes more simply if you really want to, too. The magus in my Abomination Vaults game is probably the most boring character I've ever seen, their player spends nearly every round of every combat doing spellstrike(gouging claw) > recharge. That's it.
If you don't like Witch, play a Bard or Sorcerer or Wizard.
The problem becomes when you do like the Witch (or whatever) but playing a Druid or Bard is still the right option because Paizo was worried about someone having too much fun.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than simple or complex, I do think classes (or class paths) with more points of failure should outperform more reliable classes when played correctly or when the party successfully mitigates those points of failure. When a player playing such a class underperforms, by poor play, bad luck or by disruption, the entire rest of the party needs to pick up their slack which I see as a disservice to the rest of the party, particularly in situations that don't really give you the leeway for too many missteps. Even when they're on-point, they are at best equal to a more reliable class. As a player, it's nothing more than a high-risk-no-reward proposition which is a strong disincentive.Otoh, doesn't that run the risk of someone becoming the main character? If one of you reliably outperforms the rest of the table, it creates pressure for everyone else to be your support, spending actions to enable your big maneuver instead of everyone working to lift up everyone.
That was basically the description of the God-Wizard, right? Hugely complex class, but the power available was equally deep and everyone was best off helping you do your thing instead of trying to be heroes in their own right.
You just described the PF2 Fighter. Everyone is spending all their actions to make the PF2 Fighter do their their thing, while their own thing takes a secondary to that.
As for the God Wizard of yore that was by definition meant to be the ultimate support class. Spend all your abilities buffing, debuffing, corralling, or otherwise making it easier for the party martials to do their job. While I agree it was overpowered and needed a nerf because the numbers were just too good. I do not think it was an actually complex build outside of "think about when to use your spells".
Why would I ever help the fighter? Their +2 has them covered. I'd sooner help myself
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than simple or complex, I do think classes (or class paths) with more points of failure should outperform more reliable classes when played correctly or when the party successfully mitigates those points of failure. When a player playing such a class underperforms, by poor play, bad luck or by disruption, the entire rest of the party needs to pick up their slack which I see as a disservice to the rest of the party, particularly in situations that don't really give you the leeway for too many missteps. Even when they're on-point, they are at best equal to a more reliable class. As a player, it's nothing more than a high-risk-no-reward proposition which is a strong disincentive.Otoh, doesn't that run the risk of someone becoming the main character? If one of you reliably outperforms the rest of the table, it creates pressure for everyone else to be your support, spending actions to enable your big maneuver instead of everyone working to lift up everyone.
That was basically the description of the God-Wizard, right? Hugely complex class, but the power available was equally deep and everyone was best off helping you do your thing instead of trying to be heroes in their own right.
You just described the PF2 Fighter. Everyone is spending all their actions to make the PF2 Fighter do their their thing, while their own thing takes a secondary to that.
As for the God Wizard of yore that was by definition meant to be the ultimate support class. Spend all your abilities buffing, debuffing, corralling, or otherwise making it easier for the party martials to do their job. While I agree it was overpowered and needed a nerf because the numbers were just too good. I do not think it was an actually complex build outside of "think about when to use your spells".
I play a fighter and I spend all my actions making other people do their thing, because using my enhanced crits to trigger debuffs so the Magus can have more crits on his ridiculously higher damage output on spellstrike is a better use of my build. On top of that when I crit, the gunslinger gets a reaction to shoot my target because of sniping duo.
Sure if we were to go side by side I'd maybe come closer to his damage, but me enabling him makes it so that we're greater than the sum of our parts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But you are comparing different concepts. Now, if you build 2 free-hand Fighters, you'll have very similar complexity. And I'm happy Paizo released the Swashbuckler instead of a Dex-based version of the Free Hand Fighter. I don't think the game would have been better without the Investigator, the Swashbuckler, the Witch and the Oracle but with a new Racket, Fighter path, Thesis and Bloodline.
Piling on the same classes don't extend more the concepts you can play than creating new classes. It just makes every concepts similar in gameplay.
I think something might have gotten lost in the way. I'm not saying "don't print new classes". More "maybe we could have more new classes that allow you to choose the level of complexity you want, rather than all of them being super hard by default and with no way out".
And I don't think it's impossible to make creative and unique classes that have opt-in complexity. Just look at the Summoner (which honestly I might consider the best designed class in the game). You can pull off an insane amount of shenanigans in both exploration and combat using their abilities and double-body positioning, plus enhanced action economy. Or you can spam Electric Arc/Scatter Scree > Eidolon Strikes and be quite an effective beatstick without all the micromanagement (but also less versatility).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal favorite is the tri-fighter+bard configuration.
While that does sound like it would be quite effective, it also sounds like it would be incredibly flat to play.
I guess that is again pointing out the differences in approach to the playstyle of the game. Is the focus on the adventure and the interesting characters, or is the focus on the plot and winning the game?
If you don't like Witch, play a Bard or Sorcerer or Wizard.The problem becomes when you do like the Witch (or whatever) but playing a Druid or Bard is still the right option because Paizo was worried about someone having too much fun.
I am honestly very confused by this.
The point of my comment was that if you don't like the Witch mechanics, then play a similar class that will adequately represent your character.
So saying that you do like the Witch mechanics, but you don't like the Witch mechanics - and also don't want to represent your character with a different class...
I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would I ever help the fighter? Their +2 has them covered. I'd sooner help myself
If it's just about hitting, then yes.
When it comes to 'who has the right elemental rune on their beatstick to deal with resistance/vulnerability', it might turn out that a hit/crit from the Fighter is worth more then a hit from you. A lot more in corner cases.
Also, this cuts both ways: If you are a ranged Rogue... would you rather roll for Stealth every round, or would it be helpful if the Fighter sacrificed one of his own actions to trip or grab a foe, enabling your ranged Sneak Attack? Or, if your Rogue has the right feat(s), just keeping the enemy frightened?
Because a Sneak Attack from a Rogue can easily be worth more then a Fighter's 2nd strike, and it will be worth more then their 3rd.
So yeah, you will help the party if your action is worth less then whatever the one you are enabling is doing with theirs.
Incidentally, that is also why buff spells are worth so much more on the martials now. No more CoD-Zilla. No more divine metamagic and Nightsticks.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't like Witch, play a Bard or Sorcerer or Wizard.The problem becomes when you do like the Witch (or whatever) but playing a Druid or Bard is still the right option because Paizo was worried about someone having too much fun.I am honestly very confused by this.
The point of my comment was that if you don't like the Witch mechanics, then play a similar class that will adequately represent your character.
So saying that you do like the Witch mechanics, but you don't like the Witch mechanics - and also don't want to represent your character with a different class...
I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
I won't necessarily speak for Squiggit, but I can say that a player can certainly like the flavor of a Witch hexing their enemies, but hate how poorly those mechanics were executed, and I am obviously in agreement with that in regards to the Witch, because it is literally a complete 180 from what players were wanting or expecting the class to be.
Witches from PF1 were not iconic because of Familiars, they were iconic because of Hexes. Who played a Witch in PF1 because they had a Familiar option? Nobody. Yes, even the Iconic Witch in PF1 had a Familiar, but it wasn't really the forefront of the Witch's features or capabilities, and the Iconic would probably be just as potent and capable with or without it. Who played a Witch in PF1 because they had Hexes? Everybody. It was literally their primary (and consequently, most powerful) class feature, so it makes sense that people would engage in what is their primary feature of the class, and people absolutely liked it (or hated it, depending on which side of the GM screen you were on, and if your dice were good or bad to you in those moments). Ergo, Paizo decided to drop the ball in PF2 and say Witches were the Familiar class, not the Hex class.
Familiars were garbage since well before Core, and it was an agreed-upon design decision from the Paizo developers that the Witch, who already had a previously established flavor of being a Hex Master, slinging curses that debilitate their enemies, should be a Familiar Master instead, a feature that is probably the lowest powered in the game, and doesn't even have any innate combat capabilities without some finagling or hoopla about it. It might have been viable if Familiars were as useful and versatile as their PF1 counterparts, but currently? Not a chance in Asmodeus' domain.
I mean, I won't say that Hexes weren't borderline broken in PF1 (looking at you, Fortune, Misfortune, and Slumber), but PF2 certainly had the tools and capabilities to rebalance them in a way that made them functional without them being game-breaking. Fortune/Misfortune can be a 1/day thing. Slumber can have the Incapacitate trait. And so on. Even a lot of the current implementations aren't bad, such as Cackle being a Focus Point to maintain a spell effect as a Free Action, and Patrons providing a Hex unique to them. But it just isn't enough to make the class stand out or fill the niche it was obviously intended to fill. Bards were the best buffers in the game in PF1. Witches were the best debuffers in the game in PF1. Now bards are both the best buffers and debuffers in PF2, and the Witch is just...there, doing a lot of the things other classes do, but worse, and for what? To have the word "Witch" written across the Class portion of your character sheet?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I won't necessarily speak for Squiggit, but I can say that a player can certainly like the flavor of a Witch hexing their enemies, but hate how poorly those mechanics were executed, and I am obviously in agreement with that in regards to the Witch, because it is literally a complete 180 from what players were wanting or expecting the class to be.
Witches from PF1 were not iconic because of Familiars, they were iconic because of Hexes.
MmmHmm. Not going to say that Witch doesn't need some mechanical help.
But if your character concept is someone who is slinging around hexes, why not use a Hag Bloodline Sorcerer? Your first focus spell even has the word 'Hex' in it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I won't necessarily speak for Squiggit, but I can say that a player can certainly like the flavor of a Witch hexing their enemies, but hate how poorly those mechanics were executed, and I am obviously in agreement with that in regards to the Witch, because it is literally a complete 180 from what players were wanting or expecting the class to be.
Witches from PF1 were not iconic because of Familiars, they were iconic because of Hexes.
MmmHmm. Not going to say that Witch doesn't need some mechanical help.
But if your character concept is someone who is slinging around hexes, why not use a Hag Bloodline Sorcerer? Your first focus spell even has the word 'Hex' in it.
I can certainly see where Paizo got their inspiration for designing Hexes for the Witch in PF2; that Focus Spell is extremely bad compared to most other Sorcerer Focus Spells that are actually pretty decent. Yikes.
As for why not, it's simply because you're suggesting that a class that is specifically designed to be slinging hexes around is actually worse at slinging hexes around than a class that has a "subclass" choice to do so.
The fact that this is the case is just a fundamentally bad thing to have, which is precisely what Squiggit and others were getting at by bringing up liking a class' themes, but hating its design and execution. A Hag Bloodline Sorcerer, a Bard, and now also probably the Psychic, are better Witches than the Witch.
This would be like having Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, and Gunslingers a better Martial than Swashbucklers. The worst part is, they totally are, and many people dislike that being the case, and often cite Swashbuckler mechanics and expectations as the reason for this coming to pass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can certainly see where Paizo got their inspiration for designing Hexes for the Witch in PF2; that Focus Spell is extremely bad compared to most other Sorcerer Focus Spells that are actually pretty decent. Yikes.
There are a lot of limited or niche use level 1 focus spells across all classes. Jealous Hex certainly isn't the worst one. That honor probably goes to Dim the Light.
As for why not, it's simply because you're suggesting that a class that is specifically designed to be slinging hexes around is actually worse at slinging hexes around than a class that has a "subclass" choice to do so.
And that isn't quite what I am saying.
For myself, I have no aversion to using the Witch class for slinging Hexes around. I find it to be quite satisfying. Though I do freely admit that there are some mechanical problems with the class that could use fixing.
But if you do have problems with the Witch class, or any other class, the solution may not be to tinker with the class or gripe about how it isn't rewarding enough or isn't reliable enough compared to other classes that you like better. The solution may instead be to play a class that you like the mechanics of better. The core classes (aside from Alchemist) are all fairly reliable and can be played effectively with a minimum of system mastery.
So I am not saying that Witch is worse at slinging Hexes than a Sorcerer. I am saying that a Sorcerer has lower system mastery and lower team synergy needed in order to play optimally. So it may be a better choice for inexperienced players or powergamers.
I can certainly see where Paizo got their inspiration for designing Hexes for the Witch in PF2; that Focus Spell is extremely bad compared to most other Sorcerer Focus Spells that are actually pretty decent. Yikes.There are a lot of limited or niche use level 1 focus spells across all classes. Jealous Hex certainly isn't the worst one. That honor probably goes to Dim the Light.
As for why not, it's simply because you're suggesting that a class that is specifically designed to be slinging hexes around is actually worse at slinging hexes around than a class that has a "subclass" choice to do so.And that isn't quite what I am saying.
For myself, I have no aversion to using the Witch class for slinging Hexes around. I find it to be quite satisfying. Though I do freely admit that there are some mechanical problems with the class that could use fixing.
But if you do have problems with the Witch class, or any other class, the solution may not be to tinker with the class or gripe about how it isn't rewarding enough or isn't reliable enough compared to other classes that you like better. The solution may instead be to play a class that you like the mechanics of better. The core classes (aside from Alchemist) are all fairly reliable and can be played effectively with a minimum of system mastery.
So I am not saying that Witch is worse at slinging Hexes than a Sorcerer. I am saying that a Sorcerer has lower system mastery and lower team synergy needed in order to play optimally. So it may be a better choice for inexperienced players or powergamers.
Or we go back to PF1 and allow players enough freedom to fix those issues themselves. If your build is bad, you can always fix it by looking for the feats to bring it back towards contributing well. In PF2 if your concept isn't working there aren't many options to fix things.
I can certainly see where Paizo got their inspiration for designing Hexes for the Witch in PF2; that Focus Spell is extremely bad compared to most other Sorcerer Focus Spells that are actually pretty decent. Yikes.There are a lot of limited or niche use level 1 focus spells across all classes. Jealous Hex certainly isn't the worst one. That honor probably goes to Dim the Light.
As for why not, it's simply because you're suggesting that a class that is specifically designed to be slinging hexes around is actually worse at slinging hexes around than a class that has a "subclass" choice to do so.And that isn't quite what I am saying.
For myself, I have no aversion to using the Witch class for slinging Hexes around. I find it to be quite satisfying. Though I do freely admit that there are some mechanical problems with the class that could use fixing.
But if you do have problems with the Witch class, or any other class, the solution may not be to tinker with the class or gripe about how it isn't rewarding enough or isn't reliable enough compared to other classes that you like better. The solution may instead be to play a class that you like the mechanics of better. The core classes (aside from Alchemist) are all fairly reliable and can be played effectively with a minimum of system mastery.
So I am not saying that Witch is worse at slinging Hexes than a Sorcerer. I am saying that a Sorcerer has lower system mastery and lower team synergy needed in order to play optimally. So it may be a better choice for inexperienced players or powergamers.
I would say that's probably only a step down from the Hag Bloodline cantrip, since by comparison, an enemy can simply Save (which is to be expected) and the effect does nothing with that. That one is only worse simply because of how niche it is, and the requirement and action cost being wholly unnecessary. Heck, a 1 action Focus Spell that lets you perform the Hide action in plain sight while in Dim Light or Darkness, and let you maintain those benefits for 1 minute while in Dim Light or Darkness, would be far more useful. And that didn't take me much effort to come up with.
Really, the only saving grace for the Hag Bloodline cantrip is that it's one action to cast, and you can Refocus to try again in another fight and hope the enemy rolls bad so it can last for a round, maybe 2 if they're on a bad rolling streak. Either way, the Focus Spell is indicative of how most Witch Hexes function, and most Witch Hexes are bad as-is, so if this Focus Spell was indeed used as the balancing point for Witch Hexes, it's about as helpful as Familiars in a combat situation.
I understand fully what you are saying. You are saying that you don't have to play a Witch to play a character that slings Hexes, and that other classes can fill that flavor niche. This wasn't disputed or misinterpreted. The problem is that further examination of the specifics of that statement (such as comparing what a "subclass" choice gets in comparison to a specialist class, to determine if it is indeed a fair fit for the role I want to play) reveals to me t2hat, not only can you play a non-Witch character to play a Hex slinger, but that doing so is actually superior to playing a Witch character as a Hex slinger, when one of the biggest focuses of the Witch character is to sling Hexes. (It's even the only class that has the Hex trait in its in-class Hexes! Which only serve to bog the class down even more, given how pointless the restriction is with how bad the Hexes are to begin with.)
I'm curious as to what "mechanical problems" you believe the Witch has if you think the class is functional for the role of slinging Hexes around, to which I vastly disagree with it being functional, both because of the limitations regarding Hexes, as well as their overall disappointing power level and scope.
That's not a solution at all. That's just accepting that the designers made a crucial mistake in regards to designing the class and that the class failed to accomplish (one of) the main role(s) it was designed to fill, and that other classes simply accomplish that same exact role, but do it far better, and just require a bit of reflavoring at most. Take a Bard or Sorcerer, and boom, instantly better version of the Witch, either by having more spell slots in general, better focus spells, and better class features all around. I mean, I guess a class choice substitution is a solution, but that doesn't make it a good or even acceptable solution, given the design principles of PF2 being that classes have niches that should be protected, and Hex slinging being one of the Witch's niches, should mean that they would indeed be better at it than any other class, and yet they aren't by design.
Requiring more system mastery or team synergy just to try (and fail) to meet the Core Rulebook options is such a non-argument at this point that it relates to a certain skit involving two famous dimension-traveling characters recharging a car battery. You can make new classes that are equivocally functional all without invalidating previous options. A Witch with a Mischievous Eye Hex (can't really call it Evil Eye anymore) that provides a Status Penalty to a specific Proficiency based on an enemy's Will Save won't ever overpower Inspire Courage, or more comparatively, Dirge of Doom. It also won't even overpower a simple Demoralize check from a competent Intimidator, if we want to compare a more broad option available to the party. But it provides an iconic ability that doesn't suck and promotes a debuffing strategy that is very versatile in application for any group make-up (and isn't tied to Fear effects). And that's just something I whipped up to "buff" a certain BBEG from a certain PF2 published adventure. I'm sure Paizo could have come up with something far better if they devoted the time and energy to it compared to what we got now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal favorite is the tri-fighter+bard configuration.While that does sound like it would be quite effective, it also sounds like it would be incredibly flat to play.
I guess that is again pointing out the differences in approach to the playstyle of the game. Is the focus on the adventure and the interesting characters, or is the focus on the plot and winning the game?
I'm not sure what you mean by "flat." If you mean samey from fight to fight then you're simply describing what happens when you find and apply a successful strategy. It might look different depending on party comp, but every party I've seen or played in settles into a default battle plan that works in 99% of encounters.
As for the second part, I feel like there was a name for this fallacy. System mastery and mechanical optimization don't necessarily impact RP. Especially with fighter here able to turn himself into a better champion (fighter champion), something resembling a ranger (dex or double slice fighter/druid), a better barbarian (fighter/barbarian or just base fighter yelling loudly), monk (claim to be from a temple using whatever suitable monk weapon), blah, blah, blah.
My personal favorite is the tri-fighter+bard configuration.While that does sound like it would be quite effective, it also sounds like it would be incredibly flat to play.
I guess that is again pointing out the differences in approach to the playstyle of the game. Is the focus on the adventure and the interesting characters, or is the focus on the plot and winning the game?
I'm not sure what you mean by "flat." If you mean samey from fight to fight then you're simply describing what happens when you find and apply a successful strategy. It might look different depending on party comp, but every party I've seen or played in settles into a default battle plan that works in 99% of encounters.
As for the second part, I feel like there was a name for this fallacy. System mastery and mechanical optimization don't necessarily impact RP. Especially with fighter here able to turn himself into a better champion (fighter champion), something resembling a ranger (dex fighter/druid), a better barbarian (fighter/barbarian or just base fighter yelling loudly, monk (claim to be from a temple using whatever suitable monk weapon)
It's flat by being both samey and having a lack of overall variety. Yes, it's definitely extremely effective in a lot of standard land-based combats, but against enemies that use other tactics (such as Invisibility, Control Effects, Flight, Dimension Door, etc.), or in adventures that require certain things to be done (such as casting Teleport, being extremely skilled in numerous skills in the game, Healing), it's definitely not as effective as a more rounded party.
The Fallacy you're referring to is the Stormwind Fallacy. As you stated, it was coined when a certain user (I believe was actually called Stormwind) defined that a player wanting to be both a rollplayer (AKA powergamer) and a roleplayer simultaneously was neither mutually exclusive, nor detrimental to the overall health of a given game. It's something I 100% agree with, especially since I'm of the mindset that the rollplay should work hand-in-hand with the roleplay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's flat by being both samey and having a lack of overall variety. Yes, it's definitely extremely effective in a lot of standard land-based combats, but against enemies that use other tactics (such as Invisibility, Control Effects, Flight, Dimension Door, etc.), or in adventures that require certain things to be done (such as casting Teleport, being extremely skilled in numerous skills in the game, Healing), it's definitely not as effective as a more rounded party.
It's less of an issue than you'd think. Spellcasters are pretty easy to shutdown with a level 4 silence and trip. Flight is taken care of by items or a buff as in any other party, enemy control effects are no more or less effective than against any other party, bard can off heal with soothe, a fighter/champion can use LoH or champ reaction to mitigate, medicine bot uses Battle Medicine or healer's gloves depending on level. Skills usually aren't too much of an issue if you spread them correctly but you don't lose much subbing the dex fighter for a Thief rogue's two people's worth of skills if you're concerned about it.
It's flat by being both samey and having a lack of overall variety. Yes, it's definitely extremely effective in a lot of standard land-based combats, but against enemies that use other tactics (such as Invisibility, Control Effects, Flight, Dimension Door, etc.), or in adventures that require certain things to be done (such as casting Teleport, being extremely skilled in numerous skills in the game, Healing), it's definitely not as effective as a more rounded party.It's less of an issue than you'd think. Spellcasters are pretty easy to shutdown with a level 4 silence and trip. Flight is taken care of by items or a buff as in any other party, enemy control effects are no more or less effective than against any other party, bard can off heal with soothe, a fighter/champion can use LoH or champ reaction to mitigate, medicine bot uses Battle Medicine or healer's gloves depending on level. Skills usually aren't too much of an issue if you spread them correctly but you don't lose much subbing the dex fighter for a Thief rogue's two people's worth of skills if you're concerned about it.
The Silence is a bit overkill and could lead to problems with the Bard in the group based on positioning (if they pinched in, they can't cast). Also note that Silence would mean they cannot benefit from Inspire Courage, so they are debuffing themselves to shut down a Spellcaster. You could accomplish the same thing with Disruptive Stance and (Improved) Knockdown, really, when they come online (which is 12th level at the earliest).
Flight is probably the hardest thing to counter without expressly investing in it. In the lower levels where it becomes somewhat commonplace, it's especially crucial to have those back-up ranged weapons. Of course, when you get high enough level, said Fighters can just carry entire backpacks worth of Fly potions, making it pretty moot. Of course, Dispel Magic makes them easy targets if they're spotted, so it's still a bit problematic.
With Enemy Control effects, a Spellcaster might have the tools to remove or negate it that a Fighter simply doesn't. Although not my favorite, I can't deny that an appropriate level Dispel Magic can do a lot against a Dominate effect than simply beating down your friend to unconsciousness (who is also consequently beating you down) can do.
Soothe can be helpful, but as you point out, it requires help from the rest of the party to maintain its effectiveness. A Fighter needing to go into Champion dedication for Reactions to reduce damage and Focus Spells to help heal, another Fighter with Battle Medicine requiring free hands, etc.
Skill training is crucial in this game, as there are several skills that are required to accomplish things in the game to overcome obstacles and encounters. Being in a party that isn't trained enough to deal with Hazards means that most Hazards are TPKs unless we use appropriate contingencies to dispose of the Hazard (my personal favorite so far is Disintegrate, even if it means nuking potential loot into orbit). While the one time we actually TPK'd was from an overclocked homebrew encounter with express counters to our characters (such as Deafened affecting our ability to benefit from Inspire Courage, and triggering AoOs from doing anything besides standing and fighting), the other time we used an as-is adventure path hazard, it nearly resulted in a TPK all by itself, and a trap before that one nearly one-shot a character. A Rogue is far more likely to deal with a Hazard than a Fighter or Bard is based solely on their skill training alone, and depending on how it needs to be disabled (usually Thievery), a Rogue will have better stats for it compared to a Fighter or Bard, and those Hazard DCs are absurd. They would also benefit more from a Bard's Inspire Competence, no less, using the same argument as Fighter being the best to benefit from Inspire Courage.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if you do have problems with the Witch class, or any other class, the solution may not be to tinker with the class or gripe about how it isn't rewarding enough or isn't reliable enough compared to other classes that you like better. The solution may instead be to play a class that you like the mechanics of better.
If it was simply a matter of disliking mechanics, this wouldn't really be an issue because the solution is as obvious as you suggested. But it's not always that simple.
There's a material difference between "I hate panache and find Swashbucklers really clunky" and "I love the way Swashbucklers play but I feel like I fail a lot and have trouble keeping up even when I do succeed"
There's a difference between "Hexes and familiars are lame" and "I love Witches, so it sucks my friends would be better off if I picked literally anything else."
For the former, simply playing something else is an obvious solution. For the latter, it's fairly reductive to try to simply wave it off like that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the best features of PF1E, and something it's great they kept for PF2E, was the fun dynamic of "Don't play the thing advertised as doing the thing you want to do, play this other thing that can do the thing you want to do and does it better because it has better numbers in this edition".
It really would have sucked to leave behind the days of hearing that you don't need "Rogue" written on your character sheet to play that character concept. And the classes that provoke this response are different than last edition, which automatically makes things better! I simply live for the look of joy in a new player's eyes when I explain that the class that inspired them is somewhat underwhelming because it "Had its turn" in a game we're not playing. They're already getting immersed in all the history and lore! I can't imagine a more accessible design than that.
I sense sarcasm.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness I do think PF2 does a better job keeping most classes interesting and functional than most other d20 systems. When I complain about a class being bad, it's degrees less of an issue than in a lot of the other games I've played.
But I'll also agree that sometimes safety seems like a priority over anything else. Mildly disappointing feels almost like a design goal with the way a lot of options end up getting printed.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The swashbuckler loses their precision damage to oozes yes... but oozes aren't immune to persistent damage or bleed. Bleeding finisher will definitely work on them and do a bunch of damageDo Oozes require blood to live?
Another special type of physical damage is bleed damage. This is persistent damage that represents loss of blood. As such, it has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don't need blood to live. Weaknesses and resistances to physical damage apply. Bleed damage ends automatically if you're healed to your full Hit Points.I don't think they do...
If the monster block don't say immune to bleed, it ain't immune to bleed.
If the monster block don't say immune to bleed, it ain't immune to bleed.The swashbuckler loses their precision damage to oozes yes... but oozes aren't immune to persistent damage or bleed. Bleeding finisher will definitely work on them and do a bunch of damageDo Oozes require blood to live?
Another special type of physical damage is bleed damage. This is persistent damage that represents loss of blood. As such, it has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don't need blood to live. Weaknesses and resistances to physical damage apply. Bleed damage ends automatically if you're healed to your full Hit Points.I don't think they do...
That sentence is not accurate. A Ghost Commoner, for example, does not list bleed as an immunity because it does not need to. It's a nonliving creature and is therefore unaffected by bleed, by the rules defining the damage type.
Arguing about a specific monster, like an ooze is one thing, and you certainly wouldn't be the only one to rule that an ooze should suffer bleed damage (and I wouldn't come in and argue against it), but claiming that general rules must be restated in monster stat blocks in order to apply is false.
Could have sworn bleed was a listed immunity in all those cases....
For Oozes though its debatable and thus GM fiat and i'd certainly see no reason not to allow it, but its a very niche point.
If the monster block don't say immune to bleed, it ain't immune to bleed.The swashbuckler loses their precision damage to oozes yes... but oozes aren't immune to persistent damage or bleed. Bleeding finisher will definitely work on them and do a bunch of damageDo Oozes require blood to live?
Another special type of physical damage is bleed damage. This is persistent damage that represents loss of blood. As such, it has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don't need blood to live. Weaknesses and resistances to physical damage apply. Bleed damage ends automatically if you're healed to your full Hit Points.I don't think they do...That sentence is not accurate. A Ghost Commoner, for example, does not list bleed as an immunity because it does not need to. It's a nonliving creature and is therefore unaffected by bleed, by the rules defining the damage type.
Arguing about a specific monster, like an ooze is one thing, and you certainly wouldn't be the only one to rule that an ooze should suffer bleed damage (and I wouldn't come in and argue against it), but claiming that general rules must be restated in monster stat blocks in order to apply is false.
Unfortunately, all Constructs have Bleed Immunity, but no Undead. So the actual intent is very hard to know.
I personally allow undeads to bleed as a GM as I find the rule inconsistant and don't want to punish my players.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how that one works. You just let people run around making Skeletons bleed?If the monster block don't say immune to bleed, it ain't immune to bleed.The swashbuckler loses their precision damage to oozes yes... but oozes aren't immune to persistent damage or bleed. Bleeding finisher will definitely work on them and do a bunch of damageDo Oozes require blood to live?
Another special type of physical damage is bleed damage. This is persistent damage that represents loss of blood. As such, it has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don't need blood to live. Weaknesses and resistances to physical damage apply. Bleed damage ends automatically if you're healed to your full Hit Points.I don't think they do...
They bleed marrow.
(Seriously though, undead are immune. Says it here plain as day.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Read narrowly, that description of bleed damage lets you shut it down on a lot of creature types.
But in practice I'm not sure how much of a good thing that would be. Shutting down a player should, imo, mostly be a special circumstance (which is why precision damage immunity was such a mistake too).
But I also wouldn't say a GM is necessarily 'wrong' for ruling that way, at least from an interpreting rules standpoint.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oozes do have stuff to ooze so I think it would be reasonable either way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On magus: Obviously they don't strike as hard as other damage classes with their gimmicks if you remove their gimmick, that isn't my point. My point is you can get out of the ''MUST SPELLSTRIKE'' mindset and have a lot of options still. Base striking with weapon specialization and martial proficiency is still very viable, after all, it's essentially what the fighter does, they're just 10% more effective at it (which makes them crit more often on average yes, but if its just a hit because of dice well they do as much damage as a magus)Between un-maxed int and bad proficiency progression, magus shouldn't ever cast anything with a DC.
Regarding the never ending struggle between martials and casters, the caster's ability to "rewrite reality" isn't considered truly worthwhile until level 7+. Bard and cleric get a pass because of their innate features but that's the limit. Even at 7+ optimized parties don't really want more than one spellcaster with, again, bard+cleric being excepted. The once vaunted out of combat utility casting used to bring is no longer considered a valid use-case by optimizers in this edition as skills are now much more useful and most utility and "plot" spells have been kneecapped or locked behind rarity tags and assumed unavailable.
...You just described the PF2 Fighter. Everyone is spending all their actions to make the PF2 Fighter do their their thing, while their own thing takes a secondary toOtoh, doesn't that run the risk of someone becoming the main character? If one of you reliably outperforms the rest of the table, it creates pressure for everyone else to be your support, spending actions to enable your big maneuver instead of everyone working to lift up everyone.
That was basically the description of the God-Wizard, right? Hugely complex class, but the power available was equally deep and everyone was best off helping you do your thing instead of trying to be heroes in their own right.
The fighter is a very powerful. I like playing a Fighter MC Champion more than a Champion. Barbarian is better as a full barbarian. Magus is better as a magus. Rogue is better as a rogue. Fighter's are absolutely awesome with caster MC archetypes, especially cleric or one that can buff their attack roll.
For straight crushing things with weapons, nothing beats the fighter.
...On magus: Obviously they don't strike as hard as other damage classes with their gimmicks if you remove their gimmick, that isn't my point. My point is you can get out of the ''MUST SPELLSTRIKE'' mindset and have a lot of options still. Base striking with weapon specialization and martial proficiency is still very viable, after all, it's essentially what the fighter does, they're just 10% more effective at it (which makes them crit more often on average yes, but if its just a hit because of dice well they do as much damage as a magus)Between un-maxed int and bad proficiency progression, magus shouldn't ever cast anything with a DC.
Regarding the never ending struggle between martials and casters, the caster's ability to "rewrite reality" isn't considered truly worthwhile until level 7+. Bard and cleric get a pass because of their innate features but that's the limit. Even at 7+ optimized parties don't really want more than one spellcaster with, again, bard+cleric being excepted. The once vaunted out of combat utility casting used to bring is no longer considered a valid use-case by optimizers in this edition as skills are now much more useful and most utility and "plot" spells have been kneecapped or locked behind rarity tags and assumed unavailable.
You just described the PF2 Fighter. Everyone is spending all their actions to make the PF2 Fighter do their their thing, while their ownOtoh, doesn't that run the risk of someone becoming the main character? If one of you reliably outperforms the rest of the table, it creates pressure for everyone else to be your support, spending actions to enable your big maneuver instead of everyone working to lift up everyone.
That was basically the description of the God-Wizard, right? Hugely complex class, but the power available was equally deep and everyone was best off helping you do your thing instead of trying to be heroes in their own right.
Gesalt is an optimizer and a firm believer in there being a meta.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magus spellcasting isn't that bad (except insofar as that you don't have a lot of slots but that's part of the buy-in), but I do think being two levels behind on your spellcasting upgrades (which are in turn two levels behind weapon progression upgrades) can sometimes feel annoying and I'm not entirely sure what balance purpose they serve because it's only relevant for such a narrow window of levels.
... Like a level 6 Magus and a level 9 magus have identical DCs and to-hit compared to a witch or druid, but not a level 7 magus? Is there something that makes the Magus overpowered at precisely level 7 that necessitates this?
... It's not a big deal in the long run, but it feels weird.
Magus spellcasting isn't that bad (except insofar as that you don't have a lot of slots but that's part of the buy-in), but I do think being two levels behind on your spellcasting upgrades (which are in turn two levels behind weapon progression upgrades) can sometimes feel annoying and I'm not entirely sure what balance purpose they serve because it's only relevant for such a narrow window of levels.
... Like a level 6 Magus and a level 9 magus have identical DCs and to-hit compared to a witch or druid, but not a level 7 magus? Is there something that makes the Magus overpowered at precisely level 7 that necessitates this?
... It's not a big deal in the long run, but it feels weird.
I imagine it is for whatever reason no caster gets expert casting at 5th, while most martials get it in weapons, except for alchemists who get it at 7th. I've never entirely gotten it, but I think it might have to do with spells adding the old quadratic element.