| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I have to choose one, I would rather see fixes to things that are actually broken rather than just minor balance problems. Things like duration of giving Minions commands when not in combat, making Strength based Strikes against Incorporeal creatures, and Golem Antimagic having both damage values in the parenthetical.
No reason we couldn't get both though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I have to choose one, I would rather see fixes to things that are actually broken rather than just minor balance problems. Things like duration of giving Minions commands when not in combat, making Strength based Strikes against Incorporeal creatures, and Golem Antimagic having both damage values in the parenthetical.
No reason we couldn't get both though.
Recall checks...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, broader clarifications are more likely than balance changes although, balance was a major factor with the last batch of errata so it's on the table. For balance I'd like to see change is animal barbarians. Deer and frog get extra benefits at 7th level and the other animals get nothing. Always bugged me.
I do hope so but I'm biased because clarifications are my personal top priority. I still want to know for sure if eidolons can actually use mundane tools or not, for example. Even the recently addressed Soothe brought up the still ongoing battle between the undead trait and the healing trait. I'm so anxious on closing the books that one.
Anything to boost consistency on such rulings across games is appreciated since I do bounce between different tables more than ever.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of the clarifications and necessary fixes have already been heavily discussed, so I've set my sights on something more in the design changes area. A difficult topic for this type of product, but you never know, maybe Paizo can make it happen ^^
1) Recall Knowledge and Mastermind
Speaking of RK, we really shouldn't have core combat mechanics entirely based on it. Case in point, the Rogue's Mastermind Racket. Not only do you need to keep up to 5 skills "updated" at all times, there's also the DC adjustments to consider. Bosses and similarly significant opponents are almost always unique, meaning a healthy +10 to your check. Also called "you don't have an ability" until you are in the level 15+ range. The +2 and +5 adjustments for uncommon and rare enemies are less severe, but also a lot more common. Add to that the suggested adjustments for repeated use - inferred to be the usual +2/+5/+10 - and you have an ability that is extremely inconsistent and often dysfunctional against significant threats.
This was already heavily criticized during the Thaumaturge playtest and changed accordingly. While I would appreciate a similar change for the Mastermind, eliminating the DC adjustments for the base mechanic (not RK) would already be plenty. Possibly accompanied by a change to the critical success effects, since those look like they take that unreliability partially into account.
2) Spellshot really doesn't have to be a class archetype
The spellshot class archetype should be changed to a regular Way. The only change is that it makes your character worse by tying your class DC to INT. That is not usually part of a Way, or at least that is the only mechanical explanation I can see for this oddity. Not that I see that as a particularly good reason, especially given the additional downsides.
Because part from the usual archetype restrictions, the Spellshot dedication is also just terrible. It gives you a reload that is rendered useless by your turn ending on a full chamber (read: almost always) and in 99% of situations has no benefits beyond saving a single copper. This is only useful in the extremely unlikely event that you have no ammo at all, which is already conveniently solved by Munitions Crafter. The Call Gun + Conjure Bullet interaction deserves a mention for the incredibly niche situation that you have to go in somewhere entirely unarmed, but doesn't justify Conjure Bullet being otherwise useless. Let's not forget the opportunity cost of missing one of the best level of gunslinger feats (Fake Out, Pistol Twirl, Risky Reload and Quick Draw).
So yeah, please change this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of the clarifications and necessary fixes have already been heavily discussed,
It is too bad that we actually have no way of knowing if all of our discussion on the rules forum has actually had any effect. Having a list of "these are the things we acknowledge as problems and will be coming out with fixes for in upcoming errata/clarifications" would be fantastic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of the clarifications and necessary fixes have already been heavily discussed,It is too bad that we actually have no way of knowing if all of our discussion on the rules forum has actually had any effect. Having a list of "these are the things we acknowledge as problems and will be coming out with fixes for in upcoming errata/clarifications" would be fantastic.
I think from everything we have seen, we can be very sure that Paizo are aware of the issues we discuss and make the changes they can and want. While I would appreciate official confirmation, I don't think it's worth the work and additional expectations people would have.
2) Spellshot really doesn't have to be a class archetypeThe spellshot class archetype should be changed to a regular Way. The only change is that it makes your character worse by tying your class DC to INT. That is not usually part of a Way, or at least that is the only mechanical explanation I can see for this oddity. Not that I see that as a particularly good reason, especially given the additional downsides.
Yes, agreed, but changing a class archetype to a way seems beyond what we can expect from errata. I think Spellshot could be fixed by making the dedication feat actually useful, and removing the "must take 3 feats in this dedication" etc before leaving. The INT to DC thing should go away, straight downgrade.
I had a crazy thought about what if spellshot changed gunslingers key stat int and let it use int to hit but also beyond the scope of errata I think.
Yeah, I agree, the whole class archetype deal is incredibly unlikely to change, so if anything, the changes you suggested would be it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Already widely discussed, but still deserves a mention: legacy weapon lists for the rogue and wizard have no proper reason to exist in this system. 2e is built with build variety and future-proofing in mind, so please get rid of that stuff!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the solution for Mastermind should be:
- You may use Recall Knowledge, but usual terms and conditions apply. So in general, this is not going to well the third time you run into identical zombies.
- You may use Sense Motive instead, with a +2 circumstance bonus if you've tried to RK/SM this kind of enemy before, regardless of whether the previous attempt was a success.
Sense Motive doesn't degrade over use like Recall Knowledge does, but it's less likely to provide useful information so it's mostly an action tax. But it leverages rogues' good Perception. And it fits the mastermind thematically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the solution for Mastermind should be:
- You may use Recall Knowledge, but usual terms and conditions apply. So in general, this is not going to well the third time you run into identical zombies.
- You may use Sense Motive instead, with a +2 circumstance bonus if you've tried to RK/SM this kind of enemy before, regardless of whether the previous attempt was a success.Sense Motive doesn't degrade over use like Recall Knowledge does, but it's less likely to provide useful information so it's mostly an action tax. But it leverages rogues' good Perception. And it fits the mastermind thematically.
Not a bad idea, but I don't think that is a good solution for several reasons. The primary one from a mechanical side is that Sense Motive is a secret check. If you used it, you wouldn't know whether you'll get Sneak Attack or not. That is an absolute dealbreaker. From a story perspective, Mastermind is framed more as the "puppet master behind the scenes". A schemer, not someone who is typically meeting face-to-face. So Sense Motive doesn't quite fit as a core skill. There are more reasons (e.g. WIS-based, last line of SM), but I think these are the most important.
I think a good solution wouldn't need to be very radical. It couldn't be, really, because the space available is very limited. So something like this might work:
When you use Recall Knowledge to identify a creature, in addition to the normal effects, also compare the result to the standard DC of the creature's level. If that number would be a success, that creature is flat-footed against your attacks until the start of your next turn; if it would be a critical success, it's flat-footed against your attacks for 1 minute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, congratulations on the brilliantly done errata, and your new process. A+ in all seriousness!
Now, since errata is back on the board so to speak, I have a few thoughts for future changes.
Proficiency from General Feats - The proficiency you get should scale just like from Sentinel. A general feat is a considerable investment, and having it just stop working around lvl 13 feels weird. You have spent thirteen levels using a longsword as a wizard and suddenly you are bad at it? I have houseruled this, and it has never been a problem. General feats are often more precious than class feats, you pay a heavy price.
I disagree here. This would change the General Feats to something very overpowered and as pointed by 25speedforseaweedleshy this would turn Sentinel Dedication almost useless.
For armors I like how the things are today. If you want armors with no armor classes the Sentinel Dedication gives you proficiency light and medium armor with similar progression of your class, if your class is a medium armor it's gives you heavy armor proficiency equals to you medium armor and if you are a light armored class you can combine Armor Proficiency general feat with Sentinel Dedication to have access to heavy armors with your normal class progression.
That said I know that this not happen to Weapons. Currently we don't have weapons progression more than expert (using ancestry feats) for classes that aren't martials but I think this is a design choice to prevent non-martial classes to be almost strong as a martial without being a martial class.
And I don't think that genera feats are better than ancestry feat. Instead they are more versatile once the char are not restricted by an ancestry and most skills feats are general too.
Hammer/Flail Spec - Elephant in the room. It is just way, way too good. Prone is insanely powerful, and getting it with no save? Make it a reflex or fort save and it is still good but not by far the best.
I agree here. This is in a similar situation of bows (specially the composite ones) and Gnome Flickmace. They are weapon that are soo good that over-shines their alternatives. Gnome Flickmace as balanced in last errata now rests to balance these 2 too.
Armor Proficiency - The "gappy" scaling on this for martials could be smoothed out. Every martial should go up at 11 and 17. Right now champion being the same AC as fighter for 2 levels, and barbarian being -2 behind (not even counting heavy armor) for 4 levels just doesn't work in a game with math as tight as this.
I agree here too. Champions are the main tankers of the game but in lower levels (1-6) and in some mid levels (11-12) they are just less versatile and weaker "fighters" that can use reactions to protect closer allies this makes champions less attractive even to those who want to be tankers in low level adventures.
Another thing about Champions that may be better worked is Redeemer and Liberator reactions. They are way less attractive than Paladin's counter-attack without MAP. Maybe they need to be better worked to be more interesting to players choose.
I also agree about barbarian. It armor progression is similar to specialist classes not to fighting focuses classes. It's strange and make barbarian even more fragile.
Spell Casting Proficiency - Everyone, including MCs, should scale fully. I know this sounds odd, but hear me out. Spells are "gated" by both level, stat, and number of spells. All giving MCs bad proficiencies does it force them to use non DC spells, which are among the best in the game already. If a lvl 20 fighter with wizard MC is able to use a single lvl 8 fireball at legendary proficiency, great! My lvl 20 wizard with a lvl 10 spell, 5 lvl 9 spells and 4 lvl 8s and better DC due to main stat int is not bothered in the slightest.
I disagree here. This is in the same design choice of Weapon Proficiency progression. The main idea is that you can't be good as a caster class using a martial class.
Same for summoner, no reason it should be -2 worse a few levels but not others, and Magus having full proficiency will still be 1-2 behind a full caster anyways, what does it hurt?
Summoners and magus are very special cases. The summoner don't have the same magical proficiency of a caster but the Eidolon is already basically a "martial class" in attack proficiency, this prevents the class being good in both.
While magus can use it's martial proficiency to hit magical attacks, this already makes it to hit better than a caster using attack spells due the item bonus. Both classes are very unique and interesting IMO.Speaking of RK, we really shouldn't have core combat mechanics entirely based on it. Case in point, the Rogue's Mastermind Racket. Not only do you need to keep up to 5 skills "updated" at all times, there's also the DC adjustments to consider. Bosses and similarly significant opponents are almost always unique, meaning a healthy +10 to your check. Also called "you don't have an ability" until you are in the level 15+ range. The +2 and +5 adjustments for uncommon and rare enemies are less severe, but also a lot more common. Add to that the suggested adjustments for repeated use - inferred to be the usual +2/+5/+10 - and you have an ability that is extremely inconsistent and often dysfunctional against significant threats.
This was already heavily criticized during the Thaumaturge playtest and changed accordingly. While I would appreciate a similar change for the Mastermind, eliminating the DC adjustments for the base mechanic (not RK) would already be plenty. Possibly accompanied by a change to the critical success effects, since those look like they take that unreliability partially into account.
Agree
Spellshot really doesn't have to be a class archetype
The spellshot class archetype should be changed to a regular Way. The only change is that it makes your character worse by tying your class DC to INT. That is not usually part of a Way, or at least that is the only mechanical explanation I can see for this oddity. Not that I see that as a particularly good reason, especially given the additional downsides.
Because part from the usual archetype restrictions, the Spellshot dedication is also just terrible. It gives you a reload that is rendered useless by your turn ending on a full chamber (read: almost always) and in 99% of situations has no benefits beyond saving a single copper. This is only useful in the extremely unlikely event that you have no ammo at all, which is already conveniently solved by Munitions Crafter. The Call Gun + Conjure Bullet interaction deserves a mention for the incredibly niche situation that you have to go in somewhere entirely unarmed, but doesn't justify Conjure Bullet being otherwise useless. Let's not forget the opportunity cost of missing one of the best level of gunslinger feats (Fake Out, Pistol Twirl, Risky Reload and Quick Draw).
So yeah, please change this.
I also agree.
There's no reason to spellshot not be just a gunslinger's subclass. This just make it more expensive as you said. Also I see little reason for class archetypes that can't be shared between different classes like happen with Flexible Spellcaster. The felling I have with spellslot it's like "we (Paizo) know you liked the class archetypes so here take this one to make you happy" but they basically turned a subclass into an class archetype.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm for hammer/flail criticals requiring a reflex save...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The hammer/flail crit spec definitely should be changed. I would prefer to have something that doesn't require extra rolls, though. Especially at higher levels, a single crit often already triggers multiple additional rolls via runes and feats. I'd rather not add to that, if at all possible.
Why is it overpowered? Serious question. A general feat for armor/weapon is considered balanced for the first 11-13 levels of the game (Depending on class)
Why is it suddenly OP to scale it for the last levels?
And sentinel still has a place. First off it gives light AND medium so that is two general feats worth on casters. For people wanting heavy it gives useful things like armor specialization and improved bulwark.
Also, depending on the build you might rather spend a lvl 2 class feat on a lot of builds than give up a general feat.
Because it's a lvl 1 general feat. This means that's a feat that everyone can take no matter it's class/archetype, ancestry or skill. Making the proficiency general lvl 1 feat auto-progress this way will surpass feats like the already cited Sentinel Dedication that's no only requires a lvl 2 class feat but also locks your dedication feat until you use 2 more of same archetype feat or the ancestries weapons feats that are ancestry locked feats that applies to small list of weapons and that's requires another lvl 13 ancestry feat to increase it's proficiency level.
I would understand if you have said "we need an expert level 11 general feat that increase the trained weapon/armor proficiency to expert" (yet I think this would decrease the main benefits of sentinel and champion dedications for armors). But I still think this would be too much.
Obs.: If my memory isn't faling there's a 3rd party book that gives these extra general feats to increase the proficiency level but I don't remember what book is.
Yeah, I get that in theory, but the difference is any class can grab a fully runed up weapon and swing away if their weapon proficiency was good.
Spells are controlled by both number and level of them. AND lots of the best spells don't care about DC. For example a lvl 20 fighter with MC wizard can use dissapearance and be awesome, but using a lvl 8 chain lightning with decent DC would be too good?
Nah, all this does is limit the types of spells non mainline casters can use, it doesn't weaken them really.
It isn't so simple. A lvl 20 fighter with MC wizard using disappearance can be way more easily detected than a truly caster. You can't improve you spell to a higher 9/10 slot and due your lower spell DC you are more easily "counteracted" by true sight spells/abilities.
The only spells that are not really affected are full supportive spells like bless and true strike.
Also there's no way to casters (except wave casters) to have more than expert in weapons proficiency. That's prevents casters to being minimally good as martials in non-spells combat. Except in the first 4 levels where everybody except the fighter is just trained (but in this situation the casters also have a low number of spells and theses spells rarely are much better than a cantrip).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The hammer/flail crit spec definitely should be changed. I would prefer to have something that doesn't require extra rolls, though. Especially at higher levels, a single crit often already triggers multiple additional rolls via runes and feats. I'd rather not add to that, if at all possible.
I agree about the not triggering extra rolls. The amount of detail in the game is nice but sometimes it just gets too much.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not going to disagree about too many crit effects lategame hah. But if guns and unarmed can tolerate a roll, hammers can too.The hammer/flail crit spec definitely should be changed. I would prefer to have something that doesn't require extra rolls, though. Especially at higher levels, a single crit often already triggers multiple additional rolls via runes and feats. I'd rather not add to that, if at all possible.I agree about the not triggering extra rolls. The amount of detail in the game is nice but sometimes it just gets too much.
I don't suppose it would be too much to ask that we go in the other direction? Remove the rolls from the other weapons instead of adding them to hammers and flails.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't suppose it would be too much to ask that we go in the other direction? Remove the rolls from the other weapons instead of adding them to hammers and flails.If so you really need to boost every other crit effect a lot as those three (slow, stun and prone) and massively stronger than the rest.
Most of the crit spec effects are so weak they may as well not be there. So sure, rework all the trash ones into something that makes the weapon group worth using. How would that be a bad thing?
Sword being bad and the damage ones not scaling very well seems more like the big outlier here than anything else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the crit spec effects are so weak they may as well not be there. So sure, rework all the trash ones into something that makes the weapon group worth using. How would that be a bad thing?I don't suppose it would be too much to ask that we go in the other direction? Remove the rolls from the other weapons instead of adding them to hammers and flails.If so you really need to boost every other crit effect a lot as those three (slow, stun and prone) and massively stronger than the rest.
While I agree some of the crit specs are a little underwhelming and should be improved, I really don't think raising the ceiling that much is a good idea. Sure, it would be fine on most classes. But the fighter and gunslinger would have a very good chance every round of basically neutralizing an enemy, even if they don't kill it. If you've ever had a lucky Sniper or Stunning Fist Monk in your party, you know strong that can be.
Maybe the solution for Mastermind should be:
- You may use Recall Knowledge, but usual terms and conditions apply. So in general, this is not going to well the third time you run into identical zombies.
- You may use Sense Motive instead, with a +2 circumstance bonus if you've tried to RK/SM this kind of enemy before, regardless of whether the previous attempt was a success.Sense Motive doesn't degrade over use like Recall Knowledge does, but it's less likely to provide useful information so it's mostly an action tax. But it leverages rogues' good Perception. And it fits the mastermind thematically.
Not a bad idea, but I don't think that is a good solution for several reasons. The primary one from a mechanical side is that Sense Motive is a secret check. If you used it, you wouldn't know whether you'll get Sneak Attack or not. That is an absolute dealbreaker. From a story perspective, Mastermind is framed more as the "puppet master behind the scenes". A schemer, not someone who is typically meeting face-to-face. So Sense Motive doesn't quite fit as a core skill. There are more reasons (e.g. WIS-based, last line of SM), but I think these are the most important.
I think a good solution wouldn't need to be very radical. It couldn't be, really, because the space available is very limited. So something like this might work:
When you use Recall Knowledge to identify a creature, in addition to the normal effects, also compare the result to the standard DC of the creature's level. If that number would be a success, that creature is flat-footed against your attacks until the start of your next turn; if it would be a critical success, it's flat-footed against your attacks for 1 minute.
Wow, I realise I made a massive error. It completely slipped my mind that Recall Knowledge is a secret check as well. So technically, a Mastermind already wouldn't learn whether they get Sneak Attack until they've successfully hit. Not that I would ever run it that way, but damn, there is always another wrinkle to this subclass D:
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I realise I made a massive error. It completely slipped my mind that Recall Knowledge is a secret check as well. So technically, a Mastermind already wouldn't learn whether they get Sneak Attack until they've successfully hit. Not that I would ever run it that way, but damn, there is always another wrinkle to this subclass D:Maybe the solution for Mastermind should be:
- You may use Recall Knowledge, but usual terms and conditions apply. So in general, this is not going to well the third time you run into identical zombies.
- You may use Sense Motive instead, with a +2 circumstance bonus if you've tried to RK/SM this kind of enemy before, regardless of whether the previous attempt was a success.Sense Motive doesn't degrade over use like Recall Knowledge does, but it's less likely to provide useful information so it's mostly an action tax. But it leverages rogues' good Perception. And it fits the mastermind thematically.
Not a bad idea, but I don't think that is a good solution for several reasons. The primary one from a mechanical side is that Sense Motive is a secret check. If you used it, you wouldn't know whether you'll get Sneak Attack or not. That is an absolute dealbreaker. From a story perspective, Mastermind is framed more as the "puppet master behind the scenes". A schemer, not someone who is typically meeting face-to-face. So Sense Motive doesn't quite fit as a core skill. There are more reasons (e.g. WIS-based, last line of SM), but I think these are the most important.
I think a good solution wouldn't need to be very radical. It couldn't be, really, because the space available is very limited. So something like this might work:
When you use Recall Knowledge to identify a creature, in addition to the normal effects, also compare the result to the standard DC of the creature's level. If that number would be a success, that creature is flat-footed against your attacks until the start of your next turn; if it would be a critical success, it's flat-footed against your attacks for 1 minute.
Yeah the secret check thing is a wash. I think all in all a much cleaner design would have been more of a reverse:
1) Spend an action
2) Make a check, or force the enemy to make some kind of save, but not secret. If you win, enemy is flat-footed.
3) As a side effect, do a free RK check.
I don't really agree with your objection based on "behind the scenes" either. This is an on-stage combat ability either way. In fact, the current design is more anti behind the scenes: you don't want to RK before meeting the enemy because that raises the DC for follow up checks when you actually meet the enemy.
This is a general gripe I have with combat RK abilities that give you a short-lived bonus for crits (ranger, investigator); these classes should want to prepare before combat, but this effect encourages you to go into combat ignorant as possible.
As for key stat, yeah you'd have to change that. But right now Mastermind is split over Int and Wis to handle the different RK skills. Sense Motive would allow you to prioritize just one ability.
Yeah the secret check thing is a wash. I think all in all a much cleaner design would have been more of a reverse:
1) Spend an action
2) Make a check, or force the enemy to make some kind of save, but not secret. If you win, enemy is flat-footed.
3) As a side effect, do a free RK check.I don't really agree with your objection based on "behind the scenes" either. This is an on-stage combat ability either way. In fact, the current design is more anti behind the scenes: you don't want to RK before meeting the enemy because that raises the DC for follow up checks when you actually meet the enemy.
This is a general gripe I have with combat RK abilities that give you a short-lived bonus for crits (ranger, investigator); these classes should want to prepare before combat, but this effect encourages you to go into combat ignorant as possible.
As for key stat, yeah you'd have to change that. But right now Mastermind is split over Int and Wis to handle the different RK skills. Sense Motive would allow you to prioritize just one ability.
Fair point well made. We'd still need text to get around the "You typically can’t try to Sense the Motive of the same creature again until the situation changes significantly.", but that's easy enough.
While I agree some of the crit specs are a little underwhelming and should be improved, I really don't think raising the ceiling that much is a good idea. Sure, it would be fine on most classes. But the fighter and gunslinger would have a very good chance every round of basically neutralizing an enemy, even if they don't kill it. If you've ever had a lucky Sniper or Stunning Fist Monk in your party, you know strong that can be.
Bow fighter already does this with debilitating shot and slow/stun is still arguably worse than prone since they don't inflict flatfooted or get you opportunity attacks on stand.
That sort of total lock is already possible anyway. Prone+bow crit immobilize+any sort of slow/stun puts anything on the floor with 2 actions and unable to stand without using an interact first. Layer silence 4 on top to neutralize spellcasters.
I don't think that secondary critical effect auto-success wont be a problem. There are many classes and feats that's allow some additional effect when hit without additional checks to normal hits. I don't think that do the same in a critical effect from a weapon trait would be a problem. The only strange thing it's this happen only to hammer/flail, specially to trip, the best "maneuver" effect.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big thing you're missing from the argument is that spells scale on multiple tracks. Accuracy is one gate, but spell level is another, and even if MCD spellcasters had better proficiency they'd still be gated on slot number and level. Our MC caster is usually 2-3 spell levels behind and limited on slots too.
The problem with gating both is that it just makes some spells especially bad because they get penalized twice, while other spells are especially good because they don't get penalized at all.
It's not something Paizo will errata, and it's not something worth worrying over too much, but even with spells that auto heighten, a rogue being slightly more accurate with ray of frost would not exactly be some kind of balance breaking game changer.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay then its fine for wizards to get master with a club. A wizard being slightly more accurate with a club would not exactly be some kind of balance breaking game changer.
While we are at it lets also add in the missing +2/+3 item bonus to spells that NPCs get.
You're really misrepresenting the argument here - the point is that there are two ways the spells can scale in power: the DC, and the spell level. This is comparable to the ways that weapons scale in power - accuracy, and damage. If we want to draw a parallel between weapons and spells in this way, the argument here is that the current situation for spells (weaker in both DCs and spells) would be like ruling that casters have to be one Striking rune behind standard progression, limiting both accuracy and damage. Even then, that misses that this only affects some spells, so it'd be more like ruling only thrown weapons can have an appropriately levelled Striking rune attached to them, or something arbitrary like that. The way PF2 is designed, Fireball will never be an appropriate spell to take for a martial multiclassing into a caster, but Fear could be.
You're really misrepresenting the argument here - the point is that there are two ways the spells can scale in power: the DC, and the spell level. This is comparable to the ways that weapons scale in power - accuracy, and damage. If we want to draw a parallel between weapons and spells in this way, the argument here is that the current situation for spells (weaker in both DCs and spells) would be like ruling that casters have to be one Striking rune behind standard progression, limiting both accuracy and damage. Even then, that misses that this only affects some spells, so it'd be more like ruling only thrown weapons can have an appropriately levelled Striking rune attached to them, or something arbitrary like that. The way PF2 is designed, Fireball will never be an appropriate spell to take for a martial multiclassing into a caster, but Fear could be.Okay then its fine for wizards to get master with a club. A wizard being slightly more accurate with a club would not exactly be some kind of balance breaking game changer.
While we are at it lets also add in the missing +2/+3 item bonus to spells that NPCs get.
At same time that Fear usually still be stronger when used by a full caster preventing that MC can become so efficient like as pure caster when used by a martial.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry to derail, but my own errata wish:
Just get rid of anathemas.
Sorry to derail, but my own errata wish:
Just get rid of anathemas.
Kkkkkk
Way better just get rid of alignment and redone de alignment dmg
The anathemas was never a real problem in mostly cases.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry to derail, but my own errata wish:
Just get rid of anathemas.
Kkkkkk
Way better just get rid of alignment and redone de alignment dmg
The anathemas was never a real problem in mostly cases.
We could always get rid of both. ;)
that is the problem why are general feat more powerful than class feat
sentinel lock player out of other archetype before 2 more feat are taken
if general feat get the same scaling how can sentinel compete
general feat should be deleted
only general feat would cause a problem if deleted would be shield block
instead of 5 ancestry 5 general everyone just get 10 ancestry
it is frustrating how enemy always have higher stat than player
but give everyone legendary in spellcasting would not be a good idea
investigator inventor and certain type of rogue can have exact same dc and spell attack as caster
Sentinel will still be better for casters, since they get the proficiencies right away instead of waiting until level 7 to get medium armor, or 11 to get heavy.
Personally, my patch was introducing general feats that you can take to bump up the proficiencies of all trained armor to expert for armor expertise and master for armor mastery. The prereqes are "trained in a type of armor and expert in unarmored or any type of armor" and "expert in a type of armor and master in unarmored or any other type of armor" respectively, so it also works with MCD benefits like rogue with give you training in light armor.
I made a similar one for weapons. Neither frat chain has impacted balance, but doea make it easier for people to realize certain concepts, so win-win
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something that's basically never going to have an impact on me personally, but really ought to be in there:
- Spells that are intended for melee use should not provoke opportunity attacks, even if they have somatic components. Among a number of other things, this would mean that the bit where we get a melee option for produce flame would actually *have an effect*.
- Spellstrike with a melee weapon should not provoke opportunity attacks. That's just something that the base class knowledge ought to teach you how to avoid. Have "that Cast a Spell action does not provoke opportunity attacks" be baked into spellstrike and be done with it.