| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So much stuff here. To be fair I agree with a lot of it. But some of it is not reasonable.
Significant level casters can have a very large supply of True Strike. Complaining that they are -4 or -5 to hit compared to martials, is just ignoring this fact. They can be better to hit if they want to be. There is still a point in high level martials in PF2 and I like that.
Mutagenist, warpriest, Bomber, Shape-shifting Druid, warrior muse, any pew pew spellcasters that just want to see things blow up, etc are just bad and aren't played much by vets of pf2e because they don't deliver on the fantasy. So they ultimately take up space in the game for no reason.
Just because some people have written them off doesn't mean other people have. Alchemists are poor at low level but get better. They are probably reasonable with the latest changes and new items.
WarPriests work fine up to level 12 which is all most people play anyway. They can be the better choice than Cloistered Cleric for certain builds and play styles. Yes at high level the pure caster will be more powerful, but can't you at least see the role of the WarPriest?
Being -1 to hit on half the levels in the game is a factor, but it is not that big a problem. I am quite happy to play with 16 Strength Warpriests, Thaumaturge and Inventors. They have easy access to bonuses. If you are going to write off builds that are that fraction off the bleeding edge, then I just can't help. Go play whatever one true fighter build works for you.
ShapeShifting Druids work sort of. I mean I am mostly annoyed about Paizo's point blank refusal to clear up Additional Damage after 3 years.
If your complaint is you can't permanently be in a combat capable form, and you can't even get an ability to cast cantrips. Yes I agree it is a problem.
I am 100% with you in the point that sometimes Paizo have sacrificed the story value and the functionality of certain powers unnecessarily for balance.
Tattos yep valid complaint. Coming soon apparently.
Tempest Oracle. You are missing the point, it is not their main ability. They have 2 good focus spells that qualify. There are 6 deities that will give you access to Hydraulic Push which is a good staple spell. I'm sure there are other spells too.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all about the niche protection that pf2e employs. Caster's still have a reason to exist and now martials aren't just superfluous bodyguards. All those classes that have minuses to hit compared to martials bridge the gap with versatility of options. Some people aren't about it but I could never go back to an unbalanced free for all like 5e or pf1e. Why ever be a fighter when paladins or WIZARDS exist. Also, small quibble.....but the math is the absolute LAST thing in the game that would be broken. It was made with the help of a computer science major. Not agreeing with design decisions is not equivalent to something being non functional.
| 23 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you wanna be out there in melee, Sorcerer has never been the right class for that. I don't consider that a failure of PF2.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sooo...you don't actually love PF2E?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all about the niche protection that pf2e employs. Caster's still have a reason to exist and now martials aren't just superfluous bodyguards. All those classes that have minuses to hit compared to martials bridge the gap with versatility of options. Some people aren't about it but I could never go back to an unbalanced free for all like 5e or pf1e. Why ever be a fighter when paladins or WIZARDS exist. Also, small quibble.....but the math is the absolute LAST thing in the game that would be broken. It was made with the help of a computer science major. Not agreeing with design decisions is not equivalent to something being non functional.The math is broken in the game.
1) It's confusing. The jump between level 4 and level 5 is astronomical in terms of effectiveness with martials.
2) That doesn't eliminate the fact there are a lot of feats that provide you with the thing, but doesn't really provide you with the thing because the thing doesn't scale.
Unless you take a serious look at the system itself and understand the system, you'd realize taking armor proficiency general feat to get medium or heavy armor doesn't scale at all and leaves you at trained, often giving less AC at high level than your normal armor gives.
Some things not being as good as others is not any evidence of broken math, but of design decisions. "Broken math" would be a level 1 fighter easily out-damaging a 10th level wizard. Or, you know, a paladin being a full martial and also getting spell slots that allow them to randomly deal twice the damage of everyone else.
1) Ok? How is that confusing, exactly? They get +2 to their attack modifier, just as casters do at level 11. That's it. Monsters take that into account.
2) Sure, there are a handful of feats like that. There being "a lot" is a serious misrepresentation. They are only good in shorter campaigns, but hey, nobody forces you to use them. That isn't the system being broken, that's just a couple of (usually) bad feats.
If you wanna be out there in melee, Sorcerer has never been the right class for that. I don't consider that a failure of PF2.The fact it gives melee options in abilities without giving support (dragons claws, gluttonous jaws etc) is an issue.
In fact, Gluttonous jaws works pretty amazingly if you're a sorc dedication and fighter main class, funny enough.
They have support, they are just never particularly good. They are not supposed to be your main thing after all. While that could be communicated a bit more clearly, I don't think it requires too much system understanding to recognise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Compare flame oracles options with spells to what tempest has.
This issue here is twofold. Fire spells are more ubiquitous in the CRB, and deities don't update their spells with new releases.
We got some new air and water spells in SoM, but I don't think any have appeared in any new deities since. It's just the waiting game at the moment, unfortunately. Although I do hope for a custom deity ruleset, similar to personal staves, that would easily squash this issue.
If you wanna be out there in melee, Sorcerer has never been the right class for that. I don't consider that a failure of PF2.The fact it gives melee options in abilities without giving support (dragons claws, gluttonous jaws etc) is an issue.
In fact, Gluttonous jaws works pretty amazingly if you're a sorc dedication and fighter main class, funny enough.
Then maybe that's what they're really there for. Why do casters have level 1 class feat selections when most don't even get a class feat at level 1 (barring maybe a class feature that grants them a specific one)? I'd think its because multiclass archetypes.
Then maybe that's what they're really there for. Why do casters have level 1 class feat selections when most don't even get a class feat at level 1 (barring maybe a class feature that grants them a specific one)? I'd think its because multiclass archetypes.
They get it because human: human as a base core common ancestry with a feat to get an extra 1st level class feat. As such, every class needs some. Secondly, for non-humans, it gives twice as many options for their second level feat option. I think archetypes would be farther down on the list than these two reasons, especially as the first feat you can take from the multiclass archetypes gives you the option for 1st- or 2nd-level feats, meaning if it was just archetypes, hey COULD have just not given out 1st level feats and it's work the same for them.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the exception of the gluttonous jaws srocerer, I've seen every single build mentioned by the OP be successful at one time or another.
It's all in how you play the game. Try not to look too closely at the individual numbers, but instead develop good strategies and teamwork with your party.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 is a game where characters experience what can feel like great leaps forward in ability to accomplish certain tasks, and some plateaus, but that hardly makes the math broken and I think the bigger jarring thing for many players is getting used to the idea that you don’t do the same thing with your character in every encounter, or from level 1 to level 20.
Spells and items in particular are usually best when you first get them but eventually become less exciting, while some spells and items feel weak when you first get them, but become very useful in low level spell slots later in the game. Your 15th level wizard is probably memorizing different 3rd level spells than they did when they were 5th level. I very much like this about PF2, but I think many players of the genre like putting together a shtick that their character will always be looking to do, and those kind of ideas will have some flat levels in PF2. I think this is by design and encourages exploring more options and versatility, but it can also mean letting go of X weapon or option eventually.
Other “imbalances” are massively exaggerated with players. General feat armor proficiency covers 11 to 12 levels of play, not 5. By then you’ve had 2 sets of attribute increases and it is very reasonable either to switch to a lighter armor, make regular use of consumables that cover your item bonus to AC or look for an archetype/class solution to boosting your AC those 2 points, but it might take an extra 2 or 3 levels where your AC is 2 lower.Some players are crying foul about having 2 levels out of 20 where your AC feels off the expected number track, but the alternative would be a game where you just made “attack” and “defense” raw attributes every character had and not tie them to class at all so that all numbers in the game boost at exactly the same time for everyone. People notice fighters because accuracy is literally their only thing, and it is designed to be the ceiling of the game, but so many critiques of the game look at it like the floor of acceptable numbers. Meanwhile, in combat, you can flank, or knock an enemy prone, and then frighten them, and their numbers have shifted 3 or even 4 whole points, which is a far bigger deal than any level to level character building decision. Yeah, in all honesty, fighters ceiling of effectiveness is probably a point too high, but it is incredibly refreshing for “the fighter” to occupy that space, with just a n essentially static +2 to attack. Compare that to any other d20 fantasy game and it is an almost miraculous mathematical feat to have been accomplished.
Lastly attributes. PF2 has some awkward and inelegant baggage that it is carrying with attributes. It has minimized that impact on the game largely by making raw attribute numbers largely only one small aspect of a character’s development. There are almost no flat attribute checks in the game and being trained vs not trained tends to be a much larger cliff in PF than the difference between doing something with a 14 starting attribute rather than an 18. Every +1 helps, but there are often easier paths to bigger effective bonuses in pf2 by being flexible and versatile, rather than just waiting to find the bigger hammer.
This also rolls on past attributes for issues like “blaster caster.” Targeting the right save with a weakness triggering damage type vs trying to always smash past AC, not uncommonly with a resistance to some kind of physical damage is very often the difference between a TPK and a fight the party might right off as rather trivial. “The flexibility to do 10 different damage types and target 4 different defenses” is essentially an attribute of its own in PF2, and it is the missing component in many parties that I see really struggle with encounters, especially tough encounters vs higher level creatures…of course, the unprepared or quickly overwhelmed wizard doesn’t fix this by themselves, so almost every party eventually meets their match in PF2 encounter design, and will need to be able to retreat, regroup, and come back prepared.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I love PF2 butttt I hate everything about it, the math is fundamentally broken, I made a melee sorcerer and it didn't work" is some take.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly, OP, I read and understand your critiques.
Fighters should not be used as an example of the standard martial. The standard martial is one proficiency level below the Fighter. Also, if you look at the standard ACs per level of NPCs, you'll note that they are based off of the standard martial. I would encourage you to look deeper at the interworkings of the system before getting pulled along by how things feel to you.
Melee spellcasters exists. It is called the Magus (currently). That your sorcerer cannot ever measure up to a martial in martial combat is a design feature. Also, by the level that glutton jaws falls off, you have access to spells that can turn you into a dragon (whose stats are very impressive comparably). Full casters by design are built to be comparable to martials with their spells. Ya'know, those things they get for free...that scale for free...and can allow them to deal more damage in a turn than any martial could dream of? Those spell things that often do damage even if the opponent(s) succeed. What happens again if a fighter misses with an attack?
AC. While I can certainly agree that expert armor proficiency should be accessible via a general feat around level 15ish, trained armor proficiency is not worthless. In fact, well over half of all classes only have trained in armor proficiency until level 11. I personally can vouch for its effectiveness with this character in particular. This character is a wizard in full plate. I often go into melee with this wizard. Also expert armor proficiency is achievable though it is a little hidden.
As for the raw numbers for the spell attack and DC, yes..ish. I have played in home games where spellcasters could get item bonuses to increase those values. It didn't seem particularly broken. Those values could use a 1 or 2 boost post level 10.
I also agree a little about stats. I see no reason to have a class's stat bonus be set. In my home games the stat bonuses from class are free. Why not let a warpriest choose str? Sorcerer choose dex?
Not all options are mechanically equal. This is both a good and bad thing. If all options were equal, the game would be incredibly boring. That is my stance.
Again, I understand your critiques, but many of them don't seem to consider the bigger picture.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's possible that the math at whatever level is not where you like it, but the whole idea that martials get master progression in weapons and armor but casters don't and casters get legendary progression in class DC but martials don't is to represent how BAB and Caster Level worked in PF1.
Like ceteris paribus in the previous edition a sorcerer at 14th level was going to be a worse melee combatant than a barbarian at 14th level, since one was looking at a +7 BAB and the other was looking at a +14 BAB. The gap between expert and master is even smaller now with the Barbarian being 3 points ahead of the melee sorcerer at level 14 not 7.
Legendary proficiency progression is supposed to represent something like "Fighters get Weapon Training" or "Monks/Paladins get +Wis/+Cha to AC" from the last edition. It's not something everybody should get.
Now there is sort of an issue with things like Gluttonous's Jaws and Imaginary Weapon not being very useful for the class that gets that Focus Spell (but could be useful to a different class that poached it with archetyping). But that's an issue with the design of those spells more than anything.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sooo...you don't actually love PF2E?
To be honest ...
I own the
* - Pathfinder 2E Core Rulebook
* - Pathfinder 2E Advanced Character Guide
* - Pathfinder 2E Secrets of Magic
* - Pathfinder 2E Gamemastery Guide
* - Pathfinder 2E Abomination Vaults
and
* - the PDF of Lost Omens World Guide
And I will say that the more I've learned about Pathfinder 2nd Edtion, the more I like Pathfinder 1st Edition.
The math is broken in the game.1) It's confusing. The jump between level 4 and level 5 is astronomical in terms of effectiveness with martials.
3rd level spells are a big jump as well.
I agree that they way the game scales proficiency in +2 size pieces is very clumpy and uneven. I for one really wish that differences in proficiency were +1 instead.
2) That doesn't eliminate the fact there are a lot of feats that provide you with the thing, but doesn't really provide you with the thing because the thing doesn't scale.Unless you take a serious look at the system itself and understand the system, you'd realize taking armor proficiency general feat to get medium or heavy armor doesn't scale at all and leaves you at trained, often giving less AC at high level than your normal armor gives.
Retrain. It is not an optional rule. Normally in that time frame your character has had 2 bumps to Dexterity. So it absolutely works fine.
Yes it is a trap for new players. Yes agreed it is annoying and confusing. There are options that do scale. So I'm not really seeing anything critical though.
Glutton's Jaw is definitely one of the nice perks of a Sorcerer multiclass on a martial character- I have it on my drain tank Thaumaturge.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH my main concern with the math of the game is how asymmetrical it can be at times and how simple things get weirdly difficult depending on how when you want to do it.
The way options are so limited to get proficiency with a new weapon, the way it's almost impossible for a rogue to use a martial weapon not on their list, or for anyone to use an advanced weapon that isn't tied to an ancestry. That the best way to get many weapons is to cram an adoption backstory somewhere into your build, because god forbid you can just grab the weapon you want to use. Instead we get the creepy racial undertones of ancestrally locked weaponry and techniques.
Armor's more straight forward to get proficiency to, but it's still bizarre to me that for more than half the game, a general feat is all you need, until suddenly you hit a point where you need to rebuild to maintain that same proficiency, for reasons that are difficult to scrutinize.
Speaking of armor. The way the Champion is the "armor guy", but has 8 levels where they have the same armor proficiency as a fighter. It just feels weird. Why those levels? Is there a conscious reason why a Champion should have the same AC as a fighter at exactly 12 but 2 more AC at 10 and 13?
Similar complaints about feats like Canny Acumen. Admittedly I just don't like the idea of 'tactical retraining', and the way certain feats are good for X levels and bad for Y levels and you should freely retrain in and out of the feat, potentially multiple times even, in order to maximize value.
Maybe I overvalue these things, but the unevenness choices like this creates in terms of building and progressing characters just feels so strange to me, and it's hard to often identify a reason why these things exist the way they do.
But that's an issue with the design of those spells more than anything.
A bit of both, I think. If the goal is for these types of builds to be super niche or not viable, then it feels kind of bad to make them easily accessible, core options. It can create the illusion that it's meant to be a legitimate way to focus your character (this is especially true of Glutton's Jaws, which demands you warp your build around using it).
On the other hand, PF2 heavily focuses on accuracy gating as a means of niche protection, which I think contributes to some of the 'feels bad' aspect of the builds being discussed, because you're not merely worse at an activity, but you're more likely to waste your turns doing nothing while attempting it. Obviously there are advantages to this design, but it's also the one most likely to make a character feel incompetent.
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sooo...you don't actually love PF2E?To be honest ...
I own the
* - Pathfinder 2E Core Rulebook
* - Pathfinder 2E Advanced Character Guide
* - Pathfinder 2E Secrets of Magic
* - Pathfinder 2E Gamemastery Guide
* - Pathfinder 2E Abomination Vaults
and
* - the PDF of Lost Omens World GuideAnd I will say that the more I've learned about Pathfinder 2nd Edtion, the more I like Pathfinder 1st Edition.
I mean, if we start doing non sequitors, more I run 1-20 1e campaigns more I got sick of 1e <_<
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP's observations aren't all inaccurate, but many of the design decisions were deliberate. In 1E, druids and clerics (and I guess some sorcerers?) were just better martials that also had spells. Blaster casters would win combat if they won initiative. I would say reigning in caster/martial disparity is worth a paradigm shift in how spellcasters work at the table.
As for thaumaturges being weak because they start with a 16 in their attack stat, that is a disadvantage. But it doesn't break the game's math and is fixed more-or-less entirely by the Gradual Ability Boosts.
The alchemist you're right - that was a casualty of the removal of Resonance from the playetest and how consumables had to be nerfed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with a lot of the rebuttals in the comments. One thing I think is true is that some of the "awkward" math or feats that people feel like are misleading, still feel like some holdovers from the playtest. Back in the playtest proficiency was +1/+2/+3/+4. Getting only trained was less of a big deal then because the gaps were smaller. Barbarian and Warpriest would eventually have the same proficiency level at only expert.
I do genuinely feel that in that change some feat options and design concepts were looked over when seeing how the new math would affect those choices and how useful or enticing people will see them.
I personally think for the most part it still works, retraining is fairly easy to do, gaining ability boosts make up for it, and the math overall still works.
I have played a War-priest and they are wonderful, they might not be the best at any one thing, but they can do a lot of things well. My half Orc war-priest was a great 5th member to my party that consisted of a Barbarian, Ranger, Wizard, and Druid. Providing fantastic in combat healing, flanking partner for the barbarian and ranger companion, and providing amazing buffs.
I've seen wild druids played poorly, and others who were game changers.
An alchemist I was playing with consistently killed targets thanks to persistent damage and splash damage, when everyone else was having a poor night of rolls.
I played a level 5 fighter and crit failed three times when the champion rolled three crits in the same turn. Some nights are bad and can color your opnion on a class or option, and I get that.
I also think people undervalue utility or other ways of being useful in combat than the most biggest number around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if we start doing non sequitors, more I run 1-20 1e campaigns more I got sick of 1e <_<Sooo...you don't actually love PF2E?To be honest ...
I own the
* - Pathfinder 2E Core Rulebook
* - Pathfinder 2E Advanced Character Guide
* - Pathfinder 2E Secrets of Magic
* - Pathfinder 2E Gamemastery Guide
* - Pathfinder 2E Abomination Vaults
and
* - the PDF of Lost Omens World GuideAnd I will say that the more I've learned about Pathfinder 2nd Edtion, the more I like Pathfinder 1st Edition.
Is this a non-sequitur?
The thread appears to be about complaints about PF 2E (specifically, the radical change in class balance from PF 1E).| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I will say that the more I've learned about Pathfinder 2nd Edtion, the more I like Pathfinder 1st Edition.
Yeah I can see that. I miss some of the assumptions about PF1 and the flexibility it had (in certain respects) a lot when I play PF2.
But PF2 has spoiled me so much in terms of core mechanics and the way the system is put together. I wish it had some of PF1's flexibility, but in terms of actually playing a game it's really hard to stomach all the downgrades of going back to PF1.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree about the wild shape druid. I have played one to level 16. The combined powers of the wild shape druid are incredible. Best damage caster in the game in my opinion and easily on par with martials. They are absolutely brutal.
For some reason people focus on the fighter accuracy like they have anything else. If your sole focus is on a single class that can hit bosses real well and do damage, the fighter is the best at it. Number one class at doing it if they can hit the boss. They are good enough at hitting a bunch of creatures and doing damage.
But if you want to wreck a battlefield, wild shape druid is great at it. Unleash some blast spells, changed into a dragon, breathe on people, then move across the battlefield at a 100 feet plus move with three dimensional movement with reach.
The biggest problem I've seen on these forums is how players let the martials in the party dictate how you play heavily eliminating all the advantages of being a caster because it's easier to do. Then it becomes your fault as to why you are looking at the fighter, a short range class, and being impressed by what they do while you're playing this class that has all these capabilities you aren't using that could make the fighter look like he's running in mud.
Calling something a game issue when the players are letting martials dictate the terms of battle when the PF2 designers have given casters the means to do otherwise is not a system issue, it's a player issue.
When fireball says 500 feet for range and chain lightning is 500 feet, then why are the casters conveniently moving into one move attack range from monsters? Then players are complaining that Paizo over-nerfed casters?
As far as battle forms go, if all you're looking at is the accuracy and damage, you're not looking at all battle forms do because dragon form moves real fast and so do air elementals.
A bunch of caster players feel bad fully utilizing their power because then they end up out of range to babysit the martials healing them and making sure they can swing their big weapons. They don't want to go back to the old PF1 casters rule scenario, so they do it like good little casters buffing and healing the martials so they don't get mad.
You don't have to play that way. Casters have a lot of capabilities to destroy encounters with minimal ability of the enemy to attack back. I've done it in game many, many times in PF2. It's why I stopped complaining about casters.
Sure, they aren't great a low level, but they never much were. At higher level they are still the kings of the game, just not by as big a margin. That's fine. You shouldn't be able to do everything. But casters still rule the game in the later levels and are absolutely brutal. The wild shape druid is one of the most brutal late game casters I've used and seen in play. I've had combats on a wild shape druid a martial couldn't touch in terms of damage. I've seen them obliterate encounters practically alone.
I still think Alchemists are under-rated. When you're fighting magic immune monsters and they can do energy damage that is not considered magic, it's a great boon to your party. They aren't the strongest damage dealer in the group, but they bring a great deal to the table.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find myself agreeing far more with the OP over the counterpoints. There are just too many dead features like Dragon Claws that one has to bend over backwards to make work and they still fall far short of being effective. I completely disagree with a lot of the proficiency walls in place like the weapon choices for rogues for example.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
(specifically, the radical change in class balance from PF 1E).
You can't change something that doesn't exist.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the classes were not even remotely balanced in PF1. The classes are all pretty balanced in PF2. To some people this is jarring.
The former was generally okay since with system mastery you could build even weak classes to be very good at the thing you have decided to focus on. The latter is also generally okay because nobody can stack math high enough to be basically automatically successful at their schtick no matter how much you specialize.
I do think the missing perspective in a lot of these discussions is for people who normally prefer half of the martial/caster divide trying out the other side in 2nd edition to see how it feels.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if we start doing non sequitors, more I run 1-20 1e campaigns more I got sick of 1e <_<Sooo...you don't actually love PF2E?To be honest ...
I own the
* - Pathfinder 2E Core Rulebook
* - Pathfinder 2E Advanced Character Guide
* - Pathfinder 2E Secrets of Magic
* - Pathfinder 2E Gamemastery Guide
* - Pathfinder 2E Abomination Vaults
and
* - the PDF of Lost Omens World GuideAnd I will say that the more I've learned about Pathfinder 2nd Edtion, the more I like Pathfinder 1st Edition.
Is this a non-sequitur?
The thread appears to be about complaints about PF 2E (specifically, the radical change in class balance from PF 1E).
It does kinda feel like this was thread discussing OP's take and not general "let's complain about 2e thread". Like that post didn't say anything about the points, just listed books and was like "I'm increasingly disliking the system" as if it was self evident why.
(also, I concur with take that 1e didn't have class balance really <_< I have too many traumas regarding 1e high level builds)
I would argue that casters can be pretty decent at melee combat against powerful solo creatures, but they have to spend a lot of spell slot spells (like casting the equivalent of one a round) to really make it worth while and not fall down very quickly (I mean, even fighters and champions will fall down after a couple rounds in difficult PF2 combats). This was the case in PF1 too, but spells last long enough that it felt like you could get away with casting them all before the combat actually began. That doesn't really work in PF2. Heightened versions of Shattering Gem combined with just a shield cantrip can significantly cause a solo attacker to reconsider how valuable it is to try to over power the caster's defenses, especially when they go up again the next round. Mirror Image is a massive pain for boss enemies that really can not afford to spend rounds wasting early low MAP attacks on illusions. Temp HP and concealment/miss chances are pretty common with spells as well, and almost all of this stuff can stack together to make attacking the caster something that the whole party benefits from instead of tries to prevent. If the enemy is saving their AoE to keep the caster from casting spells, then the Martials need to find ways to make the enemy regret that decision. It can be challenging in some fights where the enemy has a really long reach, or ability to AoO at range, but AoOs are not that bad on solo creatures once you know they have them.
It is actually the fights against lots of lower level enemies where casting defensively and staying up front on the battle line is more of a challenge, but casters eat those kind of battles for breakfast in PF2 with long range AoE effects. Multiple lower level enemies with AoO are way more difficult for casters to handle than the imagined tougher boss fights.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Melee Sorcerer is fine as a third action in addition to a spell.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm only going to comment on the ones that I have extensive experience with
Shape-shifting Druid
Complete and utter nonsense. I've played a druid who was at least partially focussed on shapeshifting from L1 to L20 and another from L1 to L10.
In both cases using the most conservative reasonable interpretation of the shape shifting rules. So, at other tables, they may have been MORE powerful.
They were both absolutely good contributors to the party at every level they've been played at, contributing (on balance) as much as any other character.
The key is their versatility. Sometimes shapeshifting is the right option, sometimes spellcasting is, sometimes something strange like animal empathy is. If you insist on always shapeshifting or always using spells then you're not playing the character to its full potential.
And yeah, they're a little behind the martials when shape shifted. And a little behind the casters when casting. But they can do EITHER and that makes up for one heck of a lot.
Traumaturge? 16 str
If you're evaluating the Thaumaturge purely and only on its personal combat capability then you're missing the point. The Thaumaturge has LOTS of out of combat potential, in some ways even more than the Rogue (getting all shmoozing skills and all Recall Knowledge Lore skills using Charisma is quite big). And its implements generally significantly affect combat by helping the group.
Saying my Amulet Thaumaturge isn't pulling its weight is kinda like saying my Champion isn't pulling their weight. Damage mitigation is a valuable thing for the group to have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I took Lord Fyre’s “class balance” to mean not that classes were balanced in PF1e but the change from the popular conception (misguided or not) of the balance or imbalance between classes i.e. the change from PF1’s “caster/martial disparity” or “linear fighter quadratic wizard” to whatever PF2 has.
Can someone explain to me how niche protection works, and why it is a good idea?
I know a +1 is a lot more significant with the critical success/failure rules, but it the math in PF2 really so tight that you hamstring yourself if your attack ability modifier starts 1 point below the ability increase soft cap instead of at?
I know a +1 is a lot more significant with the critical success/failure rules, but it the math in PF2 really so tight that you hamstring yourself if your attack ability modifier starts 1 point below the ability increase soft cap instead of at?
The Thaumaturge and Inventor honestly work fine despite starting with at most a 16 in Str or Dex. The Investigator might need some help, but I understand there's an item in Treasure Vault that should help a lot.
|
|
Can someone explain to me how niche protection works, and why it is a good idea?
Usually done at the class (or subclass) level.
At its simplest, there is something that the class does better than ANY other class (or, by now with the plethora of classes, better than all but 1 or 2 other classes).
So, for example, the fighter is the best in the game for accuracy. Nothing can beat it.
The cleric is the best (or now maybe tied for the best with a couple of other specific builds) healer in the game.
The bard is the best buffer.
Etc.
So, if you want a really accurate character you pretty much know to pick the fighter or the gunslinger.
And when you're playing PFS and somebody says they're playing a fighter you know that (unless the character was more or less deliberately built to be incompetent) the fighter will hit often and generally pretty hard (or have some other trick up its sleeve).
Whether its a good idea is a whole different kettle of fish. Some people love it, some people hate it. But if you really hate it you should at least strongly consider playing non class based systems since they're a lot more likely to give you what you want in a game (NOT a slam on either style of play. I personally like both but I know players who REALLY prefer one or the other)
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure that investigators need more help, actually. If they get off their strategic strike, they can attack with their intelligence modifier once per round, and if they don't get off their strategic strike, they can:
1) Attack someone else using their Dex or Strength
2) Cast Electric Arc, a non-attack spell (provided they have an ancestry cantrip)
3) Help set up a flank for other melee
4) Utilize Bon Mot to lower a will save for another caster
5) Apply Battle Medicine
6) Demoralize Enemies
7) Analyze the Battlefield and identify enemies.
There's just so much that an Inventor can do, and the ability to throw away a bad Strategic Strike is amazing.
In addition, if they know in advance that their stratagem is a crit, they can apply talismans to their attacks to take advantage of it.
Hmm
I'm also thinking in terms of, what if I build my fighter or barbarian to have a slightly broader and flatter stat array with more 16s rather than a single 18 and a couple 14s. is that really such an issue
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At its simplest, there is something that the class does better than ANY other class (or, by now with the plethora of classes, better than all but 1 or 2 other classes).So, for example, the fighter is the best in the game for accuracy. Nothing can beat it.
I'm not sure how much I'd call that niche protection.
It's something Fighters are good at, but it's not explicitly a unique ability or skill. It's more just another way to create a combat mechanic.
I feel like that's less niche protection than say... Perception scaling. There are traps and hazards that you will simply never be able to spot if you're a Cleric or Champion or whatever, because certain proficiency bumps are the sole property of a couple specific classes. In that case there are real gameplay limitations being imposed on you in order to make Rogues (and rangers, investigators, gunslingers) more special.
and if they don't get off their strategic strike, they can:
I mean they can, but a lot of those things are either not particularly amazing (like attacking with no martial mechanic, or using a cantrip without even full proficiency).
Or things anyone can do on their own anyways without the penalties. And it's not like Investigators are blowing things up when their mechanic does work really either.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know a +1 is a lot more significant with the critical success/failure rules, but it the math in PF2 really so tight that you hamstring yourself if your attack ability modifier starts 1 point below the ability increase soft cap instead of at?My general understanding is:
- Starting with an 18 attack stat is great!
- Starting with a 16 attack stat is perfectly fine (there's literally no mechanical difference versus a starting 18 for half the game)
- Starting with a 14 or less attack stat is likely to be an issue...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I have with the "just use an attack cantrip" as an option for an investigator who rolled badly on their strategic strike is that there isn't an option to get those in the class. Sure, you can get cantrips from some ancestries, but not every ancestry gets cantrip access and the tools to make a class work should come with the class.
Like Rogues get "Minor Magic" as a level 2 feat, but Investigators don't and this might be an oversight.