And when I use 'whiteroom theorycrafting' as a derogatory, it is because people are not accounting for the practical needs of actual gameplay. They are instead basing their analysis on an ideal turn - which rarely, if ever, actually happens.
Well one wild thing about math is that you can look at the numbers for a bad turn, an average turn, or a perfect turn freely. In fact, most of the routines being discussed are specifically suboptimal turns because those are more practical to look at. You can also consider how likely each outcome is to happen when doing your analysis (a 'perfect turn' is much more consistent for my shortbow archer than my greatsword magus, for instance, so when looking at both, I put less weight on a perfect turn for the magus) and factor that into your judgements.
Math is pretty cool like that.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well one wild thing about math is that you can look at the numbers for a bad turn, an average turn, or a perfect turn freely.
Math is pretty cool like that.
Which leads back to the point that Sanityfaerie was trying to make - that not everyone does that. There are people who rely on the tool and take whatever numbers the tool gives without any further analysis.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but in PF2 generalists are as good as the weakest weakness of their oposition, which is often very very weak, while a specialist is only as strong as the enemies weakness that faces their specialized strength, which, when facing a higher level enemy in particular, can easily exceed the specialists strength.
One piece missing from the equation here is that the generalist is usually starting from behind to begin with, which often means most or all of the advantage gained by exploiting a weakness is eaten up by the catchup. The generalist might not always have the right specific tool for the job, either, which can be pretty devastating given that they're playing catchup to begin with.
PF2 Encounter design is usually not that lopsided either. There are gimmick enemies that break the mold, but by and large the game is set up in such a way that the specialist gets to do their thing with a solid degree of reliability. They get the privilege of engaging the game on their own terms and are largely rewarded for it, while the generalist is forced to juggle options and flounders if they don't happen to have a specific solution to a specific problem.
PF2 Encounter design is usually not that lopsided either. There are gimmick enemies that break the mold, but by and large the game is set up in such a way that the specialist gets to do their thing with a solid degree of reliability. They get the privilege of engaging the game on their own terms and are largely rewarded for it, while the generalist is forced to juggle options and flounders if they don't happen to have a specific solution to a specific problem.
I largely agree with this. I think it is not as bad for generalists as you are making it out to be, and I think that specialist do tend to dominate what they are supposed to.
However, I think players really notice the times where their specialization get over run by an enemy's strength that exceeds their own specialization and that is where the salty player feelings tend to come from with specialist characters. Generalist characters probably do get saltiest with GMs that don't give enough information with advanced research and recall knowledge, as well as feeling pushed to always rush ahead into encounters without doing their information gathering first.
Hurt feelings can happen either way for sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which leads back to the point that Sanityfaerie was trying to make - that not everyone does that. There are people who rely on the tool and take whatever numbers the tool gives without any further analysis.Well one wild thing about math is that you can look at the numbers for a bad turn, an average turn, or a perfect turn freely.
Math is pretty cool like that.
Or people who will make broad claims about how bombs objectively suck, because they have charts to show that their single target damage is sub-par to other ranged martial routines, without asking the question of whether single target damage is the point of a bomb focused attack routine. Obviously, if you want to be a bomber who does devastating damage with bombs against single targets, then the answer is "yes, this is a sub-optimal build for your character goals." But isn't this the same thing as point out that focusing on knives as fighter is not going to result in the highest damage tank character?
Obviously, if you want to be a bomber who does devastating damage with bombs against single targets, then the answer is "yes, this is a sub-optimal build for your character goals." But isn't this the same thing as point out that focusing on knives as fighter is not going to result in the highest damage tank character?
* Although persistent damage can be incredibly effective at killing some very difficult single targets when everyone else's primary plan gets tossed out the window.
The problem you are experience is thematic blasting rather than general spell casting blasting. Overwhelming creatures immune to your damage type just isn’t really possible in PF2. Good blasters in PF2 target different defenses and do different damage types. I think the pure elemental sorcerer defaults to bludgeoning mostly because of this problem (as will the kineticist) and that fire only damage will often be fine, but occasionally completely overwhelmed in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or people who will make broad claims about how bombs objectively suck, because they have charts to show that their single target damage is sub-par to other ranged martial routines, without asking the question of whether single target damage is the point of a bomb focused attack routine. Obviously, if you want to be a bomber who does devastating damage with bombs against single targets, then the answer is "yes, this is a sub-optimal build for your character goals." But isn't this the same thing as point out that focusing on knives as fighter is not going to result in the highest damage tank character?
The issue is that there isn't a bomber build that is actually good at single-target damage and that even their AoE can feel outclassed by a spellcaster who's prepared the right elemental damage AoE. The fantasy of the bomber isn't that of a character that uses a crossbow, hands out elixirs, and also throws bombs. So it only makes sense that people will point to damage charts when talking about the ways in which the alchemist doesn't work for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any tips or hints on playing a proper blaster? I have always wanted to play a fire mage. I've looked at Flame Oracle, Elemental Fire Sorcerer, Flame Druid...etc..
Wait a few months for Rage of Elements, and hope you get lucky with the kineticist. They've said that they'll try to give us a way to build a satisfying elemental blaster out of a kineticist on top of everything else, but we're going to have to wait until it lands to see if they actually succeeded.
My go-to example of what I mean for that is the people who value Flurry Ranger so much higher than Precision Ranger because it does so much more damage when you hit with 4 attacks in a round.
Sure, Flurry is good. But do a more realistic comparison. Compare two actions from Flurry (three attacks, two of them being with an agile weapon with likely only two of them connecting), with two actions from Precision (two attacks with a 2-hand weapon with likely only one of them connecting).
That as the example of what you mean makes a lot of sense, thanks.
I feel like this is just you/your party. And every time, it's something ghost touch related and every time, it's brought up how absolutely trivial that is to bypass given all the non-rune sources of ghost touch that exist.I think it is constructs, Oozes, Fiends and undead pretty commonly, although certain elementals do it a lot too, which ends up being a lot of encounters that can prove difficult with resistance and trying to power your way through them with brute force.
Fiends and undead I'd file under "skill issue" past the early levels. It's easy to bypass ghost touch, silver and cold iron, if it's something you're cognizant about.
Oozes are essentially a hard counter to certain characters and little more than a punching bag to others.
Constructs, yes. Near universal phys resistance all over the place.
The question then, is if expending money on bombs is a damage increase over just beating on said opponent, more cost-effective than silversheen, cold iron upgrades or ghost touch access, or if it's better to just beat on the enemy.
Level 7ish. Assume resist 5. Fighter hits for 9(2d8)+4(19str)+3(weapon specialization) reduced to 11 physical and 4(1d6) energy damage for a total of 15 damage. Alch fire is 9(2d8)+2 with, let's assume, persistent damage that ticks twice for a total of 15 damage. +/- 0 is not a good look when extra money and actions need to be spent. Looks better at range when considering 11 total vs 15 but loses on action economy. At higher levels you see resist 10 and resist 15, but extra damage dice and energy runes on top of modifier and weapon specialization progression outscale it.
Conclusion, maybe against oozes, when they're immune to your damage, but not vs constructs. Vs fiends or undead, bypass is trivial.
It happened last night in a newish campaign with level 1 characters against Lemure Devils. The party rushed forward towards the 3 lemures, The rogue got surrounded and dropped in the first round. The rest of the fight was the party getting knocked down and trying to get back up again and then just a chase encounter to see if the party could escape. Lemures are a level 0 creature with a movement 20. They could have been pretty easily kited or trapped in a bottle neck, but the impetus to surround a target over take an early defensive position and be prepared to throw some ranged attacks/feel out the enemies strengths and weaknesses very nearly ended in a TPK...again. I think there are many tables that struggle to learn that lesson.
Hell's rebels conversion or home game? Outside of some truly bad luck, a competent party of 4 should be able to blow through 1 Lemure a round easily. Can't help poor positioning and bad luck though.
Any tips or hints on playing a proper blaster? I have always wanted to play a fire mage. I've looked at Flame Oracle, Elemental Fire Sorcerer, Flame Druid...etc..
Sorcerer is the best blaster in my opinion even if I have heard a lot of praise for the Druid. Psychic works also if you choose Silent Whisper. Otherwise, don't focus on a single element, as immunities will just block you. And don't hesitate to use your spell slots, blasts work better as a couple.
I don't think I'll qualify the Kineticist as a blaster from what I've seen (which is just experience as I haven't looked at the class closely). I felt it was closer to an elemental martial. But I can't tell what the final result will be.
Any tips or hints on playing a proper blaster? I have always wanted to play a fire mage. I've looked at Flame Oracle, Elemental Fire Sorcerer, Flame Druid...etc..Sorcerer is the best blaster in my opinion even if I have heard a lot of praise for the Druid. Psychic works also if you choose Silent Whisper. Otherwise, don't focus on a single element, as immunities will just block you. And don't hesitate to use your spell slots, blasts work better as a couple.
I don't think I'll qualify the Kineticist as a blaster from what I've seen (which is just experience as I haven't looked at the class closely). I felt it was closer to an elemental martial. But I can't tell what the final result will be.
Yeah, sorcerer and psychic can work well. As to the Kineticist, there where a reasonable amount of area attack options so it might fit the bill once out.
I don't think I'll qualify the Kineticist as a blaster from what I've seen (which is just experience as I haven't looked at the class closely). I felt it was closer to an elemental martial. But I can't tell what the final result will be.
Yeah. I'll agree that the playtest kineticist wasn't a blaster, for a few reasons. In their post-playtest wrap-up, though, they stated that they were going to make the basic elemental blast less like a weapon and more like the rest of the kineticist powers, and they said that they were going to try to give viable options for people who wanted a kineticist that was more focused on DPR.
So... we'll see. Personally, I'm at "cautiously optimistic".
Level 7ish. Assume resist 5. Fighter hits for 9(2d8)+4(19str)+3(weapon specialization) reduced to 11 physical and 4(1d6) energy damage for a total of 15 damage. Alch fire is 9(2d8)+2 with, let's assume, persistent damage that ticks twice for a total of 15 damage. +/- 0 is not a good look when extra money and actions need to be spent. Looks better at range when considering 11 total vs 15 but loses on action economy.
This is somewhat disingenuous. You're comparing a Melee Strike with a Ranged Strike. Also, you're forgetting that the Fighter in question would still apply Weapon Specialization to the Bomb, just at the Expert Level not the Master.
So, the Moderate Alchemist's Fire would be doing 2d8+2 main damage + 2 Fire Splash + 2 Persistent Fire. So, should the GM fail the flat check, that would be 17 points of unresisted fire damage. The odds of failing the flat check twice is around 49%, which is why you'll often see folks say that Persistent damage hits 3 times on average. So, potentially 19 pts from that one Bomb should the fight last that long.
Now, you're absolutely correct about the opportunity cost, and yeah, you're probably better off with finding ways to get around the resistance with your usual Melee Strikes. But the Bomb is still ahead by a little bit.
Level 7ish. Assume resist 5. Fighter hits for 9(2d8)+4(19str)+3(weapon specialization) reduced to 11 physical and 4(1d6) energy damage for a total of 15 damage. Alch fire is 9(2d8)+2 with, let's assume, persistent damage that ticks twice for a total of 15 damage. +/- 0 is not a good look when extra money and actions need to be spent. Looks better at range when considering 11 total vs 15 but loses on action economy.This is somewhat disingenuous. You're comparing a Melee Strike with a Ranged Strike. Also, you're forgetting that the Fighter in question would still apply Weapon Specialization to the Bomb, just at the Expert Level not the Master.
So, the Moderate Alchemist's Fire would be doing 2d8+2 main damage + 2 Fire Splash + 2 Persistent Fire. So, should the GM fail the flat check, that would be 17 points of unresisted fire damage. The odds of failing the flat check twice is around 49%, which is why you'll often see folks say that Persistent damage hits 3 times on average. So, potentially 19 pts from that one Bomb should the fight last that long.
Now, you're absolutely correct about the opportunity cost, and yeah, you're probably better off with finding ways to get around the resistance with your usual Melee Strikes. But the Bomb is still ahead by a little bit.
Good catch on the weapon spec for bombs too, though I did include the ranged number too. For ease of calculation, let's just consider the persistent damage as part of the base regular and splash damage. So over two rounds, accounting for a base 60% hit rate and spending 2 actions each round on offense, gives us 21 vs 21 on single target with bombs getting a little more with extra targets to splash. They remain fairly close with additional rounds.
The 6 action routine bombs need to be thrown 3 times in two rounds (throw,draw,throw -> draw, throw, draw -> repeat) vs bow x6. The 6 action rotation works out much better for the bomber with something like 23 vs 28, but 6 action routines are a little difficult to manage.
So it comes down to how often you think you can manage the 6 action set or if you think the splash damage is worth it.
Yeah, but energy mutagen is common now (or will be, shortly). Why bother with bombs and quick bomber when you can dose yourself once (potentially as a prebuff) and be done with it.But by that logic literally all other classes have ways to do the exact same thing better by just spending a few pieces of gold.And a lot of feats. I don't think there are many Fighters who want to invest in Alchemist Dedication for Quick Bomber. So, that logic is flawed. The Alchemist is its own thing and not an item dispenser (unless you consider that throwing bombs is "dispensing them").
I forgot to react on that: Energy Mutagen gives you a vulnerability to 3 energy types. The most common weaknesses (Fire and Cold) are also opposite (most Cold weak enemies deal fire damage, and many Fire weak enemies deal cold damage), making Energy Mutagen a very bad idea to exploit those weaknesses.
That's why I'm reluctant on using it with my Alchemist. It's excellent on paper, but when you look at it closely you realize you can hardly use the resistance and the extra damage simultaneously, and that trying to trigger a weakness has great chances to also expose a weakness.
I forgot to react on that: Energy Mutagen gives you a vulnerability to 3 energy types. The most common weaknesses (Fire and Cold) are also opposite (most Cold weak enemies deal fire damage, and many Fire weak enemies deal cold damage), making Energy Mutagen a very bad idea to exploit those weaknesses.
That's why I'm reluctant on using it with my Alchemist. It's excellent on paper, but when you look at it closely you realize you can hardly use the resistance and the extra damage simultaneously, and that trying to trigger a weakness has great chances to also expose a weakness.
The weakness 5 is annoying, but hardly a deal breaker. It's a comparatively tiny amount of extra incoming damage (if the enemies even do energy damage) and scales nicely as enemy weakness increases while yours does not.
If you consider something like the barbarian playable despite all the extra incoming damage from extra hits and crits, 5 flat damage should be an easy sell, especially when the extra damage from the mutagen and weakness are straight up greater than what rage brings to the table.
Of course, if you have that kind of foreknowledge on enemy damage type, nothing is stopping you from dosing yourself for resistance if you'd rather take less damage instead. Certainly more cost effective than scrolls of 4th level resist energy for the cheap level 3 version.
Energy mutagen works ok for triggering weaknesses, but is terrible for the purpose of overcoming resistances. It only adds a little extra damage to the attack, it doesn't flatly change the damage type. If the Barbarian is running up against something that is resisting 10 physical damage, it is not a solution that is going to help.
Now, Barbarians as a class actually have quite a few work arounds here, including multiple options for making all of the their damage another type, probably because switching to bombs for a barbarian is probably not a very feasible option. But rogues, fighters, rangers, swashbucklers, investigators and most other martials that rely on accuracy and precision damage riders are the ones who can really feel deflated when resistances and immunities stack up to large numbers, and most of them can afford to cary and use bombs pretty effectively.
You don't use energy mutagen to bypass resistance. That comment was in regard to triggering weaknesses. Though I fail to understand how adding 1d4 unresisted damage isn't effectively equivalent to overcoming resistance. Or did you miss the part of energy mutagen where it says the damage done is of the attuned type?
That said, melee already beats bombs vs weakness 5. Ranged beats it on base damage calculation when considering 2 action routines (I actually lowballed the damage since I was using bow fighter as my base and didn't apply it's accuracy bonus) despite a lower base so it should be plain melee would straight up pull ahead.
Against resist 10, ranged falls right out, but melee is still ahead. You don't actually see bombs be a good alternative to melee until resist 15, assuming you're still pre-10. And this is just fighter without any damage bonus aside from their own stats. Barbarian isn't going to have any issue punching through resist and monk and ranger flurry and hunted shot gives them a real chance to punch through as well. Same goes for double slice builds but that's getting a little too granular. Energy mutagen on top would just guarentee it, even for melee thief, but likely not any other precision character.
So sure, maybe pick up bombs for a couple levels on ranged characters when you think you might encounter resist phys 10 until you hit level 10 and get that second energy rune and +1 accuracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to toss out there... if you're fighting multiple things that have weakness to a given damage type, then that splash damage suddenly becomes a lot more meaningful, especially if you're playing as a bomber and have the increased area to play with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How often do people in these things factor in AoE when calculating these things? My alchemist quite often hits about 3-4 enemies for like 10 damage each just off the splash; not even counting direct hits when doing a turn that's just quick alchemcy > bomb > bomb.
The second bomb almost never hits, but it's free real estate for damage.
Like, I won't be winning the DPR olympics and time soon, but I'd kinda hope the fighter whos main class feature is "hit things real hard" would outpace me for damage
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bombs are one of the few weapons that can't be used without supporting feats. Carrying a bomb on a martial past the very first levels won't get you very far.
The weakness 5 is annoying, but hardly a deal breaker. It's a comparatively tiny amount of extra incoming damage (if the enemies even do energy damage) and scales nicely as enemy weakness increases while yours does not.
It's definitely a deal breaker before high levels. Paying money on a consumable to roughly break even is not interesting at all. But anyway, if you properly rune your weapon, you should be able to exploit at least Fire and Good weaknesses by the time you get to high level. Exploiting Weaknesses with martials is only a single digit levels issue.
My alchemist quite often hits about 3-4 enemies for like 10 damage each just off the splash
Quite often? Or just once in a blue moon? It never happened to my Alchemist. Clearly, if you don't exploit a Weakness, Splash is not interesting at all (damage is too low, it also affects your allies, so most Bombers disable splash by default). So you need to exploit a weakness which happens roughly 15% of the fights. And enemies have to be cramped together as you speak of 3-4 enemies, which is a rare sight, too). Overall, it won't happen 5% of the fights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My alchemist quite often hits about 3-4 enemies for like 10 damage each just off the splashQuite often? Or just once in a blue moon? It never happened to my Alchemist. Clearly, if you don't exploit a Weakness, Splash is not interesting at all (damage is too low, it also affects your allies, so most Bombers disable splash by default). So you need to exploit a weakness which happens roughly 15% of the fights. And enemies have to be cramped together as you speak of 3-4 enemies, which is a rare sight, too). Overall, it won't happen 5% of the fights.
No, when I say quite often, I actually mean quite often. What I described was lobbing two bombs. My character is a bomber with expanded splash; 1 (splash of a lesser bomb) plus 5 (my int mod) is 6; times two is 12; to every enemy in a 15 foot radius out from the target.
The frontliners in my group wear backfire mantles (which I helped craft) while my mid and backliners... aren't close enough to get splashed. Even in medium sized maps, its not hard to catch 2 or 3 additional enemies when you can go 15 ft out; plus my allies do this crazy thing called teamwork to corral them together. Now, 12 damage doesn't SOUND super awesome, but 12 damage, every turn, to most of the enemies certainly adds up. Even before the backfire mantle; I just use ice bombs since one of my teammates is a winter catfolk and the other I just gave an energy mutagen in exploration turns and told them to drink it it turn 1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, when I say quite often, I actually mean quite often. What I described was lobbing two bombs. My character is a bomber with expanded splash; 1 (splash of a lesser bomb) plus 5 (my int mod) is 6; times two is 12; to every enemy in a 15 foot radius out from the target.
You just forgot to point out that it was at level 13+. Normal bombers don't get many enemies inside their splash, hence our difference in experience.
The frontliners in my group wear backfire mantles
Mine, too. But I deal more splash than what they block. And there's also the issue of all the pets who can't get one.
Level 8 backfire mantle is resistance 10; which blocks all damage
As far as pets; well, the game is based on teamwork; and not all techniques work for all parties. You can also just feed the pet an energy mutagen, cast resist energy, etc. That'll lower the damage or block it entirely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't gone with Backfire Mantles because my Bomber is PFS and I don't feel right handing out magic items to strangers saying "Wear this, Invest it, look after it, I need it back when we're done."
However, Directional Bombs has been brilliant at getting some extra targets into Splash territory while leaving my allies alone. I used to think it wasn't right that the Cone area never grew with Expanded Splash or the Greater Field Discovery, but after playing with it for four levels I've changed my mind. The size is just right for being creative about what gets Splashed and what doesn't.