I had a player drop Heaven's Thunder because it was nerfed. It didn't matter to him that it was still plus 6 damage for a [i]greater striking weapon[i] versus the previous plus 14 that he refused to take it. He wasn't able to find anything better, but purely fueled by nerf rage refused to take it.
Just strange how emotionally driven we are as a group.
I had a player drop Heaven's Thunder because it was nerfed. It didn't matter to him that it was still plus 6 damage for a [i]greater striking weapon[i] versus the previous plus 14 that he refused to take it. He wasn't able to find anything better, but purely fueled by nerf rage refused to take it.
Just strange how emotionally driven we are as a group.
It was marked for errata for ages, so I don't get it.
Just strange how emotionally driven we are as a group.
Didn't I just read a post from you that said feelings don't matter only data?
For the record. Feelings drive sales. They are very important. Many good products have been killed by bad feelings.
Just strange how emotionally driven we are as a group.Didn't I just read a post from you that said feelings don't matter only data?
For the record. Feelings drive sales. They are very important. Many good products have been killed by bad feelings.
My comment was more humanity as a whole. Egocentric and emotionally driven creatures. The damage on Heaven's Thunder is still a great option for a monk, but because it isn't what the player had been accustomed to he let his rage at the nerf affect his judgment.
That is in my opinion what drives this group of people claiming casters are weaker. They had a certain expectation of casters from across editions of D&D to the apex of caster power in PF1 and 3E which was so ludicrous that it made the game virtually unplayable at high level without severe modification.
Thus the same folks keep on making threads about caster damage, when if you take the time to write down data across battles with a caster focusing on doing damage you find their damage is equivalent to martial damage with ups and downs based on critical fails or successes.
That's why game designers cannot rely on feelings overly much. They have to go by data. Someone telling them somethings feels terrible when the data is showing they are clearly competing mechanically with other classes and the feeling is primarily driven by the heavily imbalanced power level of casters in PF1 should not drive Paizo to suddenly toss out balance because something feels bad to a handful of people.
We were running through Kingmaker the other day at round level 9 or 10. We came upon a group of fiends. A few banishes later a few of the fiends were gone. Martials can't do that, but casters can. Five fiends reduced to two, but no damage to show for it. Then we fought a CR 11 elemental and a critical fail on a banish and it was gone. 195 hit points of creature gone. Is that better or worse than a martial critical hit at level 10 with a striking weapon?
I understand feelings are important for humans. But they must also be backed up by data and design goals. If the design goal is balanced casters, then they cannot be expected to do every aspect of the game well. Or what's the point of playing a martial? That is definitely what it felt like at high level in PF1. In PF2 it just means sometimes martials do the most damage, sometimes casters do depending on the luck of the dice. And that's how it should be.
So, would this be something like a fey eidolon build? I've been interested in that recently.
And is it better to have a dex eidolon do a cantrip rather than Two melee attacks?
Not at all. The caster Summoner is based on the Summoner casting (in general Electric Arc, and slotted spells when they are needed) and the Eidolon attacking (in general from range, but from melee, too, when it's interesting).
So you can play with absolutely any Dex-based Eidolon and base your Eidolon choice on roleplay reasons mostly (the Angel and Anger Phantom are a bit better but it's really not a big difference).