Top Ten things I'd like to see addressed in pathfinder 2023

[gesalt]

3-Body Problem wrote:

Verisimilitude. If we're saying that it takes so much effort for a fighter to keep their shield up maintaining a specific stance should take at least that much effort.

I'm guessing not being able to give Aerith a phoenix down back in '97 hurt you deeply huh? That's the kind of system pf2e is. It's a game system where the mechanics and the flavor/setting and physics are almost wholly divorced from one another in an effort to provide a balanced environment. Whether it succeeds or not, if that's not the game style you're looking for then you are probably better served by a system geared more toward whatever you're looking for.

PF2E is much more enjoyable when you treat it as a video game instead of as your typical TTRPG.

[HumbleGamer]

Jacob Jett wrote:

Regarding progressions: overall, it would be more balanced if most things advanced choc-a-bloc but then folks would complain about blandness. Imbalance (perceived and otherwise) is ultimately directly proportional to the amount of choices (i.e., system complexity) one encodes into one's game system.

I think it's related to choices and alternatives, but not necessarily.

For example, check the champion lvl 2 and lvl 4 feats.
There are different feats, but 90% of them doesn't enhance your gameplay in any way.

Having modifiers to saving throws, attacks or damage doesn't give you alternatives in terms of gameplay. It's just boring ( but sometimes you have to get those because passive bonuses are too good ).

Dedications/archetypes have a similar issue, being ( in the majority of cases ) tax feats.

Jacob Jett wrote:

PF2 could be even more balanced if it had just (and only) three classes--warrior, magic-user, and expert. As soon as you start to make things more complex balance starts going out the window. And if one compares the starting points, progression way points, and terminal points of all of the current classes then the imbalances begin to come into focus. Alchemist remains the exception that proves the rule that the system qua its current state, has a balance problem. They simply get less across the board, almost like they were originally intended as an NPC support class. To me, providing a player a lesser, second class choice does not good balance make. Fortunately, it is easily fixed.

I feel somehow the same ( I tend to reason in a similar way ), though this would make 2e a totally different game.

In addition to this, the more the choices, the less the balance.
But people demand new things and personalization, and this, the more the time passes, brings far from the initial balance ( for example, we can see this if we look at the 2019 2e and 2023 2e, how the game changed ).

The major issue remain that paizo has not much interest in fixing this, and that except some patches per year what's published is what we have to deal with.

[Deriven Firelion]

gesalt wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

Verisimilitude. If we're saying that it takes so much effort for a fighter to keep their shield up maintaining a specific stance should take at least that much effort.

I'm guessing not being able to give Aerith a phoenix down back in '97 hurt you deeply huh? That's the kind of system pf2e is. It's a game system where the mechanics and the flavor/setting and physics are almost wholly divorced from one another in an effort to provide a balanced environment. Whether it succeeds or not, if that's not the game style you're looking for then you are probably better served by a system geared more toward whatever you're looking for.

PF2E is much more enjoyable when you treat it as a video game instead of as your typical TTRPG.

I don't find it more enjoyable that way.

I do understand balance is necessary to create the illusion of challenge in fights and make running the game easier for those of us that want a game where death or defeat feels like a possibility.

[Temperans]

gesalt wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

Verisimilitude. If we're saying that it takes so much effort for a fighter to keep their shield up maintaining a specific stance should take at least that much effort.

I'm guessing not being able to give Aerith a phoenix down back in '97 hurt you deeply huh? That's the kind of system pf2e is. It's a game system where the mechanics and the flavor/setting and physics are almost wholly divorced from one another in an effort to provide a balanced environment. Whether it succeeds or not, if that's not the game style you're looking for then you are probably better served by a system geared more toward whatever you're looking for.

PF2E is much more enjoyable when you treat it as a video game instead of as your typical TTRPG.

It being more like a video game is not a plus. Its hardly a neutral, and more often than not a negative.c

Now, whether you like it or not, that's up to you, but you cannot say its good.

(I know I like many ideas it has, but it being a video game/board game is not one of them)

[3-Body Problem]

gesalt wrote:

I'm guessing not being able to give Aerith a phoenix down back in '97 hurt you deeply huh? That's the kind of system pf2e is. It's a game system where the mechanics and the flavor/setting and physics are almost wholly divorced from one another in an effort to provide a balanced environment. Whether it succeeds or not, if that's not the game style you're looking for then you are probably better served by a system geared more toward whatever you're looking for.

PF2E is much more enjoyable when you treat it as a video game instead of as your typical TTRPG.

I generally dislike the video game trope where different rules apply within cutscenes and gameplay. Your characters either become made of glass and tissue paper or tease you about how cool your characters could be if the game mechanics weren't so stiff and limiting. Give me in-engine cutscenes and logical power scaling over a bunch of nonsense any day.

Squiggit wrote:

And you think this would make the monk class more fun? More engaging to play?

Does raising a shield make a fighter more engaging to play? Apply whatever your answer here is to the monk stances.

Quote:

Well there's your problem. Mechanics are important.

The mechanics could be done differently though. The fighter could start knowing several stances that they spend an action entering depending on how they need to fight. One of those could be a defensive stance that requires a shield and 1-handed weapon to function.

The martial classes should use the same system (stances) with various feats, bonuses, and stance-related actions that serve to make each class play differently.

[The-Magic-Sword]

gesalt wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

Verisimilitude. If we're saying that it takes so much effort for a fighter to keep their shield up maintaining a specific stance should take at least that much effort.

I'm guessing not being able to give Aerith a phoenix down back in '97 hurt you deeply huh? That's the kind of system pf2e is. It's a game system where the mechanics and the flavor/setting and physics are almost wholly divorced from one another in an effort to provide a balanced environment. Whether it succeeds or not, if that's not the game style you're looking for then you are probably better served by a system geared more toward whatever you're looking for.

PF2E is much more enjoyable when you treat it as a video game instead of as your typical TTRPG.

There are some really interesting dichotomies at work here, I'm having trouble writing this post because its hard to wrap my brain around the scope. Are we insinuating that realism is core to TTRPGs and that pf2e betrays this more than other TTRPGs because you can't go outside a script as if it was a video game (you know you can absolutely do the equivalent of using a Phoenix Down on Aerith in this game right) because fighters don't have to maintain stances the same way they need to actively maneuver their shield? Should we be using facing as well? Should we be rolling for dysentery?

[Temperans]

Having said what I said, 3-body I think what you are asking for while cool, is never going to happen in PF2.

I know I certainly tried asking for some fixes, but what you are asking to actively change multiple feats, abilities, and design points.

While I agree with some of your ideas, and design point, I think you might be better off putting your ideas into its own rules document and trying to get it published via Pathfinder Unlimited. At least compared to getting heated here over something that likely (if ever) wont see any change until Pathfinder 2e Unchained is released.

********************

Shield needing an action every turn doesn't make more sense just like companions being commanded every turn doesn't make much sense. But it is the rules the game decided (regardless of how nonsense the rule might be).

[Temperans]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

gesalt wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

Verisimilitude. If we're saying that it takes so much effort for a fighter to keep their shield up maintaining a specific stance should take at least that much effort.

I'm guessing not being able to give Aerith a phoenix down back in '97 hurt you deeply huh? That's the kind of system pf2e is. It's a game system where the mechanics and the flavor/setting and physics are almost wholly divorced from one another in an effort to provide a balanced environment. Whether it succeeds or not, if that's not the game style you're looking for then you are probably better served by a system geared more toward whatever you're looking for.

PF2E is much more enjoyable when you treat it as a video game instead of as your typical TTRPG.

There are some really interesting dichotomies at work here, I'm having trouble writing this post because its hard to wrap my brain around the scope. Are we insinuating that realism is core to TTRPGs and that pf2e betrays this more than other TTRPGs because you can't go outside a script as if it was a video game (you know you can absolutely do the equivalent of using a Phoenix Down on Aerith in this game right) because fighters don't have to maintain stances the same way they need to actively maneuver their shield? Should we be using facing as well? Should we be rolling for dysentery?

I believe he is refering to the very real "well it works this way because it is a game forget how it doesn't make sense" that PF2 happily throws around everywhere and that many people seem to support because reasons.

The matter of versimilitude is complicated and very few games get deep into the facing, let alone dysentery. Although funnily enough PF1 did have rules for dysentary (a disease that needed 2 consequitive saves to cure and gave 1d6 nonlethal damage, fatigued, and staggered). The book was Heart of the Jungle and it had some of the early Mwangi Expanse lore, creatures, etc. Including the Angazhani

[The-Magic-Sword]

Temperans wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

gesalt wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

Verisimilitude. If we're saying that it takes so much effort for a fighter to keep their shield up maintaining a specific stance should take at least that much effort.

I'm guessing not being able to give Aerith a phoenix down back in '97 hurt you deeply huh? That's the kind of system pf2e is. It's a game system where the mechanics and the flavor/setting and physics are almost wholly divorced from one another in an effort to provide a balanced environment. Whether it succeeds or not, if that's not the game style you're looking for then you are probably better served by a system geared more toward whatever you're looking for.

PF2E is much more enjoyable when you treat it as a video game instead of as your typical TTRPG.

There are some really interesting dichotomies at work here, I'm having trouble writing this post because its hard to wrap my brain around the scope. Are we insinuating that realism is core to TTRPGs and that pf2e betrays this more than other TTRPGs because you can't go outside a script as if it was a video game (you know you can absolutely do the equivalent of using a Phoenix Down on Aerith in this game right) because fighters don't have to maintain stances the same way they need to actively maneuver their shield? Should we be using facing as well? Should we be rolling for dysentery?

I believe he is refering to the very real "well it works this way because it is a game forget how it doesn't make sense" that PF2 happily throws around everywhere and that many people seem to support because reasons.

The matter of versimilitude is complicated and very few games get deep into the facing, let alone dysentery. Although funnily enough PF1 did have rules for dysentary (a disease that needed 2 consequitive saves to cure and gave 1d6 nonlethal damage, fatigued, and staggered). The book was Heart of the Jungle and it had some of the early Mwangi Expanse lore, creatures, etc. Including the Angazhani

Right, but I guess my question is:

- Why is the action economy of the shield being presented as a load-bearing example in that conflict? Is it just a discussion that we're going to have whenever someone comes across something that offends their sensibility for realism? I think everyone has compromises between gamist and simulationist concerns, but the line here seems somewhat unreasonable in terms of "Well this should work in this other way because I said so" and the implication is that this is somehow ruining the system in some way that hasn't been substantiated beyond a lot of vim and vigor.

[Temperans]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

...

Honestly I have no idea why shields are being used as a hill to die on when its really the least problematic of the "costs an action" issues.

I think this type of discussions will continue as long as things that cost an extra action remain being strictly worse than stuff that doesn't.

Yeah, everyone has compromises, and I have no idea why there is such a battle over the taste of one person.

As for "this is ruining the game" doesn't everyone has one or two things that they think that way about? I think the biggest issue is how much overproportion people are talking about it in this case in a thread that honestly has nothing to do with that. A veritable derail into what is honestly an interesting discussion, just not for this thread.

[Deriven Firelion]

Is there not a stance you can get that keeps your shield in place at all times at higher level? I cannot recall.

[Temperans]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Is there not a stance you can get that keeps your shield in place at all times at higher level? I cannot recall.

Is this a meme? A rhetorical question?

Anyways, yes there is such a feat. I believe the issue was not wanting it to be a feat. But, see my previous posts in this page.

[3-Body Problem]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Why is the action economy of the shield being presented as a load-bearing example in that conflict? Is it just a discussion that we're going to have whenever someone comes across something that offends their sensibility for realism? I think everyone has compromises between gamist and simulationist concerns, but the line here seems somewhat unreasonable in terms of "Well this should work in this other way because I said so" and the implication is that this is somehow ruining the system in some way that hasn't been substantiated beyond a lot of vim and vigor.

I found the shield example to be both egregious and easy to frame against other similar actions.

I also generally dislike the way Paizo has chosen to take a good idea in the 3-action system which should create fun and interactive gameplay and instead has used it as a balancing lever and tax for many post-CRB classes and several items that could otherwise be fun and interesting.

[gesalt]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Is there not a stance you can get that keeps your shield in place at all times at higher level? I cannot recall.

The joke here is that there's nothing special about level 12 that indicates that yes, now is the time for fighter to be allowed to stop paying action taxes on shields. Champion? The defensive martial with a shield subclass? That guy can wait until 20. The whole thing is a little silly

Edit: And yeah I was just referring to how often stuff gets waived off as just being game mechanics. I don't particularly mind either way, but it's definitely been a common cause of mismatched expectations in my experience. So yeah, if it wants to play that way, I'm more than willing to treat it as a board game or video game or whatever above all else. If I want a different experience, I'll go play fate, icon, or some old school system like OSE or literal AD&D 2nd or whatever I'm in the mood to play or learn.

[Deriven Firelion]

That is strange that a fighter could do it at 12 and the champion at 20. That is one thing I find irritating at time about Paizo is missing things like this, then fixing it so slowly as to be forgotten. I wish the game were updated more often like a game with patches.

[3-Body Problem]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

That is strange that a fighter could do it at 12 and the champion at 20. That is one thing I find irritating at time about Paizo is missing things like this, then fixing it so slowly as to be forgotten. I wish the game were updated more often like a game with patches.

I know you know this but given that Paizo has only just started doing regular errata not tied to new print runs that seems unlikely. I'd like to see them have faster content cycles in general with small digital-only releases dropping regularly as compliments to their APs and other books. Smaller companies do these sorts of things so I can't see it being overly difficult for Paizo to drop the occasional 5-page PDF with a bit of fluff and a couple of new items, an archetype, or whatever else they think is neat but doesn't fit the larger scope products they're working on.

[Temperans]

I think it helps expectations that Paizo wont release Pathfinder 2e.1, 2e.2, ... like you would with an actual video game. Expecting video game level of updates is a fool's dream.

(Although the errata have gotten awfully close to that)

[3-Body Problem]

Temperans wrote:

I think it helps expectations that Paizo wont release Pathfinder 2e.1, 2e.2, ... like you would with an actual video game. Expecting video game level of updates is a fool's dream.

(Although the errata have gotten awfully close to that)

There have been companies that have done it. Privateer Press was very active with updates for Warmahordes 3, Gamesworkshop is getting a lot more hands-on with balance for 40k. I know those are different more PvP-focused games but Privateer Press has to be similar to Paizo in size and they managed it while also having plastic to ship.

[Trixleby]

Temperans wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

...

Honestly I have no idea why shields are being used as a hill to die on when its really the least problematic of the "costs an action" issues.

I think this type of discussions will continue as long as things that cost an extra action remain being strictly worse than stuff that doesn't.

Yeah, everyone has compromises, and I have no idea why there is such a battle over the taste of one person.

As for "this is ruining the game" doesn't everyone has one or two things that they think that way about? I think the biggest issue is how much overproportion people are talking about it in this case in a thread that honestly has nothing to do with that. A veritable derail into what is honestly an interesting discussion, just not for this thread.

No. Nothing in PF2E is “ruining the game” for me. I have like 2 points of frustration but they’re so niche I’ve just decided to build different characters and not worry about it. It’s literally fine.

[Arachnofiend]

gesalt wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

Verisimilitude. If we're saying that it takes so much effort for a fighter to keep their shield up maintaining a specific stance should take at least that much effort.

I'm guessing not being able to give Aerith a phoenix down back in '97 hurt you deeply huh? That's the kind of system pf2e is. It's a game system where the mechanics and the flavor/setting and physics are almost wholly divorced from one another in an effort to provide a balanced environment. Whether it succeeds or not, if that's not the game style you're looking for then you are probably better served by a system geared more toward whatever you're looking for.

PF2E is much more enjoyable when you treat it as a video game instead of as your typical TTRPG.

I'd say the opposite, actually. PF2 is very good at keeping its narrative and gameplay connected, it's just not trying to simulate the way the real world works. The system isn't made for HEMA practitioners, it's made for Hercules.

[Temperans]

Arachnofiend wrote:

gesalt wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

Verisimilitude. If we're saying that it takes so much effort for a fighter to keep their shield up maintaining a specific stance should take at least that much effort.

I'm guessing not being able to give Aerith a phoenix down back in '97 hurt you deeply huh? That's the kind of system pf2e is. It's a game system where the mechanics and the flavor/setting and physics are almost wholly divorced from one another in an effort to provide a balanced environment. Whether it succeeds or not, if that's not the game style you're looking for then you are probably better served by a system geared more toward whatever you're looking for.

PF2E is much more enjoyable when you treat it as a video game instead of as your typical TTRPG.

I'd say the opposite, actually. PF2 is very good at keeping its narrative and gameplay connected, it's just not trying to simulate the way the real world works. The system isn't made for HEMA practitioners, it's made for Hercules.

Umm I wouldn't say its made for Hercules or HEMA. If we doubled the level up speed, increased the max level to 30, and add mythic levels, then maybe we would get close.

PF2 is made for Tolkien where the main cast largely don't do much fighting. Something like cutesy grimdark low power high fantasy.

******************
* P.S. Just to be clear, I am saying its too gamist to represent HEMA or anything IRL. Also too low power to represent most mythical characters.

Baba Yaga in PF2 feels like she would be level 30 with 10 mythic tiers. Yeah its that big a difference.

[Deriven Firelion]

PF2 isn't Tolkien. It isn't Hercules either.

PF2 like D&D and all previous similar games is it's own thing. It's own interpretation of fantasy. It pulls from a lot of different sources for inspiration, but it's completely it's own style of fantasy that isn't even well represented in books written for D&D or PF.

It's a big bag of options for players to try to build characters they like while providing a framework for GMs to create challenging encounters against fantasy monsters and situations within a narrative framework where the GM and players provide the means by which the narrative advances.

[gesalt]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I'd say the opposite, actually. PF2 is very good at keeping its narrative and gameplay connected, it's just not trying to simulate the way the real world works. The system isn't made for HEMA practitioners, it's made for Hercules.

Well, the favorite examples that get trot out every time this comes up somewhere are how undead archetype players and undead monsters have very little in common, strix and sprite players all being incapable of basic flight until late game that the creatures are capable of at low levels, weapon wielding monsters not losing their striking damage dice if they lose their weapon (though they lose the accuracy for some reason) and enemies largely following ABP while players are on the loot treadmill.

There are plenty of others and I'm sure most are rooted in balancing, but that's kind of my point. Balance/gameplay outweighing any internal world consistency. Some people hate that. Some don't care. I'll at least acknowledge that it's something the system does.

[3-Body Problem]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I'd say the opposite, actually. PF2 is very good at keeping its narrative and gameplay connected, it's just not trying to simulate the way the real world works. The system isn't made for HEMA practitioners, it's made for Hercules.

Is it though? Even a lax GM is going to have your otherwise capable familiar or animal companion turn into an idiot with a 6-second attention span at the start of every combat. Also, were gnome adoption and military training centers a big thing in the lore? I ask because they seemed to feature in a lot of character backstories for a while there. Then there are the issues gesalt raises.

I don't think PF2 is a very good narrative game and I don't think it tries very hard to be one. It's closer to a tactical puzzle game with dice than anything.

[HumbleGamer]

3-Body Problem wrote:

I don't think PF2 is a very good narrative game and I don't think it tries very hard to be one. It's closer to a tactical puzzle game with dice than anything.

I think the narrative is up to the group, though it's also true that there are systems more towards narrative than others ( and 2e is going in the opposite direction, being mainly tactical ).

Just to say that, taking your pet example, a character could easily make it work without any issue by commanding the pet every round.

It would be like roaming through the battleground with the eyes, then decide what to command to the animal. Then the ranger might stride and strike or hunted shot and recall knowledge. To say some ( there are other characters with companion ).

Choosing not to command the animal, expecting it to act on its own, is just deliberately going against the system ( making some meta assumptions, when there rules are here just for balance purposes ).

After all, if what you care is narrative, you can easily do this with 2e as any other system ( descrbing what happens, the player and the dm, also contributes to making it more real/natural and even epic ).

[Karmagator]

People, you are massively derailing this thread. It would be really appreciated if you moved this discussion to its own thread.

[Errenor]

3-Body Problem wrote:

I found the shield example to be both egregious and easy to frame against other similar actions.

I now have an important question. Do you think that cantrip Shield has to be autocast every turn for free by every spellcaster which has it? I'm sure that every spellcaster which has it has no reason to not cast it. It's just a manifestation of magical power protecting each caster that concerns themselves with their safety enough to fill cantrip slot with Shield.

[3-Body Problem]

Errenor wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

I found the shield example to be both egregious and easy to frame against other similar actions.

I now have an important question. Do you think that cantrip Shield has to be autocast every turn for free by every spellcaster which has it? I'm sure that every spellcaster which has it has no reason to not cast it. It's just a manifestation of magical power protecting each caster that concerns themselves with their safety enough to fill cantrip slot with Shield.

Casting a spell seems more active than simply maintaining a stance which is a basic part of your proficiency as a man-at-arms. That said, I wouldn't generally take issue with defenses ending up even flatter across the board. With mages not being the singularly best classes in the game in this edition, they could probably get mage armor that puts them on par with a top-grade medium armor user as a 2-action cantrip that lasts 1-minute and a 1-action shield cantrip that lasts a round and grants access to a reaction to use it to block like a normal shield. This makes mages defensive if they want to be without making them as passively defensive as a martial character.

[Riddlyn]

3-Body Problem wrote:

Errenor wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

I found the shield example to be both egregious and easy to frame against other similar actions.

I now have an important question. Do you think that cantrip Shield has to be autocast every turn for free by every spellcaster which has it? I'm sure that every spellcaster which has it has no reason to not cast it. It's just a manifestation of magical power protecting each caster that concerns themselves with their safety enough to fill cantrip slot with Shield.

Casting a spell seems more active than simply maintaining a stance which is a basic part of your proficiency as a man-at-arms. That said, I wouldn't generally take issue with defenses ending up even flatter across the board. With mages not being the singularly best classes in the game in this edition, they could probably get mage armor that puts them on par with a top-grade medium armor user as a 2-action cantrip that lasts 1-minute and a 1-action shield cantrip that lasts a round and grants access to a reaction to use it to block like a normal shield. This makes mages defensive if they want to be without making them as passively defensive as a martial character.

The shield cantrip is considered raised when you cast it and it most certainly gives you the shield block reaction

[Errenor]

3-Body Problem wrote:

Errenor wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

I found the shield example to be both egregious and easy to frame against other similar actions.

I now have an important question. Do you think that cantrip Shield has to be autocast every turn for free by every spellcaster which has it? I'm sure that every spellcaster which has it has no reason to not cast it. It's just a manifestation of magical power protecting each caster that concerns themselves with their safety enough to fill cantrip slot with Shield.

Casting a spell seems more active than simply maintaining a stance which is a basic part of your proficiency as a man-at-arms. That said, I wouldn't generally take issue with defenses ending up even flatter across the board. With mages not being the singularly best classes in the game in this edition, they could probably get mage armor that puts them on par with a top-grade medium armor user as a 2-action cantrip that lasts 1-minute and a 1-action shield cantrip that lasts a round and grants access to a reaction to use it to block like a normal shield. This makes mages defensive if they want to be without making them as passively defensive as a martial character.

Well, casting cantrips like breathing is definitely a basic part of your proficiency as a spell caster, and that is the objective truth. Also your solution exactly makes casters as passively defensive as a martial character and without even spending spell slots (Mage Armor is not a cantrip in PF2). Another thing, a top-grade medium armor user is the same as a top-grade light armor user and as a top-grade unarmed user. Only a top-grade heavy armor user gets +1 over this, if I remember correctly (and probably also monk).

The point is, if you want to make this with shield, you also must change all the list of HumbleGamer:
- Cantrip shield
- Using a weapon with the parry trait
- Twin parry
- dueling parry
- mountain stronghold
- raise tome
And then rebalance the entire system, because it's now upended.

[Trixleby]

The two things I'd *love* to see addressed but probably won't be: Better weapon proficiency on the actual summoner and not just all on the Eidolon. Dragon Rider theme with a lance, etc, basically martial character on giant martial beast is the dream, but currently not a thing in this game. Maybe it would break to game to allow it, but I'd still love to see it.

Second thing: medium sized animal form scaling all the way up to 20. Just like normal cat, bear, toad, wolf, etc... some people (like me) probably don't want to become Elementals, or Dragons, or Kaiju or Dinosaurs and just wanna be something normal and fight like that. Let Feral Druids loose without having to get exceedingly big and take on more extravagant forms (if we don't want to).

That's all.

It'll never happen but...I'd like to see it addressed in 2023 :P

[Gaulin]

Half in an attempt to stay on topic and half because it really does bug me, I would love if there was something to help out with higher level hp bloat. No idea how to really fix it, just throw out a bunch of strong higher level feats maybe, idk. But damn do some high and mid level fights take too long since monsters have so much hp (especially if they have some dr or other defensive abilities to make fights take forever). Many times I've built characters that seem fun then compare them at level 20 to a level 20 enemy and they just tickle them, and have to go back to the drawing board. I know there are many builds that do plenty of damage at high level, maybe some ways to bring up the tail end of damage dealers would be ideal.

Definitely my biggest worry with kineticist, I know devs have said they will do more damage but spending a turn doing 10d6 damage (~ 35 when enemy fails) at level 20 (and against a non legendary save) is basically nothing to something with 400 hp.

[HumbleGamer]

Trixleby wrote:

The two things I'd *love* to see addressed but probably won't be: Better weapon proficiency on the actual summoner and not just all on the Eidolon. Dragon Rider theme with a lance, etc, basically martial character on giant martial beast is the dream, but currently not a thing in this game. Maybe it would break to game to allow it, but I'd still love to see it.

I'd like a better combat summoner, but I'd also probably work on the tandem strike feat rather than giving the summoner combatant weapon proficiency .

Something like

1) the summoner also benefits from the boost eidolon buff during tandem strike.
2) the summoner gets a +2 circumstance bonus to their tandem strike attack roll ( +3 when the eidolon hits master weapon proficiency ).

[Jacob Jett]

I'm an old grognard, so I'd like to see some companion, henchperson, hireling/staff, and minion rules. Like how great would it be if it were possible to play a character like the dark lord in overlord who primarily spends most of the game directing a mob of gremlins around the map? I'd also love to see more worked examples (i.e., monsters) that simulate large groups as singular multisquare/hex monsters that just do damage when they attack. E.g., a pike square covers a nine by nine area and has x hit points, reduces in size by y whenever it loses z hit points and deals w damage to everything within reach, basic reflex save to reduce damage. You get the idea.

[WWHsmackdown]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Trixleby wrote:

The two things I'd *love* to see addressed but probably won't be: Better weapon proficiency on the actual summoner and not just all on the Eidolon. Dragon Rider theme with a lance, etc, basically martial character on giant martial beast is the dream, but currently not a thing in this game. Maybe it would break to game to allow it, but I'd still love to see it.

I'd like a better combat summoner, but I'd also probably work on the tandem strike feat rather than giving the summoner combatant weapon proficiency .

Something like

1) the summoner also benefits from the boost eidolon buff during tandem strike.
2) the summoner gets a +2 circumstance bonus to their tandem strike attack roll ( +3 when the eidolon hits master weapon proficiency ).

I really like this. Fixing one feat would be the least intrusive route

[Trixleby]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Trixleby wrote:

The two things I'd *love* to see addressed but probably won't be: Better weapon proficiency on the actual summoner and not just all on the Eidolon. Dragon Rider theme with a lance, etc, basically martial character on giant martial beast is the dream, but currently not a thing in this game. Maybe it would break to game to allow it, but I'd still love to see it.

I'd like a better combat summoner, but I'd also probably work on the tandem strike feat rather than giving the summoner combatant weapon proficiency .

Something like

1) the summoner also benefits from the boost eidolon buff during tandem strike.
2) the summoner gets a +2 circumstance bonus to their tandem strike attack roll ( +3 when the eidolon hits master weapon proficiency ).

Yeah that'd be great honestly.

[Scarablob]

Jacob Jett wrote:

I'm an old grognard, so I'd like to see some companion, henchperson, hireling/staff, and minion rules. Like how great would it be if it were possible to play a character like the dark lord in overlord who primarily spends most of the game directing a mob of gremlins around the map? I'd also love to see more worked examples (i.e., monsters) that simulate large groups as singular multisquare/hex monsters that just do damage when they attack. E.g., a pike square covers a nine by nine area and has x hit points, reduces in size by y whenever it loses z hit points and deals w damage to everything within reach, basic reflex save to reduce damage. You get the idea.

I second that, right now animal companion and eidolon are serviceable (animal companions seems to be a bit on the weaker side, but not so much that they're a detriment, especially if you play with something like free archetype enabled), but summons are just plain bad (be it throught a spell or a ritual), and hirelings seems to simply not exist.

Some more options for summonners (as in caster who use summon spells, not the class) and for using minions in general could only be beneficial.

[Trixleby]

Scarablob wrote:

Jacob Jett wrote:

I'm an old grognard, so I'd like to see some companion, henchperson, hireling/staff, and minion rules. Like how great would it be if it were possible to play a character like the dark lord in overlord who primarily spends most of the game directing a mob of gremlins around the map? I'd also love to see more worked examples (i.e., monsters) that simulate large groups as singular multisquare/hex monsters that just do damage when they attack. E.g., a pike square covers a nine by nine area and has x hit points, reduces in size by y whenever it loses z hit points and deals w damage to everything within reach, basic reflex save to reduce damage. You get the idea.

I second that, right now animal companion and eidolon are serviceable (animal companions seems to be a bit on the weaker side, but not so much that they're a detriment, especially if you play with something like free archetype enabled), but summons are just plain bad (be it throught a spell or a ritual), and hirelings seems to simply not exist.

Some more options for summonners (as in caster who use summon spells, not the class) and for using minions in general could only be beneficial.

I overall disagree. I think it's fine in a video game where all the minions are automated with AI. However I think it's terrible in TTRPGs and literally the only person having fun is the Summoner themselves. Nobody else is having fun on your 20 minute turns while you command each creature to do some menial task. The GM probably isn't having fun as the encounter balance did not account for 10 new creatures on the battlefield. It's just not fun. It's cool in theory, but minion-mancer is boring and un-fun for everyone except the person doing it...so I'd rather just not have it in this game.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Trixleby wrote:

Scarablob wrote:

Jacob Jett wrote:

I'm an old grognard, so I'd like to see some companion, henchperson, hireling/staff, and minion rules. Like how great would it be if it were possible to play a character like the dark lord in overlord who primarily spends most of the game directing a mob of gremlins around the map? I'd also love to see more worked examples (i.e., monsters) that simulate large groups as singular multisquare/hex monsters that just do damage when they attack. E.g., a pike square covers a nine by nine area and has x hit points, reduces in size by y whenever it loses z hit points and deals w damage to everything within reach, basic reflex save to reduce damage. You get the idea.

I second that, right now animal companion and eidolon are serviceable (animal companions seems to be a bit on the weaker side, but not so much that they're a detriment, especially if you play with something like free archetype enabled), but summons are just plain bad (be it throught a spell or a ritual), and hirelings seems to simply not exist.

Some more options for summonners (as in caster who use summon spells, not the class) and for using minions in general could only be beneficial.

I overall disagree. I think it's fine in a video game where all the minions are automated with AI. However I think it's terrible in TTRPGs and literally the only person having fun is the Summoner themselves. Nobody else is having fun on your 20 minute turns while you command each creature to do some menial task. The GM probably isn't having fun as the encounter balance did not account for 10 new creatures on the battlefield. It's just not fun. It's cool in theory, but minion-mancer is boring and un-fun for everyone except the person doing it...so I'd rather just not have it in this game.

The decision to have summoned creatures was already made, we're just discussing the tuning.

[Scarablob]

Trixleby wrote:

I overall disagree. I think it's fine in a video game where all the minions are automated with AI. However I think it's terrible in TTRPGs and literally the only person having fun is the Summoner themselves. Nobody else is having fun on your 20 minute turns while you command each creature to do some menial task. The GM probably isn't having fun as the encounter balance did not account for 10 new creatures on the battlefield. It's just not fun. It's cool in theory, but minion-mancer is boring and un-fun for everyone except the person doing it...so I'd rather just not have it in this game.

I don't see how "summonning spell should be better, and minions in general should have more options" turned into "we need summon spells to summon 10 more creatures" for you.

[Jacob Jett]

Trixleby wrote:

I overall disagree. I think it's fine in a video game where all the minions are automated with AI. However I think it's terrible in TTRPGs and literally the only person having fun is the Summoner themselves. Nobody else is having fun on your 20 minute turns while you command each creature to do some menial task. The GM probably isn't having fun as the encounter balance did not account for 10 new creatures on the battlefield. It's just not fun. It's cool in theory, but minion-mancer is boring and un-fun for everyone except the person doing it...so I'd rather just not have it in this game.

Sorry, but agree to disagree, mostly due to the lack of imagination and completely overboard hyperbole I see here. I've never seen summons take more than 5 minutes let alone 20. YMMV but this is not the hill I'd die on. Why not, instead of shooting down every idea you don't like, imagine how this problem might be solved? Also, probably useful to always remember rule 0--all the other rules are optional and mutable.

IMO, Paizo devs have already solved this problem. A level 11 animal could just as easily be a pack (swarm) of wolves, which in effect remains as a single creature, as it is a deadly mantis. This is an elegant solution that's already deployed in the game's system to represent "multiple" summons.

P.S. Saying X is "unfun for everyone except the person doing it" literally applies to every class and activity in the game. One friend I used to play with had a real problem with their amount of idle-time during games but when you've a group of 5 or 6 people, people do need to take turns. IMO your problem seems to be more about idle time than summons per se. Idle time is going to happen regardless, so I'd get used to it.

[Errenor]

Jacob Jett wrote:

I'd also love to see more worked examples (i.e., monsters) that simulate large groups as singular multisquare/hex monsters that just do damage when they attack. E.g., a pike square covers a nine by nine area and has x hit points, reduces in size by y whenever it loses z hit points and deals w damage to everything within reach, basic reflex save to reduce damage. You get the idea.

Ehm. Check these out:

Troop
Swarm

[Deriven Firelion]

I've seen summons take a long time to sort out, probably 10 to 20 minutes. Master Summoner was a nightmare to run and an annoyance to the other players due to time taken each turn positioning and attacking with so many creatures.

[Saedar]

Jacob Jett wrote:

I'm an old grognard, so I'd like to see some companion, henchperson, hireling/staff, and minion rules. Like how great would it be if it were possible to play a character like the dark lord in overlord who primarily spends most of the game directing a mob of gremlins around the map? I'd also love to see more worked examples (i.e., monsters) that simulate large groups as singular multisquare/hex monsters that just do damage when they attack. E.g., a pike square covers a nine by nine area and has x hit points, reduces in size by y whenever it loses z hit points and deals w damage to everything within reach, basic reflex save to reduce damage. You get the idea.

Related desire: stronghold building expanded out beyond what was in Kingmaker. Maybe play with scale, too. We have some rules for a growing city already, but gimme my wizard tower and thieves guild rules.

[graystone]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I've seen summons take a long time to sort out, probably 10 to 20 minutes. Master Summoner was a nightmare to run and an annoyance to the other players due to time taken each turn positioning and attacking with so many creatures.

The thing is though that it was no different than a wizard that had to look up every spell they had every round at the table before casting them every turn. A prepared summoner didn't take that much time [knows what the summons do and doesn't dilly dally] and I quite often had shorter rounds than others that weren't prepared for their round. IMO, it was more an issue that it multiplied the time sink that some people have with not doing their turn in a timely manner: Even simple classes can take a lot of time if the player isn't quick with decision making.

Then when I went to mostly PbP gaming, the issue went away totally as people could time their time without it eating up other peoples time as you don't have to be posting at the same time. That and I had every summons stats ready in a document and sorted them into different lists for uses: ranged combat, melee combat, spell casting, utility, targeting weaknesses, ect.

[Trixleby]

graystone wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I've seen summons take a long time to sort out, probably 10 to 20 minutes. Master Summoner was a nightmare to run and an annoyance to the other players due to time taken each turn positioning and attacking with so many creatures.

The thing is though that it was no different than a wizard that had to look up every spell they had every round at the table before casting them every turn. A prepared summoner didn't take that much time [knows what the summons do and doesn't dilly dally] and I quite often had shorter rounds than others that weren't prepared for their round. IMO, it was more an issue that it multiplied the time sink that some people have with not doing their turn in a timely manner: Even simple classes can take a lot of time if the player isn't quick with decision making.

Then when I went to mostly PbP gaming, the issue went away totally as people could time their time without it eating up other peoples time as you don't have to be posting at the same time. That and I had every summons stats ready in a document and sorted them into different lists for uses: ranged combat, melee combat, spell casting, utility, targeting weaknesses, ect.

In all my years playing TTRPGs and all the people I’ve played with somehow I don’t think I’ve ever played in a group where every single player appeared totally prepared for their turn exactly as it came up. There’s always at least 1 “umm, uhh, ahh, let’s see… ummm” guy at the table. Is this a common experience for you all as well? Even like you said easy/simple classes like Greatweapon Fighter where in just about every single system your choices are essentially: move and/or attack (yes yes I know demoralize, Bon not, etc etc 3rd action I know I’m generalizing)

[Gortle]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I've seen summons take a long time to sort out, probably 10 to 20 minutes. Master Summoner was a nightmare to run and an annoyance to the other players due to time taken each turn positioning and attacking with so many creatures.

In my experience I didn't slow the game down when I played a PF1 Summoner because I was ready for it. But that is not typical of most players, and I certainly have some players I'd not let play any sort of summoner as the game would drag to a halt with decision paralysis.

I never tried a master summoner because it was just too far broken.

Yes it is a good decision to limit the number of summoned creatures to basically one. Even though there are some ways of stretching it out more.

I really don't want to see options for multiple summoned creatures. Just options to make the one we have be a little more effective.

[graystone]

Trixleby wrote:

In all my years playing TTRPGs and all the people I’ve played with somehow I don’t think I’ve ever played in a group where every single player appeared totally prepared for their turn exactly as it came up. Is this a common experience for you all as well?

When I had home games, things ran smoothly unless we had someone new playing or we were playing something new. When you've been playing for 20+ years and know your group, things go quickly.

And as I mentioned last post, playing PbP removes the times factor entirely if you wish as it's not in real time.

Gortle wrote:

I never tried a master summoner because it was just too far broken.

Never had an issue with it but then I'd never flood the board with endless monsters because there was never a need to and I might need one of those latter in the day so why waste them? There is a reason the games says "It is strongly recommended that GMs only allow these archetypes for experienced players, or decide on a way to speed up the summoner's turn (such as by allowing other players to control some of the summoned monsters)."

[Deriven Firelion]

graystone wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I've seen summons take a long time to sort out, probably 10 to 20 minutes. Master Summoner was a nightmare to run and an annoyance to the other players due to time taken each turn positioning and attacking with so many creatures.

The thing is though that it was no different than a wizard that had to look up every spell they had every round at the table before casting them every turn. A prepared summoner didn't take that much time [knows what the summons do and doesn't dilly dally] and I quite often had shorter rounds than others that weren't prepared for their round. IMO, it was more an issue that it multiplied the time sink that some people have with not doing their turn in a timely manner: Even simple classes can take a lot of time if the player isn't quick with decision making.

Then when I went to mostly PbP gaming, the issue went away totally as people could time their time without it eating up other peoples time as you don't have to be posting at the same time. That and I had every summons stats ready in a document and sorted them into different lists for uses: ranged combat, melee combat, spell casting, utility, targeting weaknesses, ect.

That isn't my experience with the master summoner. At higher levels you could have 10 plus summons a day cast as a standard action. A single summoner could with feats do crazy amounts of creatures at a 1 minute per level duration. So you could have 5 to 10 or more creatures on the board in addition to the normal party every battle. Each creature must move, then attack and if they have spell-like abilities they can use can take even longer.

Never seen a wizard take this long. There is a reason you don't see the Master Summoner type of class in PF2 and likely won't see any summons like PF1. It was a painful time consuming series of actions that far exceeded the time it took a wizard to find a spell or what not. Then if they had to make saves or saves had to be made against what they do, the rolling was immense.

We banned the Master Summoner early on because of the time and space it took to use the class. No other class had anywhere near the time, space, and general ability to slow down a table like a Master Summoner. It's not even comparable to other classes.

[graystone]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

That isn't my experience with the master summoner. At higher levels you could have 10 plus summons a day cast as a standard action. A single summoner could with feats do crazy amounts of creatures at a 1 minute per level duration. So you could have 5 to 10 or more creatures on the board in addition to the normal party every battle. Each creature must move, then attack and if they have spell-like abilities they can use can take even longer.

You could but... Why do it? What's the point? Is there a point in wasting resources on overkill?

Also the 1 min/level only matter if you have multiple encounters happening within that time frame. Personally, I'm not sprinting to the next fight in hopes that my 10 summons still stick around: I never expect that the summons from 1 fight will make it to the next. I mean if the DM allows the archetype AND sets things up so that encounters are just a few rounds away from each other, it's not the archetype that's the issue. As such, I'm dividing summons available but what I think the number of encounters will be so if I have 10 for the day and I think I'll have 5 encounters I'm not using more than 2. For me, the main boon 1 min/level had was for utility/spell casting creatures: like summoning an Arbiter Inevitable for a 1 min/level Truespeech translator.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Never seen a wizard take this long. There is a reason you don't see the Master Summoner type of class in PF2 and likely won't see any summons like PF1. It was a painful time consuming series of actions that far exceeded the time it took a wizard to find a spell or what not. Then if they had to make saves or saves had to be made against what they do, the rolling was immense.

Well, 1st you're allowing a situation where you can summon 10 creatures at a time every fight so that might color things a bit... Secondly, yeah I saw wizards take FAR longer than me with summons: you have their spells and a stack of scrolls and some wands and maybe a few staves ... and they thumb through the spells in one book, then pull another book, then a third then back to the first, ask a question, then go back to another book and after 5-10 minutes they end up marking off a charge on a wand. Even if it WAS 10 monsters, I got 10 different d20's and I'm not afraid to use them along with my reference sheet to quickly go down the list.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

We banned the Master Summoner early on because of the time and space it took to use the class. No other class had anywhere near the time, space, and general ability to slow down a table like a Master Summoner. It's not even comparable to other classes.

Again, there is a reason it "strongly recommended that GMs only allow these archetypes for experienced players" and IMO an experienced DM too: it certainly is easier to waste time with it but ANY class can b e a time sink if the player tries hard enough.