But this "themed caster" thing is only ever "pyromancer" for you.What?
I've asked for dedicated Necromancers, Summoners (slotted summons spells, not an Eidolon), and PF1-style smite Paladins. I also participated in the thread asking for ideas on how to make themed casters work in PF3.
I forgot about the summoner thing which we somewhat agree on, or at least, I don't think the summoner is a summoner in the sense a class dedicated to summoning spells would be. I think those two things are distinct, but that's a PF3E concern imo. Also if necromancer just means roll around with undead buddies it needs a lot more to be a class, considering a class needs to have subclasses and already we have reanimator and undead master archetypes. I'm also not sure "1e-style smite" paladin is much to go on either. We have already have smite evil. Smite evil does as much of what 1e smite evil does as I think the design paradigm of 2e can handle. It has the most important feature, choose an enemy to hit harder. It just doesn't have the AC bonus which was deflection and thus didn't stack with your ring of protection(and therefore can't be considered a significant part of the feature), and it doesn't have the bonus to hit, which is part of martials typically not giving themselves their own status bonuses iirc. Typically a caster domain martials are not allowed to do with any efficiency or expediency. Regardless not much of a "themed caster" all the way around
But what I don't see is why you don't recognize your desire for a pyromancer is fulfilled almost 1 to 1 with the kineticist
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're right. Poor phrasing on my part, although I didn't stop to consider status and circumstance bonuses carrying over to the rolls targeting the new DCs. That is niceJust as a point of fact, shadow signet doesn't change attacks to saves, but has the attack roll go against save DC, meaning buffs to hit from spells like Heroism make attack roll spells very reliable, the only down side is you can't lower reflex and fortitude saves like you can AC, or even will saves. Another issue which is not really a down side so-to-speak is that shadow signet is a level 10 item, which doesn't help during the levels 5, 6, 8 and 9 where caster proficiency is behind potency runes and weapon proficiencyAfter 4+ years of this balance point not changing the continued complaining of some comes off as extremely bitter and extremely confusing bc the effort is ultimately wasted. I mean, why not direct that energy towards the eventual pf3 playtest; It's not gonna get you anything now. God knows if it legitimately gives you this much stress and anger then you're better served playing the systems that don't do this. Pf1e and dnd5e are right there giving you the casters you want. Throughout this game's entire run the attack benchmarks between casters and martials has not changed, will not change, and never had any intentions of changing from the designers. The best you got was an item to switch to saves. To continue to complain for changes that demonstrably will not come seems to me either lunacy or a deliberate desire to heckle the people who made the thing you don't like as well as the people who enjoy the thing you don't like. It can't be any genuine expectation of change, can it?
P.S. I don't like spell attacks, wizards, or alchemist but have enough common sense not to bang on these drums anymore bc doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is literal insanity
I was trying to say this less as a correction of you, but as a nudge to the people who want to use spell attacks more often. It targets a DC which is lower than AC and gets status and circumstance bonuses as well as true strike to increase the accuracy. It's quite strong. I was actually also going to mention it is a free action to use because another user in this thread incorrectly identified the shadow signet as using an action, which it doesn't
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the example would hold up more if we compare a simple weapon to a martial weapon. But the point is ultimately that spell attack rolls (simple weapons) are traps compared to Save DC spells (martial weapons), which are already available to use.To use your analogy, all casters have proficiency in both simple and martial, which means not much of a trap since no permanent build resources get wasted. Every morning, a 'trapped' caster can untrap themselves as part of their daily preparation. And as far as I can tell, Temperans' argument would then be that it is bad design on Paizo's part to have an axe be less effective than a maul against resist-slashing monsters, because some players want to play characters that only use axes.
Spontaneous can't, but retraining is an option, and as a GM I would always allow a player to spec out of a build that was dysfunctional regardless circumstances. I'm not going to force a player to feel useless, but I'm also not going to lecture them on using attack roll spells correctly. It's for them to figure out or ask for advice on if they want it
Also if necromancer just means roll around with undead buddies it needs a lot more to be a class, considering a class needs to have subclasses and already we have reanimator and undead master archetypes.
A necromancer should have an undead companion(s) and the ability to swap them for the corpse of any formerly living foe. They should also be able to supplement that with a horde of lesser undead for in-combat and out-of-combat utility. Finally, they should be masters of spells like Ray of Enfeeblement, Finger of Death, Magic Jar, Clone, Circle of Death, etc.
They shouldn't be any more durable or capable with weapons than a Wizard, nor should they be capable of casting other schools of magic without spending a feat or taking an archetype.
I'm also not sure "1e-style smite" paladin is much to go on either. We have already have smite evil. Smite evil does as much of what 1e smite evil does as I think the design paradigm of 2e can handle.
The Smite Paladin is defined by:
1) Burst damage.
2) Having the best saves in the game thanks to Divine Grace.
3) Secondary healing with status effect removal.
4) Self-buffing.
5) Flexibility thanks to spell slots and channel energy.
6) Maxed Charisma for Leadership.
The 5e Paladins smite hit more often, cut through resistances, did good damage, and could even inflict other nasty effects on those hits.
There isn't anything in PF2e that does this as Champions aren't spellcasters, lean heavily into defense but don't even get a legendary save let alone the two that the PF1 Paladin had, and don't have the raw burst damage against evil enemies that many of us miss.
I get that you're not going to get all of this but a damage-focused divine caster would be much loved.
But what I don't see is why you don't recognize your desire for a pyromancer is fulfilled almost 1 to 1 with the kineticist
I'm not asking for a pyromancer, I want all kinds of blasters to be supported. I want a caster that focuses on single-target attack spells to stand toe-to-toe with a caster that's slinging fireballs, slows, and lightning bolts. I want specialized illusionists, and enchanters too.
The thing I dislike most about PF2 is that you're not allowed to be specialized at anything unless you're a martial and enjoy knocking things on their ass with a single hit. Anything else, the game tells you to kick rocks and play the way the devs intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, yeah, every game has conceits and constraints, otherwise why have rules at all?
Some games will do things you like, and other things you don't. That's just how it is - the devs have a specific idea in mind for what they're doing with spellcasters, and that's their prerogative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My larger issue with spell attacks are the ones that require a save as well to have any effect (Ray of Enfeeblement). It should be 1 or the other not 2 rolls going your way for 1 effect.
Truestrike tax feels bad, I would prefer it was a lesser spellshape feat that granted a +2 to hit, so half the numerical effect of a truestrike and without its other advantages.
Not all spells are supposed to be good for all classes that can access them. I am fine with some arcane spells being clearly a better choice for the Magus than Wizard.
I would much rather the highly situational or niche spells be made more universally useful. I want more spell flexibility in existing spells and trim the bloat.
A necromancer should have an undead companion(s) and the ability to swap them for the corpse of any formerly living foe. They should also be able to supplement that with a horde of lesser undead for in-combat and out-of-combat utility. Finally, they should be masters of spells like Ray of Enfeeblement, Finger of Death, Magic Jar, Clone, Circle of Death, etc.
They shouldn't be any more durable or capable with weapons than a Wizard, nor should they be capable of casting other schools of magic without spending a feat or taking an archetype.
"Horde of undead" is not happening unless they use the troop rules, both because of how the minion trait works and for the reason the minion trait exists which is to remove the very big problem of one playing hogging the entire initiative wirh a million summons or undead. I also have to say you'll have to give up on the class being "uses the necromancy school" when that doesn't exist anymore. More over, heal spells were necromancy, so there are two competing Necromancer themes here. One that makes undead and one that destroys them
The Smite Paladin is defined by:
1) Burst damage.
2) Having the best saves in the game thanks to Divine Grace.
3) Secondary healing with status effect removal.
4) Self-buffing.
5) Flexibility thanks to spell slots and channel energy.
6) Maxed Charisma for Leadership.The 5e Paladins smite hit more often, cut through resistances, did good damage, and could even inflict other nasty effects on those hits.
There isn't anything in PF2e that does this as Champions aren't spellcasters, lean heavily into defense but don't even get a legendary save let alone the two that the PF1 Paladin had, and don't have the raw burst damage against evil enemies that many of us miss.
I get that you're not going to get all of this but a damage-focused divine caster would be much loved.
2e paladin still can lay down damage on evil enemies between things like persistent good damage with retributive strike, smite evil if you go for blade ally and so on. The Oaths against fiends, dragons and undead are also even more damage. More over they're still the premier tank. Getting master in fortitude at 9 and will at 11 is pretty sweet. There is no legendary, sure, but master is still quite good and you have ways to make up for the lower reflex save both in equipment and built into the class. Lastly I would also like to say that the 5e paladin doesn't feel like a paladin and feels like a magus and does what the magus, and the 3.5 dusk blade before it did. The history of the Paladin makes the 5e version the most deviant from all the rest and I think is a bad metric because it feels the least like a Paladin of all of them. 1e and 2e ad&d Paladins didn't smite evil at all, and 3e and 3.5 had smite evil as a x/day ability that did big damage, which is where I assume the design of divine Smite is loosely inspired. Pf1e smite evil is selecting an enemy who for the whole duration you have bonuses to hit and damage, as well as a entirely unimportant bonus to ac which does nothing given rings of protection are a baseline assumed item you're expected to get. Right now the Paladin version of the champion fits the flavor and history of the class including punishing evil doers, and the 5e Paladin just feels like a magus with the numbers filed off
I'm not asking for a pyromancer, I want all kinds of blasters to be supported. I want a caster that focuses on single-target attack spells to stand toe-to-toe with a caster that's slinging fireballs, slows, and lightning bolts. I want specialized illusionists, and enchanters too.
The thing I dislike most about PF2 is that you're not allowed to be specialized at anything unless you're a martial and enjoy knocking things on their ass with a single hit. Anything else, the game tells you to kick rocks and play the way the devs intended.
All games incentivized some kinds of play and some kinds of design over others and this will be a reality of any system. Part of good game design is incentivizing the most optimal and fun way to play a game particularly because players will optimizing the fun out of a game if they can. Take for instance Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal. Doom 2016 it is possible to just use the super shotgun throught the whole game, and thus rob yourself of the "dance" of swapping weapons in combat for combos and dealing with particular circumstances. So Doom Eternal rectified this. You now have less ammo, you have to use the chain saw to get ammo back, some enemies take more damage from some weapons, some weapons can remove armor or weapons from enemies, lighting enemies in fire makes them drop armor and glory kills makes enemies drop health. Combine this together, and especially if you play on harder difficulties, you end up being channeled into using every game system and consequently having more fun including using various weapon swap tech to improve DPS. Good game design pushes you into using the systems in the funnest way to play and away from unfun ways. In fact my core criticism of the magus is it's the "I get to spell attacks dudes every other round" guy in some sense, and this makes the act of playing the class boring and repetitive. A caster who just goes and shoots rays and dudes every combat is boring. See for example any build that maximized Eldritch blast in 5e and how incredibly boring those are to play. Big damage, extraordinarily unfun. I will say, playing an enchanter or illusionist on a wizard is possible and won't shoot yourself in the foot like playing a dedicated pyromancer would. You will need to add non illusion and non enchantment spells to round yourself out, but you can go something like 90% illusion/enchantment, get feats that benefit those schools within the wizard feats, go gnome for extra illusion based feats, and get a high charisma to double down with bon mot and the like, and make a fairly effective character who is fairly specialized. The best wizard is still probably some kind of generalist, but this build will take you from 1 to 20 and do what you want
I will say blaster caster, kineticist is your go to, or a newly designed class, or if you'd like you can flavor a magus. I made a laser beam magus build actually where I use the eyebeam automaton ability to deliver spellstrikes with starlit span and it's about as blastery as you can get. The damage is a bit below a bow, but it's pretty sweet to shoot high powered lasers at dudes. Actually the more I think about it the more I think this is literally an actual blaster caster. If you're interested I can give you the build, but it requires free archetype and it is a disgusting mess of archetyping into and out of stuff to give yourself a better range
"Horde of undead" is not happening unless they use the troop rules, both because of how the minion trait works and for the reason the minion trait exists which is to remove the very big problem of one playing hogging the entire initiative wirh a million summons or undead. I also have to say you'll have to give up on the class being "uses the necromancy school" when that doesn't exist anymore. More over, heal spells were necromancy, so there are two competing Necromancer themes here. One that makes undead and one that destroys them
I was never on team healing is necromancy myself, it always felt like a bad inclusion to me. Just give me the negative energy side of things.
2e paladin still can lay down damage on evil enemies between things like persistent good damage with retributive strike, smite evil if you go for blade ally and so on. The Oaths against fiends, dragons and undead are also even more damage. More over they're still the premier tank. Getting master in fortitude at 9 and will at 11 is pretty sweet.
Is it when a Paladin would have been adding +7 (or more) to their saves? The Paladin had the best saves in the game with only the Monk even getting close.
Lastly I would also like to say that the 5e paladin doesn't feel like a paladin and feels like a magus and does what the magus, and the 3.5 dusk blade before it did. The history of the Paladin makes the 5e version the most deviant from all the rest and I think is a bad metric because it feels the least like a Paladin of all of them.
Where did I mention the 5e Paladin? I have issues with that version of the class as well.
1e and 2e ad&d Paladins didn't smite evil at all,
A lot of classes back then were pretty boring and lacking in features.
and 3e and 3.5 had smite evil as a x/day ability that did big damage,
Yeah, a nice fair ability that had limited uses and was tight early but by the late game you could light them off as often as possible.
Pf1e smite evil is selecting an enemy who for the whole duration you have bonuses to hit and damage, as well as a entirely unimportant bonus to ac which does nothing given rings of protection are a baseline assumed item you're expected to get.
What? At most levels the bonus you get from the Smite is higher than the ring you'd have at that level. At very low levels it can be a full +5 to AC. At higher levels, even with a maxed-out ring, it could easily give +2 or +3.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where did I mention the 5e Paladin? I have issues with that version of the class as well.
Right here
The 5e Paladins smite hit more often, cut through resistances, did good damage, and could even inflict other nasty effects on those hits.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also if necromancer just means roll around with undead buddies it needs a lot more to be a class, considering a class needs to have subclasses and already we have reanimator and undead master archetypes.A necromancer should have an undead companion(s) and the ability to swap them for the corpse of any formerly living foe. They should also be able to supplement that with a horde of lesser undead for in-combat and out-of-combat utility. Finally, they should be masters of spells like Ray of Enfeeblement, Finger of Death, Magic Jar, Clone, Circle of Death, etc.
They shouldn't be any more durable or capable with weapons than a Wizard, nor should they be capable of casting other schools of magic without spending a feat or taking an archetype.
I'm also not sure "1e-style smite" paladin is much to go on either. We have already have smite evil. Smite evil does as much of what 1e smite evil does as I think the design paradigm of 2e can handle.The Smite Paladin is defined by:
1) Burst damage.
2) Having the best saves in the game thanks to Divine Grace.
3) Secondary healing with status effect removal.
4) Self-buffing.
5) Flexibility thanks to spell slots and channel energy.
6) Maxed Charisma for Leadership.The 5e Paladins smite hit more often, cut through resistances, did good damage, and could even inflict other nasty effects on those hits.
There isn't anything in PF2e that does this as Champions aren't spellcasters, lean heavily into defense but don't even get a legendary save let alone the two that the PF1 Paladin had, and don't have the raw burst damage against evil enemies that many of us miss.
I get that you're not going to get all of this but a damage-focused divine caster would be much loved.
But what I don't see is why you don't recognize your desire for a pyromancer is fulfilled almost 1 to 1 with the kineticistI'm not asking for a pyromancer, I want all kinds...
Spell lists by class are a rules and logistical nightmare to maintain. It will not come back in PF2. I think it will not come back ever.
An offense-oriented Divine martial is something many posters hope for but usually as the Inquisitor. Maybe one day we will have this (though definitely with another name)
Doing one thing very well as a non-Martial is provided by Magus for spell attacks and Kineticist for focusing on elements. I find it extremely telling that they had to design a whole class in both instances so as not to break the whole casting system balance.
PF2 follows a certain paradigm which allows it to be extremely well balanced and robust. Many many 3.x/PF1 features do not have a place in this paradigm.
Where did I mention the 5e Paladin? I have issues with that version of the class as well.Right here
The 5e Paladins smite hit more often, cut through resistances, did good damage, and could even inflict other nasty effects on those hits.
I didn't realize I'd made that typo, that was supposed to say PF1e.
But point by point:
On necromancy healing, this was the precedent before 3.x and it fitsm necromancy is magic over life, death and the soul. Healing magic restores vitality
On the saves thing, different design paradigm. 1e Paladin got to just be well above every other class within it's domain because it got to do everything. Damage, healing, spells, tanking, good saves, buffs the whole nine yards. Some of that had to get toned down and even considering that the Champion in 2e is still a pretty stacked class that gets to do a whole hell of lot. It's still got good saves, still got good armor, still got good damage and it still protects people. It's one of the best class designs in the entirety of PF2 and I would easily rank it as my second favorite class
On 1 and 2e ad&d, paladin got spells, auras, the whole holy avenger weapon thing, the ability to break spells and I believe even banish dudes with their weapons on top of getting a lot of the baseline warrior benefits which are fairly powerful. It was a super class that just plain upgraded the fighter
3.x smite I believe was widely considered bad and why the PF1 version is so different, and more useful
On the deflection bonus, it's equal to your charisma which is highly variable but it is not for very many levels that it gives all that great a bonus. Particularly if you start at 14 charisma a +6 head band ends at +5 which is the same as the ring, if you start at 16 it is a whopping +1 to ac, which hardly mattered in PF1 where numbers are all manner of wacky. Which is why you can have that hypothetical "+7 to saves" for your paladin in PF1, though usually it was much lower
Where did I mention the 5e Paladin? I have issues with that version of the class as well.Right here
The 5e Paladins smite hit more often, cut through resistances, did good damage, and could even inflict other nasty effects on those hits.
I didn't realize I'd made that typo, that was supposed to say PF1e.
I also lost my edit where I responded to the last part of your post to this terrible forum software.
The gist was:
I don't think good games need to guide players to fun. Good games give players fun tools to use within the space that the game encompasses. I favor letting the player play how they want rather than carefully limiting them to play the game as you envisioned it being played.
I like the 5e warlock and have played it both at the table in 5e and in BG3 and have GM'd for a player who also enjoyed it. It has plenty of options if you grab some wands, scrolls, or a staff. Without those, its short rest spell recharge means you can feel good letting off a spell when you need to.
I don't really care which classes I might enjoy playing because I'm vastly more likely to GM for my group. I prefer a system that allows my players to feel good about specializing and that lets me worry about ensuring they all contribute and that they're challenged appropriately.
Your magus build seems cool, but if I wanted eye-lasers or a character that throws around elements there are superhero games that do it better.
Spell lists by class are a rules and logistical nightmare to maintain. It will not come back in PF2. I think it will not come back ever.
Anybody who's ever managed a database will tell you it isn't hard to automatically add a new tag to existing spells and bespoke spell lists force designers to be intentional with what spells a class is able to cast.
An offense-oriented Divine martial is something many posters hope for but usually as the Inquisitor. Maybe one day we will have this (though definitely with another name)
I also want a proper Cleric back. I like the class if 3.5, PF1, and 5e. They're boring in PF2. I don't like being forced to play a buff/healbot. The CoDzilla design may have gone too far but I liked that it easily allowed for Clerics that could be selfish and not suffer for it.
Doing one thing very well as a non-Martial is provided by Magus for spell attacks
Magus doesn't really cast spells. They channel them into a weapon attack under specific circumstances with an imposed recharge action between uses.
and Kineticist for focusing on elements.
Superhero-based systems do the elemental blaster idea better. I think Kineticist is a good class within the small confines of what PF2 allows for but isn't actually that good at doing the person with unique elemental powers trope.
PF2 follows a certain paradigm which allows it to be extremely well balanced and robust. Many many 3.x/PF1 features do not have a place in this paradigm.
If I wanted a game that did all the balancing for me there are a lot of party-vs-dungeon boardgames or CRPGs that exist and can provide those mechanics. I run TTRPGs to see my players realize their vision for a character as they want to build it and then do my best to ensure that all builds get buffs/handicaps to compete on an even playing field.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I played this magus I would reflavor the eyebeam as something else and maybe even reflavor the automaton as something else
Namely with the blaster idea, I would make it flavored as a cantrip my character is specialized in modifying but combining it with other cantrips
|
|
Spell lists by class are a rules and logistical nightmare to maintain. It will not come back in PF2. I think it will not come back ever.Anybody who's ever managed a database will tell you it isn't hard to automatically add a new tag to existing spells and bespoke spell lists force designers to be intentional with what spells a class is able to cast.
An offense-oriented Divine martial is something many posters hope for but usually as the Inquisitor. Maybe one day we will have this (though definitely with another name)I also want a proper Cleric back. I like the class if 3.5, PF1, and 5e. They're boring in PF2. I don't like being forced to play a buff/healbot. The CoDzilla design may have gone too far but I liked that it easily allowed for Clerics that could be selfish and not suffer for it.
Doing one thing very well as a non-Martial is provided by Magus for spell attacksMagus doesn't really cast spells. They channel them into a weapon attack under specific circumstances with an imposed recharge action between uses.
and Kineticist for focusing on elements.Superhero-based systems do the elemental blaster idea better. I think Kineticist is a good class within the small confines of what PF2 allows for but isn't actually that good at doing the person with unique elemental powers trope.
PF2 follows a certain paradigm which allows it to be extremely well balanced and robust. Many many 3.x/PF1 features do not have a place in this paradigm.If I wanted a game that did all the balancing for me there are a lot of party-vs-dungeon boardgames or CRPGs that exist and can provide those mechanics. I run TTRPGs to see my players realize their vision for a character as they want to build it and then do my best to ensure that all builds get buffs/handicaps to compete on an even playing field.
I very sincerely believe PF1 will answer your needs in a far better way than PF2 will ever be able to.
I very sincerely believe PF1 will answer your needs in a far better way than PF2 will ever be able to.
It and 3.5 did for many years but they're long in the tooth and in desperate need of a reworking. I'd hoped that PF2 was going to do that.
Instead, everything that has come out of 3.5 and PF1 have gone different ways. 4e flipped the table. 5e is bland with bad balance. PF2 decided that balance > fun. D20 as a whole shriveled up before the tide of indy rules-lite games.
I've ended up running 5e at my table because if no system does what I want, I should pick the one that's easiest on my players and where I have a lot of room to fudge things for freely flowing gameplay. Staying in the genre, I'd like to move them to 13th Age while keeping the setting and plot the same but they don't like learning new systems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find PF2 much more fun than PF1 or 5e, that is for damn sure. Based on your posts "fun" is characters who get to do everything. In fact the amount of complaints about things not doing everything and being worse than versions of themselves that did everything and then also saying you want specialists is wildly contradictory in the most bizarre way
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 is not designed to be a database RPG. It is first and foremost a print book RPG. If lists get printed, they need to not change every single new book release. There is no point in having traditions if those don’t mean “the ways magic divides up in this world.” Any full caster with a smaller list is an optional variant rule at best. At this point, just home brew it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell lists by class are a rules and logistical nightmare to maintain. It will not come back in PF2. I think it will not come back ever.Anybody who's ever managed a database will tell you it isn't hard to automatically add a new tag to existing spells and bespoke spell lists force designers to be intentional with what spells a class is able to cast.
An offense-oriented Divine martial is something many posters hope for but usually as the Inquisitor. Maybe one day we will have this (though definitely with another name)I also want a proper Cleric back. I like the class if 3.5, PF1, and 5e. They're boring in PF2. I don't like being forced to play a buff/healbot. The CoDzilla design may have gone too far but I liked that it easily allowed for Clerics that could be selfish and not suffer for it.
Doing one thing very well as a non-Martial is provided by Magus for spell attacksMagus doesn't really cast spells. They channel them into a weapon attack under specific circumstances with an imposed recharge action between uses.
and Kineticist for focusing on elements.Superhero-based systems do the elemental blaster idea better. I think Kineticist is a good class within the small confines of what PF2 allows for but isn't actually that good at doing the person with unique elemental powers trope.
PF2 follows a certain paradigm which allows it to be extremely well balanced and robust. Many many 3.x/PF1 features do not have a place in this paradigm.If I wanted a game that did all the balancing for me there are a lot of party-vs-dungeon boardgames or CRPGs that exist and can provide those mechanics. I run TTRPGs to see my players realize their vision for a character as they want to build it and then do my best to ensure that all builds get buffs/handicaps to compete on an even playing field.
The game doing the balancing for you is part of the whole design foundation of the edition though......the numbers are out of the players hands. All they're left with is choices and it turns out this is a blessing for both players and GMs. If that's an underlying pillar of design you can't get behind, I promise you'll never be satisfied with PF2E (or probably PF3E based on the financial success this direction has received)
There was a question asked before that I think is relevant and I'm curious what the responses would be so I wanna reiterate it but slightly rephrased.
For those who think that casters should be able to focus singularly on attack spells, do you think that the game presently supports casters focusing on a single type of saving throw (Will or Reflex or Fortitude)? And in either case, do you think that's to the benefit or the detriment of the system?
We're going to get the offense-oriented Divine martial next year - the Exemplar. Sure, it's flavor might not be for everyone, but you can reflavor it, certainly.
And, yeah, like other posters, I'm not really sure how to rectify an understanding of you wanting characters to just be able to do whatever they want, but then also want super specialists. It seems disingenuous.
I prefer a system that allows my players to feel good about specializing and that lets me worry about ensuring they all contribute and that they're challenged appropriately.PF2E allows players to feel good about specializing into a narrow magical blaster via Kineticist. It has a +1 and then at higher level +2 item bonus to hit against AC, which is exactly what some folks are asking for. It trades the wide flexibility of hundreds of listed spells for infinite, no-slot-limitation use of a smaller list of elemental effects from one (or two...or three...) elements, which is pretty much the definition of 'specialist caster.' And it even provides specialist casters with an ability to overcome resistances and immunities to the element you've chosen to specialize in. But, for some players the 'kineticist' and 'impulse' titles don't make them feel as good as 'wizard' and 'spell', so they don't consider it a solution they want to use.
The kineticist has the item bonuses for the weak points they need help with, which is what players are wanting for spellcasters in general (other than more spell attack options, especially in later levels). And the Kineticist is proof that they can do this without breaking the game.
The complaint has always been "attack roll spells have the accuracy of save spells as well as their potency," which is a problem when save spells are only one or two points behind the standard rate, and still deal half effects on a failed attempt, whereas attack roll spells don't. Conversely, enemy spellcasters usually have higher accuracy/damage, and can reliably use Incapacitate effects, and so it will always seem like PC spellcasters can't do the things other spellcasters are shown doing. Of course, enemy spellcasters also have bloated numbers and higher levels to showcase that problem.
The issue with that proposed "solution" is that it doesn't address the apparent problem at all. It just sweeps it under the rug and expects you to act like it is not there or that it isn't an issue at all, and that you should just do X instead. Paizo might not see it that way, but many of us still do, and IMO, it is because they treated Spell scaling too differently to martials. Which, I get why they did it (to differentiate between spellcaster progression and martial progression), but it's a little hard to justify given the math behind the system seems to want to cap martials with a bit of room for specialists (i.e. fighters and gunslingers), whereas the spellcasters don't even have that ceiling to rely on (no, I am not counting Magus/Warpriest/Summoner for this).
When those hundreds of spells are either filler/super niche, or trap options, it's not exactly as fair of a trade as we make it out to be. That isn't to say that it isn't losing anything, but that those losses are easily made up through other means, so it is ultimately a game of party budgeting, and those spells can be easily shored up in favor of having better attack roll blasting. Have a Kineticist and Bard in the party? Who cares if I can't Teleport or Maze or Haste, Bard takes care of that for us, meanwhile I am blasting better than if I was a Wizard because I am more accurate and take care of a lot of the same problems, but with a better, more focused toolbox. Bigger toolbox doesn't mean better toolbox.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When those hundreds of spells are either filler/super niche, or trap options, it's not exactly as fair of a trade as we make it out to be. That isn't to say that it isn't losing anything, but that those losses are easily made up through other means, so it is ultimately a game of party budgeting, and those spells can be easily shored up in favor of having better attack roll blasting. Have a Kineticist and Bard in the party? Who cares if I can't Teleport or Maze or Haste, Bard takes care of that for us, meanwhile I am blasting better than if I was a Wizard because I am more accurate and take care of a lot of the same problems, but with a better, more focused toolbox. Bigger toolbox doesn't mean better toolbox.
Bigger toolbox means you're more likely to have the perfect tool. I'd just campaign for more limited casters. I'm all for more feat based spell classes (even though it doesn't sound like more are likely to be printed)
Not really, when that larger toolbox is compensated by lack of quality tools, and the game is balanced assuming quality tools are being used, especially in the late game.
The kineticist has the item bonuses for the weak points they need help with, which is what players are wanting for spellcasters in general (other than more spell attack options, especially in later levels). And the Kineticist is proof that they can do this without breaking the game.
Really sad they made elemental blasts no longer ranged unarmed strikes. Really wanted to use them with spellstrike
I find PF2 much more fun than PF1 or 5e, that is for damn sure. Based on your posts "fun" is characters who get to do everything. In fact the amount of complaints about things not doing everything and being worse than versions of themselves that did everything and then also saying you want specialists is wildly contradictory in the most bizarre way
What I want is the - as much as is reasonable - unrestricted ability to build on a theme. I'm using PF1 and 3.5 examples where themes were deeper and broader as examples because that's what I played the most when I had players who enjoyed digging through books to come up with a specific build. Back in the mid-2000s to early 2010s, I had players who liked to test builds more than play campaigns so that style of play with on-the-fly encounter building is what I came to be comfortable with.
I like the ambitious but messy nature of games like 3.5 that went for it and missed as often as they hit.
PF2 is not designed to be a database RPG. It is first and foremost a print book RPG. If lists get printed, they need to not change every single new book release. There is no point in having traditions if those don’t mean “the ways magic divides up in this world.” Any full caster with a smaller list is an optional variant rule at best. At this point, just home brew it.
I oppose this school of design. It just isn't hard to make a companion app these days and at my table - and at the shops I see people playing at - using tablets and phones to supplement physical rulebooks is by far the most common way to play. Paizo could easily make what is currently AoN into an app with the free version not having art and the $2.99/month version having art and free access to a select set of older APs with a premium subscription for $7.99/month giving access to everything. That isn't greedy it's just adapting to what is possible.
As for this is how magic is divided, that's arbitrary. In PF1 it was divided into bespoke lists. In PF1v1 it was divided by discrete schools. Now in PF2v2 it's being divided in a 3rd new way in as many major revisions. This isn't some deeply baked-in bit of lore, it's pure rules design and what I feel is a poor job of it.
I find PF2 much more fun than PF1 or 5e, that is for damn sure. Based on your posts "fun" is characters who get to do everything. In fact the amount of complaints about things not doing everything and being worse than versions of themselves that did everything and then also saying you want specialists is wildly contradictory in the most bizarre wayWhat I want is the - as much as is reasonable - unrestricted ability to build on a theme. I'm using PF1 and 3.5 examples where themes were deeper and broader as examples because that's what I played the most when I had players who enjoyed digging through books to come up with a specific build. Back in the mid-2000s to early 2010s, I had players who liked to test builds more than play campaigns so that style of play with on-the-fly encounter building is what I came to be comfortable with.
I like the ambitious but messy nature of games like 3.5 that went for it and missed as often as they hit.
I think paizo made money on that model for 2+ decades and when it was no longer economically feasible they switched to a new model that generated new income. With that in mind, I don't think 3.5 style design sensibilities from new paizo products is a reasonable expectation. That time is probably past
The game doing the balancing for you is part of the whole design foundation of the edition though......the numbers are out of the players hands. All they're left with is choices and it turns out this is a blessing for both players and GMs. If that's an underlying pillar of design you can't get behind, I promise you'll never be satisfied with PF2E (or probably PF3E based on the financial success this direction has received)
If nobody else steps up to GM when my current 5e game ends I'm going to try PF2 again with my in-person group. The last group I tried it with was via VTT when PF2 was much newer and APs were much less well-designed. It might be that playing in person and with a more mature set of guidelines softens my opinion of the system but thus far my experience as a GM and as a player has shown it to feel more limiting than freeing.
I prefer a system that allows my players to feel good about specializing and that lets me worry about ensuring they all contribute and that they're challenged appropriately.PF2E allows players to feel good about specializing into a narrow magical blaster via Kineticist. It has a +1 and then at higher level +2 item bonus to hit against AC, which is exactly what some folks are asking for. It trades the wide flexibility of hundreds of listed spells for infinite, no-slot-limitation use of a smaller list of elemental effects from one (or two...or three...) elements, which is pretty much the definition of 'specialist caster.' And it even provides specialist casters with an ability to overcome resistances and immunities to the element you've chosen to specialize in. But, for some players the 'kineticist' and 'impulse' titles don't make them feel as good as 'wizard' and 'spell', so they don't consider it a solution they want to use.
My current group might find that enjoyable but my other group who were used to the vast freedoms of PF1 and 3.5 found it limiting and didn't enjoy it. For all that PF2 is customizable, it feels very much like the combinations are prescribed rather than discovered. This small distinction really changes how characters are built and how the game feels in play.
I think paizo made money on that model for 2+ decades and when it was no longer economically feasible they switched to a new model that generated new income. With that in mind, I don't think 3.5 style design sensibilities from new paizo products is a reasonable expectation. That time is probably past
Probably but that doesn't mean I can't miss it and wish that PF2 had been a refinement of 3.0 to PF1 style design rather than a complete rethinking of it. Give me another year to end my current 5e game and start PF2 for the same group and that might change but my first group and I bounced off of the system hard because of all the walls it put up.
...Also if necromancer just means roll around with undead buddies it needs a lot more to be a class, considering a class needs to have subclasses and already we have reanimator and undead master archetypes.A necromancer should have an undead companion(s) and the ability to swap them for the corpse of any formerly living foe. They should also be able to supplement that with a horde of lesser undead for in-combat and out-of-combat utility. Finally, they should be masters of spells like Ray of Enfeeblement, Finger of Death, Magic Jar, Clone, Circle of Death, etc.
They shouldn't be any more durable or capable with weapons than a Wizard, nor should they be capable of casting other schools of magic without spending a feat or taking an archetype.
I'm also not sure "1e-style smite" paladin is much to go on either. We have already have smite evil. Smite evil does as much of what 1e smite evil does as I think the design paradigm of 2e can handle.The Smite Paladin is defined by:
1) Burst damage.
2) Having the best saves in the game thanks to Divine Grace.
3) Secondary healing with status effect removal.
4) Self-buffing.
5) Flexibility thanks to spell slots and channel energy.
6) Maxed Charisma for Leadership.The 5e Paladins smite hit more often, cut through resistances, did good damage, and could even inflict other nasty effects on those hits.
There isn't anything in PF2e that does this as Champions aren't spellcasters, lean heavily into defense but don't even get a legendary save let alone the two that the PF1 Paladin had, and don't have the raw burst damage against evil enemies that many of us miss.
I get that you're not going to get all of this but a damage-focused divine caster would be much loved.
But what I don't see is why you don't recognize your desire for a pyromancer is fulfilled almost 1 to 1 with the kineticistI'm not asking
Technically they do exist. I would say focus spells are class specific spell lists. I mean technically could 3-Body Problem get pretty much that with a focus spell list and modified rules for focus points for the class or subclass?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really, when that larger toolbox is compensated by lack of quality tools, and the game is balanced assuming quality tools are being used, especially in the late game.
You do know the toolbox being talked about is the entire spell list? Are spells like Wall of Stone, Slow, or Synesthesia not quality enough? The Kineticist needs to be better at their attacks because they have much less options for targeting defenses, where the caster can wait for the right moment to unleash a massive spell attack.
...Also if necromancer just means roll around with undead buddies it needs a lot more to be a class, considering a class needs to have subclasses and already we have reanimator and undead master archetypes.A necromancer should have an undead companion(s) and the ability to swap them for the corpse of any formerly living foe. They should also be able to supplement that with a horde of lesser undead for in-combat and out-of-combat utility. Finally, they should be masters of spells like Ray of Enfeeblement, Finger of Death, Magic Jar, Clone, Circle of Death, etc.
They shouldn't be any more durable or capable with weapons than a Wizard, nor should they be capable of casting other schools of magic without spending a feat or taking an archetype.
I'm also not sure "1e-style smite" paladin is much to go on either. We have already have smite evil. Smite evil does as much of what 1e smite evil does as I think the design paradigm of 2e can handle.The Smite Paladin is defined by:
1) Burst damage.
2) Having the best saves in the game thanks to Divine Grace.
3) Secondary healing with status effect removal.
4) Self-buffing.
5) Flexibility thanks to spell slots and channel energy.
6) Maxed Charisma for Leadership.The 5e Paladins smite hit more often, cut through resistances, did good damage, and could even inflict other nasty effects on those hits.
There isn't anything in PF2e that does this as Champions aren't spellcasters, lean heavily into defense but don't even get a legendary save let alone the two that the PF1 Paladin had, and don't have the raw burst damage against evil enemies that many of us miss.
I get that you're not going to get all of this but a damage-focused divine caster would be much loved.
But what I don't see is why you don't recognize your desire for a pyromancer is fulfilled almost 1 to 1 with
Im new to these boards so im still getting used to things. I thought I was responding to a different post. But I guess the idea is there. A focus spell list is specific to a class. Spells in thise lists can be tailored for balance and provide a class spells that fit its theme. If they make a spell casting class that only uses focus spells it would be reasonable to adust how they interact with focus points. The thing is this might end up being strictly better than any traditional caster if its not done carefully.
...Also if necromancer just means roll around with undead buddies it needs a lot more to be a class, considering a class needs to have subclasses and already we have reanimator and undead master archetypes.A necromancer should have an undead companion(s) and the ability to swap them for the corpse of any formerly living foe. They should also be able to supplement that with a horde of lesser undead for in-combat and out-of-combat utility. Finally, they should be masters of spells like Ray of Enfeeblement, Finger of Death, Magic Jar, Clone, Circle of Death, etc.
They shouldn't be any more durable or capable with weapons than a Wizard, nor should they be capable of casting other schools of magic without spending a feat or taking an archetype.
I'm also not sure "1e-style smite" paladin is much to go on either. We have already have smite evil. Smite evil does as much of what 1e smite evil does as I think the design paradigm of 2e can handle.The Smite Paladin is defined by:
1) Burst damage.
2) Having the best saves in the game thanks to Divine Grace.
3) Secondary healing with status effect removal.
4) Self-buffing.
5) Flexibility thanks to spell slots and channel energy.
6) Maxed Charisma for Leadership.The 5e Paladins smite hit more often, cut through resistances, did good damage, and could even inflict other nasty effects on those hits.
There isn't anything in PF2e that does this as Champions aren't spellcasters, lean heavily into defense but don't even get a legendary save let alone the two that the PF1 Paladin had, and don't have the raw burst damage against evil enemies that many of us miss.
I get that you're not going to get all of this but a damage-focused divine caster would be much loved.
But what I don't see is why you don't recognize your desire for a pyromancer is
Focus spells can even be specific to a particular subclass in a class as they can have that subclass as a prerequisite for obtaining them.
Meaning you can have a class like a focus mage or whatever. Its subclasses can be elemental focus mage, necromancer, or illusionist.The focus spells available to each subclass can be specific to their theme. They get more interaction with focus spells than normal but do not get any spell slots or access to traditional spell casting. Weapo. And armor training is no different than other casters, and they would have some specific class features according to thier subclass. Like the necro could have an undead minion. The balance all comes i the details of execution not in the concept. It can be done it just matters how its done.
Technically they do exist. I would say focus spells are class specific spell lists. I mean technically could 3-Body Problem get pretty much that with a focus spell list and modified rules for focus points for the class or subclass?
Possibly but I haven't seen anything official that has tried that yet. I do think it's a good design space that could be explored to make something I would like.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really, when that larger toolbox is compensated by lack of quality tools, and the game is balanced assuming quality tools are being used, especially in the late game.This is one of my biggest beefs with current PF2e spellcasting. It seems like there are so many spells that are not being regularly used, with a few standouts. It's why we always get the same spells brought up (Sythesthesia, etc) when talking about how spellcasters are ok.
Part of this is a lot of strong CRB spells set the bar on the power of a spell. You aren't going to see fireball but better get printed. So other spells need to be more niche, but because they aren't as universally useful, they get used less and thus are less talked about.
Not really, when that larger toolbox is compensated by lack of quality tools, and the game is balanced assuming quality tools are being used, especially in the late game.You do know the toolbox being talked about is the entire spell list? Are spells like Wall of Stone, Slow, or Synesthesia not quality enough? The Kineticist needs to be better at their attacks because they have much less options for targeting defenses, where the caster can wait for the right moment to unleash a massive spell attack.
The only defense a Kineticist can't target with their abilities is Will Saves, which is a handful of spells at-most. Also, can't wait for "the right moment" if it either never comes or isn't possible due to party compositions.
The other thing too is that Kineticist can still do a lot of the toolbox things, they aren't like Fighters who can't do any of it. Wall of stone for Earth Kineticist is a thing. So is flight. Fireball-esque effects as well. They are more like Elementalist spellcasters that function all day than they are some purebred martial like a Ranger or Barbarian who have little to no magic potential.
Not really, when that larger toolbox is compensated by lack of quality tools, and the game is balanced assuming quality tools are being used, especially in the late game.This is one of my biggest beefs with current PF2e spellcasting. It seems like there are so many spells that are not being regularly used, with a few standouts. It's why we always get the same spells brought up (Sythesthesia, etc) when talking about how spellcasters are ok.
There are a lot of filler spells, especially in the Arcane list, and the problem is that we are effectively comparing 300 standard Javelins to a handful of +3 Major Striking 3-property rune Javelins, and saying they are balanced.
|
|
Not really, when that larger toolbox is compensated by lack of quality tools, and the game is balanced assuming quality tools are being used, especially in the late game.You do know the toolbox being talked about is the entire spell list? Are spells like Wall of Stone, Slow, or Synesthesia not quality enough? The Kineticist needs to be better at their attacks because they have much less options for targeting defenses, where the caster can wait for the right moment to unleash a massive spell attack.The only defense a Kineticist can't target with their abilities is Will Saves, which is a handful of spells at-most. Also, can't wait for "the right moment" if it either never comes or isn't possible due to party compositions.
The other thing too is that Kineticist can still do a lot of the toolbox things, they aren't like Fighters who can't do any of it. Wall of stone for Earth Kineticist is a thing. So is flight. Fireball-esque effects as well. They are more like Elementalist spellcasters that function all day than they are some purebred martial like a Ranger or Barbarian who have little to no magic potential.
They have good battlefield control and can blast vs reflex well but their debuff and fort targeting effects aren't great. And missing an entire defense (outside of an air level 18 impulse) is massive. They are far more like the Magus or Summoner except making an inverse trade off for their spell-like powers. While wave casters get all the flexibility of spell slots, they get even fewer per day and with worse casting ability. Kineticists get all day powers at par for DCs or better for spell/impulse attacks, but with much less flexibility in their abilities.
Also it's a weird or inefficient party where AC isn't being debuffed. Most damage comes from attacks vs AC and most classes will naturally get some way of reducing it. Even a simple flat footed and minor debuf is massive swing. Heck even a party of all Fighters and Barbarians can achieve that much.