| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. The big one: make the Thief's damage ability class baseline. Which then means redo thief to be... a thief.
I've never really thought about it, but yeah, the Thief is weird. Instead of being better at stealing things, they are the best at killing people. Which is something actual thieves would avoid like the plague. So that's a problem.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also an awkward ability insofar as that it's ridiculously impactful at lower levels and then, like other damage attributes, kind of becomes less and less significant later on.
+4 damage is absolutely massive at level 1 though and goes a long way toward dealing with just how bad finesse weapons are at low levels.
But it also kind of makes scoundrel and mastermind feel like bait at low levels too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never really thought about it, but yeah, the Thief is weird. Instead of being better at stealing things, they are the best at killing people. Which is something actual thieves would avoid like the plague. So that's a problem.
3. The big one: make the Thief's damage ability class baseline. Which then means redo thief to be... a thief.
I'd say that Thieves are indirectly better at stealing things because their ambivalence towards Strength allows them to focus more on Dexterity (and utility skills like Intelligence and Wisdom). All rogues have some damage-dealing elements by virtue of Sneak Attack--the Thief is just spared from having to invest as much in it.
Like Squiggit said, the benefit to damage matters a lot less later, so the Thief really isn't the "best at killing people" past the early levels. The way I read it, the ability's meant to be a "freeing up your boosts" ability.
It's also an awkward ability insofar as that it's ridiculously impactful at lower levels and then, like other damage attributes, kind of becomes less and less significant later on.
+4 damage is absolutely massive at level 1 though and goes a long way toward dealing with just how bad finesse weapons are at low levels.
But it also kind of makes scoundrel and mastermind feel like bait at low levels too.
I still think the scoundrel is on of the best rackets, even at low level. It gives you a very solid ability to get flat-footed at a time where you have little more than flanking. Also, Distracting Feint (lvl 2) is awesome in many party combinations.
Mastermind on the other hand has the strong potential to be bait at every level.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never really thought about it, but yeah, the Thief is weird. Instead of being better at stealing things, they are the best at killing people. Which is something actual thieves would avoid like the plague. So that's a problem.
3. The big one: make the Thief's damage ability class baseline. Which then means redo thief to be... a thief.I'd say that Thieves are indirectly better at stealing things because their ambivalence towards Strength allows them to focus more on Dexterity (and utility skills like Intelligence and Wisdom). All rogues have some damage-dealing elements by virtue of Sneak Attack--the Thief is just spared from having to invest as much in it.
Like Squiggit said, the benefit to damage matters a lot less later, so the Thief really isn't the "best at killing people" past the early levels. The way I read it, the ability's meant to be a "freeing up your boosts" ability.
My point is that none of the thief's abilities or feats actually have anything to do with stealing, even indirectly. Every other rogue is going to be at least as good as them at it. On the contrary, literally all their abilities/feats only deal with making enemies flat-footed and dealing more damage. The Thief still has the highest damage later on due to the extra damage from Precise Debilitations.
Those are not the mechanics or the flavor of a thief. That's an assassin. So the name makes no sense.
My point is that none of the thief's abilities or feats actually have anything to do with stealing, even indirectly.
The rackets are named by the skills they give and/or the abilities: thief grants thievery, which DOES have to do with stealing things. There are only a couple feats specific to each racket and most [if not all] are combat related.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I would advocate removing "dex-to-damage" from the Thief entirely and giving it something else. Every other finesse class has shown that this is not actually necessary, so it probably doesn't need to be in the game.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I would advocate removing "dex-to-damage" from the Thief entirely and giving it something else. Every other finesse class has shown that this is not actually necessary, so it probably doesn't need to be in the game.
If by "every other finesse class" you mean Swashbuckler, the class that's constantly nagged on for doing bad damage compared to almost any other martial, yeah... I'd rather not. Plus it would make Ruffian the best racket by a mile, and kill a lot of character concepts that involve being physically weak, but highly deadly by agility alone.
My point is that none of the thief's abilities or feats actually have anything to do with stealing, even indirectly.I've never really thought about it, but yeah, the Thief is weird. Instead of being better at stealing things, they are the best at killing people. Which is something actual thieves would avoid like the plague. So that's a problem.
3. The big one: make the Thief's damage ability class baseline. Which then means redo thief to be... a thief.I'd say that Thieves are indirectly better at stealing things because their ambivalence towards Strength allows them to focus more on Dexterity (and utility skills like Intelligence and Wisdom). All rogues have some damage-dealing elements by virtue of Sneak Attack--the Thief is just spared from having to invest as much in it.
Like Squiggit said, the benefit to damage matters a lot less later, so the Thief really isn't the "best at killing people" past the early levels. The way I read it, the ability's meant to be a "freeing up your boosts" ability.
What about the indirect benefit I specifically named?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Redo Mastermind so it's not just a gimped Investigaor.
Mastermind is cool but its RK depend make it's too MAD and the RK failures limitation make anything.
The main problem here for me is not the mastermind itself but RK that deserves some rework once that designers want to do other things with RK roll than just RK to take some useful info.
2. Redo Scoundrel because it's so clearly weaker than Thief.
Scoundrel also is a cool racket it's a charisma based subclass more focused into roleplay mode and tha also have Feint variant that is very action economic and specially useful in parties with low number of melees. Players who choose them choose already planning to focus in solve the things outside the combats and when the combat is need into provide some assistance with its debuff skill actions.
3. The big one: make the Thief's damage ability class baseline. Which then means redo thief to be... a thief.
In the current Rogue, you either pick Thief for your Racket or you intentionally nerf your character for roleplay reasons.
I don't really agree here. Doing damage isn't really the only neither has to be the main focus of a class especially for the specialists.
Cleric:
1. Make sure someone would want to play warpriest. So... if I want a melee martial character with healing spells - is this effective? I think it is. So do we just need better flavor text?
This is true only for 4 first levels. Then Warpriest will becoming more and more a duck class except for heal. In the end war-priests becomes bad martials and mediocre spellcasters except to heal.
This especially noticeable when you compare them with Battle Oracles and even healing focused (MC) summoners. Where Battle Oracles can use heavy armors and entire martial weapon group and receive some extra damage from it's curses or divine/primal summoners with a divine/primal MC with sorcerer that can fight with a full martial proficiency eidolon while can use heal spells with summoner.
Druid:
I feel the only reason to take leaf is to get the focus healing spell. Am I wrong? Probably - but make sure it shows me why. If I go wildshape, can I play it like a Guardian or Feral Druid in World of Warcraft? Because my instinct wants to.
Agree. I have the exactly same view of leaf druids. Their main mechanic benefit beyond to have a vegan plant linked lore is just to take the Goodberry focus spell to have an extra out-of-combat healing.
Ranger:
If I go archer ranger, I feel I need a reason to not regret going archer fighter (which gets better archery feats like Point-Blank Shot). Show me why I should not feel this way.
Archer Ranger have a good point that many DPR focused people many times don't notice. Mobility!
The combination of Hunted Shot with a high speed ancestry and a light armor allows the to work very well with shoot and run tactics. Also many damage and versatility advantages from fighters feats like Point-Blank Shot can be taken from Archer Archetype also Rangers focus spells are pretty strong and useful for such tactics. With Gravity Weapon giving some good additional damage and Animal Feature helps to complete these tactics with Flying Speed.Fighter and Wizard: I have few issues here. Most of the time my problem is only "if I pretended the only thing I cared about what game mechanics; then why am I not playing a fighter or a wizard?"
For Wizard is the opposite. The real question is "why am I not playing a sorcerer".
Bard: I have nothing to say here only because I don't know enough. What I do know is that the occult spell list that is the most common one for Witch is way too themed for the Bard. As in... the problem with the Bard is that it's spell list is otherwise used by classes that feel more "occultish" but the spell list was designed to be more perform and diplomat because when it came out - it came out for this class.
I agree but the Occult spells are more an extra for bards. Their main point are composite spells.
What about the indirect benefit I specifically named?My point is that none of the thief's abilities or feats actually have anything to do with stealing, even indirectly.I've never really thought about it, but yeah, the Thief is weird. Instead of being better at stealing things, they are the best at killing people. Which is something actual thieves would avoid like the plague. So that's a problem.
3. The big one: make the Thief's damage ability class baseline. Which then means redo thief to be... a thief.I'd say that Thieves are indirectly better at stealing things because their ambivalence towards Strength allows them to focus more on Dexterity (and utility skills like Intelligence and Wisdom). All rogues have some damage-dealing elements by virtue of Sneak Attack--the Thief is just spared from having to invest as much in it.
Like Squiggit said, the benefit to damage matters a lot less later, so the Thief really isn't the "best at killing people" past the early levels. The way I read it, the ability's meant to be a "freeing up your boosts" ability.
I get what you mean, but I don't think that is even an indirect benefit. As DEX is almost certainly your KAS, you are going to max that out regardless of your racket. Thievery and essentially everything to do with stealing (mostly stealth) is based purely on DEX. One argument against that would be the high chance of having slightly better Perception via better WIS. That kinda counts, but is also a bit of a stretch.
But tbf, I was wrong in at least one regard - the thief indeed gets trained in thievery (thanks graystone). It's the flimsiest of leaves, but it is there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I would advocate removing "dex-to-damage" from the Thief entirely and giving it something else. Every other finesse class has shown that this is not actually necessary, so it probably doesn't need to be in the game.If by "every other finesse class" you mean Swashbuckler, the class that's constantly nagged on for doing bad damage compared to almost any other martial, yeah... I'd rather not. Plus it would make Ruffian the best racket by a mile, and kill a lot of character concepts that involve being physically weak, but highly deadly by agility alone.
The problem with the Swashbuckler is that its kit requires it to be able to gain panache with some regularity, a thing that is generally not possible in very hard fights. (Also most of its skill choices are chosen for it.)
But the Dex>Str martial works fine for the Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Champion, Magus, Inventor, Investigator, and Thaumaturge without "Dex-to-Damage."
Like the thing we see again and again that "adding your ability modifier to damage" is a thing that really only matters at low level. By the time you're level 10ish with weapon runes, your Dex monk with 18 Str barely outdamages the Dex monk with 10 Str.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if we wanted to fix the rogue's damage, something that let them add +1 per damage die is better than "dex to damage".
Remember, Rogues are about to get much better weapon proficiencies too.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the Dex>Str martial works fine for the Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Champion, Inventor, Investigator, and Thaumaturge without "Dex-to-Damage."
Uh, does it though? Finesse Fighters and Champions are rarely played and actively considered bad by most estimates. Investigators have a reputation for being one of the worst combat classes in the game and despite having combat mechanics that literally require finesse weapons to wield, can perform as well or better by just playing Strength instead. Inventors, Thaumaturges, and Rangers are a bit more neutral, but are still going to almost always be better off with a ranged or strength-based build.
Which pretty much leaves the Monk as the only class that will regularly go both ways, and that's primarily because its armor proficiency and weapon access give it unique incentives to value Dex.
That's aggressively not 'fine' at all. Having the only classes that regularly build finesse be classes that are mechanically compelled to or have special incentives to encourage it, while everyone else stays as far away as possible, does not really speak to a healthy mechanic.
Like the thing we see again and again that "adding your ability modifier to damage" is a thing that really only matters at low level.
This is true, but it also matters a lot at low levels, and generally speaking more people are engaging with that content than with higher level content.
I think it's a fair argument that investments in strength as a damage resource feels less and less valuable as you level up... but nerfing rogues for no reason doesn't do anything to fix that.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, does it though? Finesse Fighters and Champions are rarely played and actively considered bad by most estimates. Investigators have a reputation for being one of the worst combat classes in the game and despite having combat mechanics that literally require finesse weapons to wield, can perform as well or better by just playing Strength instead. Inventors, Thaumaturges, and Rangers are a bit more neutral, but are still going to almost always be better off with a ranged or strength-based build.
Which pretty much leaves the Monk as the only class that will regularly go both ways, and that's primarily because its armor proficiency and weapon access give it unique incentives to value Dex.
That's aggressively not 'fine' at all. Having the only classes that regularly build finesse be classes that are mechanically compelled to or have special incentives to encourage it, while everyone else stays as far away as possible, does not really speak to a healthy mechanic.
Like the thing we see again and again that "adding your ability modifier to damage" is a thing that really only matters at low level.This is true, but it also matters a lot at low levels, and generally speaking more people are engaging with that content than with higher level content.
I think it's a fair argument that investments in strength as a damage resource feels less and less valuable as you level up... but nerfing rogues for no reason doesn't do anything to fix that.
Yeah, finesse martials pretty much have all the disadvantages of being ranged with none of the advantages. 9 out of 10 times you're just left asking why you're not using a bow or going full Strength instead.
Thief Rogue and Dex Monk are the only finesse martials I've seen played in my groups in the last 2 years or so, and that says something. Thief Rogue has Dex to damage, and Dex Monk straight up has more AC for most levels.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, finesse martials pretty much have all the disadvantages of being ranged with none of the advantages. 9 out of 10 times you're just left asking why you're not using a bow or going full Strength instead.
This is actually a really critical point here.
One of the key balancing points between ranged and melee options is that ranged does inferior damage, but has more flexibility and safety because of range. Bows have 60 feet of range, but 1d6 is significantly behind 1d12s. It's been brought up multiple times, including in threads with developer commentary on how ranged weapons work.
... Except if you're playing a 10 strength character, a rapier does less damage than a shortbow.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, for a character who needs her enemy to be flat-footed, access to flanking and feinting is a meaningful advantage that shouldn't be totally overlooked.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day, I think the rogue is a class that really doesn't need any significant looking at after finally getting martial weapons. The Mastermind racket being the only exception. The rest works very well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the rogue is just about fine. I've never enjoyed character creation as much as when creating one. If I could change anything at this point... I guess ranged rogues could maybe use some more Sniper-esque options? Currently, it feels like the sniper gunslinger kind of has a stranglehold on sneaky shooting.
Oh, and give them some version of Tamper. That sounds fun. Sabotage doesn't scratch that "flat-footed" itch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about Finesse Martials is that normally you can switch-hit without very much of an issue, something that is not available to Str martials. Like the Champion with 10 Dex in full plate who can't reach their opponent is SOL.
Plus, this is not like PF1 where you are encouraged to specialize in exactly one weapon to the point where you are like 10% as effective with a different one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finesse weapons also have a big advantage over ranged weapons I just remembered: You don't risk AoOs in melee. Even for ranged specialists, it's always good to have a backup finesse weapon on hand.
As someone just learning the system, athletic does seem like the secret sauce of pf2 in terms of becoming beyond the curve for making a reliable roll in combat.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have any strong opinion about this, but I'm pretty sure that the reason Athletics is so strong is because it is the only skill Strength gets. Dexterity is, because of its links to saving throws and armor class, already probably a stronger, more universally needed ability. It also has several more skills under its belt. Strength gets one, and it's a really good one.
I feel like yoinking one of 5e's only solidly good moves of making finesse weapons dex to atk/dmg from level 1 with no investment is something Remastered could yoink with little to no fanfare and it would work pretty well. I mean, if you're aiming a rapier with dex in order to strike a vital spot, why is your dex also not doing work to make that strike do more damage?
I think Thief could use dex-to-maneuver to let them disarm and steal things mid combat could be a cool fantasy to fulfil. Let me be Baan from SDS/NnT or Kazuma from Konosuba and STEAAALLLLL the healing potion my opponent has so I can use it instead of him; it's a rather niche ability set, but one that is much beloved by those interested in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I might just be being paranoid, but considering one of our neighbors is starting to turn into 3.5 versus PF2, we should probably avoid sniping at 5e.
House cats oneshotting people because they are very dexterous shouldn't be a thing.
I don't think ability modifiers dictate NPC numbers in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that's true. I guess Golarion's cat owners are safe. Especially cat familiars, they can't even attack...
|
I don't have any strong opinion about this, but I'm pretty sure that the reason Athletics is so strong is because it is the only skill Strength gets. Dexterity is, because of its links to saving throws and armor class, already probably a stronger, more universally needed ability. It also has several more skills under its belt. Strength gets one, and it's a really good one.
I hadn't considered that.
You are right in that Dexterity, like Charisma, can do an awful lot and the skill distribution between stats is very lopsided.
We are unlikely to see any change in this regard however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've heard (secondhand, from someone who asked about it in a game designer's channel, grains of salt etc etc) that the "saving throw" stats are directly valued a bit above the other three when designing ancestries. It seems to be a deliberate choice.
I think there should be a way for dextrous people to like "use acrobatics to trip" since like Judo doesn't prioritize incredible physical strength.
But that seems like a stance/archetype thing to me.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a firm believer that Dex should never replace Str to damage, and even Thief was a mistake. It would be a huge mistake to go back to the willy nilly stat switching which waters down the various stats and throws entire concepts like Strong + Dexterous characters in the garbage.
Personally, I think the stats are fine as they are. Some stats are slightly better than others (except with the specific types of characters who prioritize the normally weaker stats), and that's already worked into the game's balance. Save abilities are the strongest in general, while Str/Cha/Int are more specialized but extraordinarily powerful in their niches (weapon damage/maneuvers, social encounters/1-action debuffs and arcane magic/information-gathering, respectively). The gap isn't wide enough to produce trap options, and the game accounts for it.
I don't agree on Int being bad, but we already had, like, 2.5 threads about it. Let it rest, fam.
Anyways, the designers have made it very clear that they don't like substitution mechanics and implement them as little as possible. Sorry, fellow scarred witch doctor "bruiser witch" fans. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I think they pretty much do that already. They have some very tightly controlled substitutions in place, like a feat to let you use Acrobatics to Jump. We might see an archetype that grants access to "trip with Acrobatics", but that's the most I'd expect.
Remember that you can use Assurance on maneuvers to ignore MAP. Maneuvers are really powerful. You really want to be careful when you start introducing new elements to that system to make it better, and the ability to pump your AC and get a third action to trip someone, with no need for Strength, is a pretty darn big landmine to start dancing on. Thieves would become a bit of a terror.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I think they pretty much do that already. They have some very tightly controlled substitutions in place, like a feat to let you use Acrobatics to Jump. We might see an archetype that grants access to "trip with Acrobatics", but that's the most I'd expect.
Remember that you can use Assurance on maneuvers to ignore MAP. Maneuvers are really powerful. You really want to be careful when you start introducing new elements to that system to make it better, and the ability to pump your AC and get a third action to trip someone, with no need for Strength, is a pretty darn big landmine to start dancing on. Thieves would become a bit of a terror.
Tumbling Opportunist gives us an idea of Paizo's attitude to this kind of skill swap for manuevers. It's a 10th level archtype feat that lets your trip with acrobatics, if and only if you succeeded on a tumble through check already and is restriced to once per minute. That's a lot of caveats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. I think people often forget that most of the stuff in PF2 was done on purpose.